Dublin Bus Network Review

alias no.9

KC61 wrote: »

why people cannot get used to changing buses is beyond me!

The Dublin Bus ticketing structure actively discourages changing busses because unless you have pre purchased the elusive travel 90 tickets, you have to pay two full fares. If there were ticket machines at bus stops enabling people to buy tickets on the spot for their entire journey, it would facilitate journeys involving bus changes.

murphaph

alias no.9 wrote: »

The Dublin Bus ticketing structure actively discourages changing busses because unless you have pre purchased the elusive travel 90 tickets, you have to pay two full fares. If there were ticket machines at bus stops enabling people to buy tickets on the spot for their entire journey, it would facilitate journeys involving bus changes.

This is not the fault of DB. This little gem is the fault of the DoT. They control the cash fare structure, so DB are not free to issue travel 90 type tickets "on bus" as is common in say Glasgow (you can even buy a day ticket on the bus there, no problem).

Aard

Iirc, it was also the DoT that shot down a flat fare! What (if any) was their reasoning for these?

alias no.9

murphaph wrote: »

This is not the fault of DB. This little gem is the fault of the DoT. They control the cash fare structure, so DB are not free to issue travel 90 type tickets "on bus" as is common in say Glasgow (you can even buy a day ticket on the bus there, no problem).

It doesn't matter why the current structures were put in place or by who, but it is plainly obvious that they need to change, so just go and change them. Simply playing the blame game whenever a problem is identified rather than seeking to fix the problem is just not good enough.
The fix doesn't need to be selling travel 90 tickets on board. The customer could specify their transfer bus route number at the time they are buying their standard ticket, the bus driver can punch in the number of that route, it prints on the ticket which then becomes valid for the transfer to that route. The customer then presents this ticket insted of cash to the driver on the transfer route and prints a standard ticket.

AlekSmart

The fix doesn't need to be selling travel 90 tickets on board. The customer could specify their transfer bus route number at the time they are buying their standard ticket, the bus driver can punch in the number of that route, it prints on the ticket which then becomes valid for the transfer to that route. The customer then presents this ticket insted of cash to the driver on the transfer route and prints a standard ticket.

Sadly,although perhaps suitable for a small-scale low frequency system,the above method would simply lead to all-manner of delays and confrontational codology on board Dublin`s Bus Services.

The time-limited unrestricted transfer Flat-Fare is the ideal methodology for Dublin.
The only issue,and it appears an insurmountable one,is the availability of on-bus,single-use tickets.

The Travel-90 ticket is Dublin Buses in-house response to the issue and is working very well for those passengers who DO plan their Public Transport usage.

However the itinerant user does have the benefit of some very low-fares indeed,as demonstrated by the €1.15 and €1.60 availibility.

The problem for all parties is the shift to a flat-fare regieme will inevitably result in a shortfall in cash for the Operator.

In the other somewhat more developed countries of Europe this is usually made up by the Central Regulatory agency or the Local Authority.

Neither of these bodies in modern Ireland has a brass farthing to spend on such luxuries any more so the Cash Fare system looks like staying put.

Simply playing the blame game whenever a problem is identified rather than seeking to fix the problem is just not good enough.

This is not a question of " Blame Gaming" but is merely a situation which has been flagged for decades as a restrictive and problematic one,by both the Operators and the Passengers.

The relevant agencies who possess the power to address this issue have chosen to leave-well-enough-alone and thats where we remain.....and you are correct....it is not good enough !!!! :mad:

paddyland

AlekSmart wrote: »

The relevant agencies who possess the power to address this issue have chosen to leave-well-enough-alone and thats where we remain.....and you are correct....it is not good enough !!!! :mad:

Why isn't Dempsey presented with this at the next election? A whole term of office, during which none of these issues were even considered. Not one single advancement in what is one of the most important issues regarding the buses. If Dempsey hasn't the ability or the interest, or if these issues are simply too mundane for him in his race to be next FF leader, then why can't someone else be put in who will take some initiative?

AlekSmart

If Dempsey hasn't the ability or the interest, or if these issues are simply too mundane for him in his race to be next FF leader, then why can't someone else be put in who will take some initiative?

With the commencement of the NTA`s remit over Public Transport,one could realistically expect the role of Minister for Transport to be diluted somewhat (With a commensurate reduction in salary of course....:p )

However the current fiscal situation has caught the present Minister in somewhat of a bind,and it`s not one which will impact favourably on Public Transport.

The current Minister had the good fortune to be incumbent when most of the EU funded Motorway and Urban By-Pass schemes came to completion.

All great positive PR stuff,which most politicians would die for...however enter the dragon....or at least a fire breathing Seanie Fitzpatrick and his merrie band of Bankers....:eek:

The result.....Incredibly costly buy-out schemes of what most people regarded as Publicly Owned infrastructure in the first place,viz The WestLink M50 stroke.....and then,if that bottomless pit were not enough,we now learn of "Commercially Sensitive" deals with the Operators of new Toll Facilities at locations such as the new M3 Motorway.

These deals relate to Financial Guarantees given by the State (Us) to the Toll Operators by which the Operator is guaranteed payments going forward based upon specified levels of useage.

Now this specified level is,of course, a "Commercially Sensitive" element of the contracts and therefore Top Secret.

One can,however,be confident that the levels of projected useage were all agreed during the apogee of the Celtic Tiger days,when our roads were full of commuting guest-workers and dormitory town dwellers keeping the Celtic hamster wheel turning.

Those wheel turners have long fled the juristiction,and with them the traffic volume that WE (The People) were hoping would fund the Toll Operators hunger for a "Return" on their investment.

Thanks to Noel Dempsey and his cohorts the difference between the actual useage of these "Facilities" vs the forecast useage is likely to be ....well...substantial....but we (The People) are deemed unimportant enough to be kept in the dark..all that is required of us is to keep forking out the dosh to keep the Toll Operators happy.

The question for Noel Dempsey and his entire department is whether their Public Transport remit,which whilst socially and ecologically sound and desireable,is decidely UN-Toll Operator Friendly,now conflicts totally with their legal committment to subsidise the Private-Sector Toll Operators.

It`is decidely Odd how few questions are being directed at the Minister in relation to this potentially massive conflict....and the eventual outcome ?

alias no.9

AlekSmart wrote: »

Sadly,although perhaps suitable for a small-scale low frequency system,the above method would simply lead to all-manner of delays and confrontational codology on board Dublin`s Bus Services.

When accepting payment in excess of the required fare, drivers currently print an additional part to the ticket which the customer can present to the Dublin Bus office on O'Connell St to get their change.
How much more difficult would it be to have an additional part that says for example route 46A, the date and the expiry time? Present this to the driver of the 46A in lieu of cash for a ticket for that leg of the journey.
Have zero tolerance for anyone causing any kind of disturbance. To take away the element of driver decision to accept or reject the transfer ticket, and therefore any releive the driver of any coercion from the passenger, make it a barcode to be scanned on the second leg, that makes it no different to a prepaid ticket in terms of acceptance/rejection.

AlekSmart

How much more difficult would it be to have an additional part that says for example route 46A, the date and the expiry time? Present this to the driver of the 46A in lieu of cash for a ticket for that leg of the journey.
Have zero tolerance for anyone causing any kind of disturbance. To take away the element of driver decision to accept or reject the transfer ticket, and therefore any releive the driver of any coercion from the passenger, make it a barcode to be scanned on the second leg, that makes it no different to a prepaid ticket in terms of acceptance/rejection.

Any new methodology which fails to fully utilize the capabilities of the digitized ticketing system is in effect a retrograde step.

We (Drivers and Passengers) have to embrace the,much delayed, arrival of the digital era to Dublin Bus and to recognize the benefits and direct rewards of it.

One example would be the many 84X pasengers who daily make a return commute from Kilcoole Co Wicklow to Dublin City Centre and beyond for €3.60 using the T90 ticket.

Yet,each day,sitting beside the digitized passengers are a significant rump of Cash Payers who insist on paying over €5.00 for the same journey simply because it`s how they have always done it.....the $64,000 question is ....Should we encourage this behaviour or should we attempt to save these people from themselves....?

It is a serious question which all of the responsible entities have thus far shied away from.
Instead we have fudges and then more fudges as nobody appears to be comfortable with taking a decision.

The comment about "Zero Tolerance" for any disturbances is sadly wide of the mark.

It now seems to be apparent that the dei-facto situation is for minimum on-street or on-bus supervisory or regulatory presence.
The curent thinking appears to be that Centralized Radio Control combined with Automatic Vehicle Location will fully meet all requirements.

If so,then I believe this to be a major error of judgement and one which will quickly lead to a serious loss of confidence in our abilities to provide safe,efficient,public transport in the Capital.

The Deloitte Report,and the subsequent Network Direct plan did have a positive ring about them which sadly appears to have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

The complete silence from our normally vocal Minister for Transport and his representatives on Earth,the National Transport Authority,is testimony to the lack of official interest...in stark contrast to the opening of any new stretch of Tolled Motorway :eek:

KC61

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Deloitte Report,and the subsequent Network Direct plan did have a positive ring about them which sadly appears to have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

I think that it is far to early in the process to make that judgement Alek...the first phase has not even been finalised yet.

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Deloitte Report,and the subsequent Network Direct plan did have a positive ring about them which sadly appears to have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

I 100% agree with this.

It can clearly be seen already that every reasonable change will be resisted and changed to something that doesn't really suit anyone.

84 is prime example of this to date.

KC61

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I 100% agree with this.

It can clearly be seen already that every reasonable change will be resisted and changed to something that doesn't really suit anyone.

84 is prime example of this to date.

Well maybe things will change again - the process has not concluded yet.

I really think that you are jumping the gun here. Let's wait and see.

The 84 is hardly the main element of the Stillorgan QBC changes - the real changes are the 46a no longer serving Monkstown Farm and Stillorgan Village and going to Phoenix Park, the 145 no longer serving Bray Station and now going to Heuston Station, and the 39a going to UCD, all with standard interval services of 10 minutes or less. These provide a high frequency direct service along the corridor.

As in Lucan, someone obviously asked for the 84 change....the point is people need to respond to it.

xper

KC61 wrote: »

The 84 is hardly the main element of the Stillorgan QBC changes - the real changes are ...

I hope this isn't the way the people carrying out the review think. Yes, the 10/39a/46a/145 merges and extensions form the backbone of this renewed corridor. But the links to that backbone are crucial to those not living/working directly on it and can't be dismissed. To the thousands living south of Bray's Main Street, if the 84/184 revision is fecked up, a bus every five minutes in Stillorgan is pointless.

As in Lucan, someone obviously asked for the 84 change....the point is people need to respond to it.

Email has been sent. Unfortunately I'll be out of the country tomorrow so can't make the public meeting in Bray DART Stn.

KC61

xper wrote: »

I hope this isn't the way the people carrying out the review think. Yes, the 10/39a/46a/145 merges and extensions form the backbone of this renewed corridor. But the links to that backbone are crucial to those not living/working directly on it and can't be dismissed. To the thousands living south of Bray's Main Street, if the 84/184 revision is fecked up, a bus every five minutes in Stillorgan is pointless.

Email has been sent. Unfortunately I'll be out of the country tomorrow so can't make the public meeting in Bray DART Stn.

My comment was made purely in the context of previous comments that the changes to route 84 made the whole project meaningless, which they obviously don't.

However I would agree that (as I've stated here before) it is imperative that routes 184 and route 84 are both integrated south of Bray in either direction.

I do think people need to make it clear to their public representatives the implications of extending the 84 to UCD is a 50% diminuition of the original proposed service in terms of frequency and that higher frequency would be preferable.

The vast majority of students would have commuter tickets so the amount of people paying twice would be a lot less than suggested.

AlekSmart

I do think people need to make it clear to their public representatives the implications of extending the 84 to UCD is a 50% diminuition of the original proposed service in terms of frequency and that higher frequency would be preferable.

This is a very valid point from KC61 in relation to the orignial Network Directed 84.

A frequency of every 30 Mins was something which needed to be gotten through to those potential new-passengers living South Of Bray.

Once again,in true 746 style,we see the 84 becoming a bit of an oul help for the 46A between Foxrock Church and Belfield.

Changing the ethos of the 84 to one of a reliable reasonably frequent route linked directly into both other bus Routes and Luas is surely what the spirit of Network Direct is all about ?

What concerns me is how little actual complaint is required to spur management into a retreat from a well founded position.
The "New Improved" 84 in common with many other Network Direct alterations really does need a bit of a Hard-Sell to get the message across and that appears to present us with problems ? :rolleyes:

KD345

AlekSmart wrote: »

Changing the ethos of the 84 to one of a reliable reasonably frequent route linked directly into both other bus Routes and Luas is surely what the spirit of Network Direct is all about ?

I completely agree Alek, I wonder if things may change once the Cherrywood Luas is opened later this year. There were a few comments that having the 84 terminate at the Cherrywood Luas stop was pointless as there was no Luas in service yet. I would argue that the 145 is every bit as attractive as the Luas in terms of frequency and access to the City Centre. I felt the 30 minute frequency of the 84 was great for South Wicklow compared to what is currently on offer, it's a shame people saw it as a step backwards because some students would have to switch bus half way.

Cookie_Monster

KD345 wrote: »

I completely agree Alek, I wonder if things may change once the Cherrywood Luas is opened later this year. There were a few comments that having the 84 terminate at the Cherrywood Luas stop was pointless as there was no Luas in service yet. I would argue that the 145 is every bit as attractive as the Luas in terms of frequency and access to the City Centre. I felt the 30 minute frequency of the 84 was great for South Wicklow compared to what is currently on offer, it's a shame people saw it as a step backwards because some students would have to switch bus half way.

definitly. the 145 is a fantastic service, very fast and the skippiing of Stillorgan all day makes a huge difference. The 84 users would certainly have benefitted far more from the Cherrywood terminus with increased frequency.


the other thing I'd hope to see in relation to this is the Cherrywood terminal being a proper integrated hub. What I think will happen is that the bus stop will stay where it is out on the main road, leaving a 200-300m walk to the Luas rather than being one and the same. I really hope they put a bit of effort in and have a proper integrated terminus to show they actually think about these things.

loyatemu

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the other thing I'd hope to see in relation to this is the Cherrywood terminal being a proper integrated hub. What I think will happen is that the bus stop will stay where it is out on the main road, leaving a 200-300m walk to the Luas rather than being one and the same. I really hope they put a bit of effort in and have a proper integrated terminus to show they actually think about these things.

I assumed the fact that DB were describing the stop as "Cherrywood Luas" meant that the buses were actually going to go up to the roundabout, not just stop on the N11.

Going to the Luas stop would have been fine if it was the terminus for the 84, but if the 84 then has to continue on to Belfield its a seriously time-sapping diversion, even more so on the way back out of town where the buses will have to negotiate several set of lights and right-turns on the flyover. Yet another reason why the revised routing is pants (and if its only running once an hour, its useless for anyone trying to connect off an outbound Luas).

AlekSmart

Going to the Luas stop would have been fine if it was the terminus for the 84, but if the 84 then has to continue on to Belfield its a seriously time-sapping diversion, even more so on the way back out of town where the buses will have to negotiate several set of lights and right-turns on the flyover. Yet another reason why the revised routing is pants (and if its only running once an hour, its useless for anyone trying to connect off an outbound Luas).

Yes indeed Loyatemu,you highlight a very important issue with this "revision".

Taken as a Luas/Bus hub,Cherrywood has very strong credentials especially as the 111 from Dun Laoighre was also mooted to utilize the Stop.

However if the revised idea is to merely serve it as an en-route stop incorporating a diversion off the N11 then it`s a big fat Zippo as well as being totally contradictory to the principles of Deloitte/Network Direct.

The major mistake however is the surrendering of an opportunity to really make a go of the 30 min service 84 route,which I would suggest soon need an increase to 15 mins !

This IS the Way to Go !!

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yes indeed Loyatemu,you highlight a very important issue with this "revision".

Taken as a Luas/Bus hub,Cherrywood has very strong credentials especially as the 111 from Dun Laoighre was also mooted to utilize the Stop.

not only 111 but 7 importantly and 46c.
the 111 is a nothing bus at this stage and the new routing makes it even more so. Cherrywood to DL via Loughlinstown hospital, not exactly direct and they are down to a dozen a day or less anyway.

The phase the 7 is included in should hopefully see it terminate at this "hub" all the time as they will finally have a good excuse to pull out of Loughlinstown.

Jcastle

The 111 mostly duplicated part of the 7 and 45a routes. It should be cancelled and the buses given to the 45a to make that route every 20 minutes.

Cookie_Monster

Jcastle wrote: »

The 111 mostly duplicated part of the 7 and 45a routes. It should be cancelled and the buses given to the 45a to make that route every 20 minutes.

it is all duplicated by the 7 route and is utterly useless these days as it does not even fulfil its roles as a feeder bus.

with only 1 bus on the route in the morning and afternoon anyway and none during the day, it'll never be able to cover the 45a to add to it.

Ham'nd'egger

Jcastle wrote: »

The 111 mostly duplicated part of the 7 and 45a routes. It should be cancelled and the buses given to the 45a to make that route every 20 minutes.

The 111 is effectively a short working of the 7 to accommodate local traffic at peak hours only. It's timetable is a far cry from it's service it used to have; at peak it had several buses an hour weekdays.

The 45A serves a completely different area to the 7/111 so it's unlikely it will be dropped entirely but one likely change would be for a re routing of the 7 via Glenageary way and additional services on the 111 and 59 to service Sallynoggin and Dun Laoghaire.

Cookie_Monster

Hamndegger wrote: »

but one likely change would be for a re routing of the 7 via Glenageary way .

where.

do you mean Sallyglen Road, or the "new road" as it's still referred to

Ham'nd'egger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

where.

do you mean Sallyglen Road, or the "new road" as it's still referred to

That be the one to give it's technical term/name

Cookie_Monster

Hamndegger wrote: »

That be the one to give it's technical term/name

its down on google.maps as Glenageary Lodge, no one seems to know the name. It'll reamin "the new road" for a while longer I think :P

Jcastle

The 111 was scaled back by Dublin Bus some time ago and correctly so. It is a duplicate of part of the 7 route and should be simply cancelled. It serves no practical function.

SimonMaher

Jcastle wrote: »

The 111 was scaled back by Dublin Bus some time ago and correctly so. It is a duplicate of part of the 7 route and should be simply cancelled. It serves no practical function.

Im not sure I agree with this. Although it duplicates the 7 to a great extent, its main benefit was always in the local service and in the past as a DART feeder.

It always had potential to be expanded - a sensible suggestion was made by staff at DB to extend it to Carrickmines via Cherrywood (turning at the retail park) and it would then be the route that went through the estates of Sallynoggin, allowing the 7 to take the more direct route. It is at best slightly odd that this suggestion was turned down in favour of the current situation.

Local representatives have been in touch with DB about service provision in the area which can be patchy to say the least and have been told that ideas for the 111 are being considered.

This of course is not to mention the crazy notion (which caused the problems for the 111 in the first place) of having buses meet trains but thats another days work.

Simon

Cookie_Monster

SimonfromPhantom wrote: »

Im not sure I agree with this. Although it duplicates the 7 to a great extent, its main benefit was always in the local service and in the past as a DART feeder.
...

It was brought in as a feeder but it certainly no longer serves this function and is therefore redundant now. It should be even easier these days to run it to train timetables, since they are 15 min clockface these days. having one bus an hour for 3 hours in the morning and 2 in the afternoon is 100% pointless as a feeder bus.

KC61

The 111 is still a DART feeder service - through tickets can still be purchased on the bus.