Dublin Bus Network Review

SafetyPin

Is it not possible to divert buses from Dawson street to go RIGHT straight down Nassau street LEFT at Lincoln place then LEFT straight down Westland Row and finally LEFT at Pearse Street and continue on with the usual routing.

I think that it would stop the bottleneck choking at Suffolk Street and you'd only need to divert a few routes (37's, 38's, 128, 140) as examples and it'd ease the Suffolk Street exit.:)

BenShermin

SafetyPin wrote: »

Is it not possible to divert buses from Dawson street to go RIGHT straight down Nassau street LEFT at Lincoln place then LEFT straight down Westland Row and finally LEFT at Pearse Street and continue on with the usual routing.

I think that it would stop the bottleneck choking at Suffolk Street and you'd only need to divert a few routes (37's, 38's, 128, 140) as examples and it'd ease the Suffolk Street exit.:)

Not only would it ease the congestion at Suffolk Street but a route like that would also give passengers a connection to Dart and commuter train services at Pearse Station.

Pearse Street also has a bus lane which would keep the buses flowing freely. Also, when the Lucan/Maynooth terminus is moved from Pearse Street this would free up bus stop space for these routes to have a central bus stop on the southside of the city.

Excellent idea in my opinion.

stop

AlekSmart wrote: »

PS: The potential for trouble at Church Lane has now been ratcheted up by 1000%...Is it sensible,I ponder to route SO many routes through the eye of this particular needle ?...Just a thought ?

+1

The kerbing on the corner outside O'Neils was in bits from VTs last time I passed it.

SafetyPin

BenShermin wrote: »

Excellent idea in my opinion.

But let's wonder if DB actually consider the idea themselves and help save commuters minutes when travelling through the city centre. Cause everyone coming from St Stephens green all want to go to Suffolk Street

Baron de Robeck

Issues that are causing continued problems with the change of terminus of routes 51B/C, 68, 69/X are as follows:

All these routes departing from the same stop at Hawkins Street is causing chaos. There are buses loading up behind other buses sometimes two bus lengths back from the stop with numbers and destinations invisible to those waiting at the official loading point. This has resulted in buses pulling out from behind the ones in front and leaving people behind. There is another stop with shelter further down why can't this be used for some of the routes? With so many routes there is bound to be more than one bus loading at a given time.

Inbound buses are instructed not to stop after Dame Street (Central Bank) until they get to Hawkins Street bringing all remaining passengers round the block for a tour of Townsend Street, Tara Street & Poolbeg Street. Absolutely ridiculous, why can't there be a set down stop on D'olier Street or the top of Townsend Street?

devnull

How is the 17A getting on?

It seems to be doing well between Kilbarrack and Finglas, but is carrying hardly anyone between Finglas and Blanchardstown?

I know it is early days, but just wondered.

thomasj

It's too early there is alot of confusion in the blanchardstown area although k have seen a few good loadings it's too early too call!

Heart

Baron de Robeck wrote: »

Inbound buses are instructed not to stop after Dame Street (Central Bank) until they get to Hawkins Street bringing all remaining passengers round the block for a tour of Townsend Street, Tara Street & Poolbeg Street. Absolutely ridiculous, why can't there be a set down stop on D'olier Street or the top of Townsend Street?

Officially this was always the case for the 37, 39/a/c & 70/a... Some drivers let passengers off in Fleet St. but this wasn't official, it was Dame St. & Hawkins St.

H

mrsdewinter

Hiya, long-time critic of Dublin Bus here - but just want to give them credit where it's due on the new 37, 38 and 39 routes. I live just off the Navan Road, and after many years of catching 2 buses to reach my southside place of work, I'm delighted that I can just plonk myself down in the morning and be delivered to a point that's a short walk from the office.
Thank you Dublin Bus...

CIE

Ginny wrote: »

46a is a joke since the loss of the 10, they are not running anywhere near their time schedule and any coming into the top of Parnell Sq are at least 90% full, I managed to squeeze on the 2nd one this morning after 20 mins wait. The bus was then unbeliveable loaded, people were standing upstairs and we passed nearly every stop with a crowd of people left waiting.

Dublin Bus Network Reduction delivers, as expected.

dfx-

[DB spiel] bbbbbut all the areas the 10 served are covered! [/DB spiel]

While I'm glad the 51B/C68/69 stops have been moved away from the quays - Hawkins St being much safer, it's still straaange..

TheChrisD

devnull wrote: »

How is the 17A getting on?

It seems to be doing well between Kilbarrack and Finglas, but is carrying hardly anyone between Finglas and Blanchardstown?

I know it is early days, but just wondered.

Well, I was in Blanch earlier around lunch time/early afternoon. A fair few getting off at Blanch, but very few getting on it for the return leg.

starviewadams

Does the 69 still go down the quays and up through Conyngham Road or does it just go up through Dame Street and James Street now?

And what is the next stop for the 51b/c outbound after it leaves Hawkins Street?

Thanks!

KC61

starviewadams wrote: »

Does the 69 still go down the quays and up through Conyngham Road or does it just go up through Dame Street and James Street now?

And what is the next stop for the 51b/c outbound after it leaves Hawkins Street?

Thanks!

The 51d, 68 and 69 operate via the Quays - first stop after Hawkins Street is on Aston Quay.

The 51b and 51c stop outside Ulster Bank on College Green.

AlekSmart

Originally Posted by Ginny

46a is a joke since the loss of the 10, they are not running anywhere near their time schedule and any coming into the top of Parnell Sq are at least 90% full, I managed to squeeze on the 2nd one this morning after 20 mins wait. The bus was then unbeliveable loaded, people were standing upstairs and we passed nearly every stop with a crowd of people left waiting.

This is a post which describes a scenario which would have any professional Risk Manager quaking in his/her boots.

One of the riskiest elements of travel on public transport is the Standing Passenger and if you combine that with standing upstairs you have a VERY big problem indeed.

It would now appear that some of the elements of Phase 1 of Network Direct will be eventually adjudicated upon in the High Court following on from a major incident involving an overloaded Bus.

Whether Dublin Bus are prepared to admit it or not,the situation regarding persistent overloading of services IS a highly dangerous one and clearly indicative of a serious problem regarding headway and resource allocation on this route.

If this is not addressed then the outcome is certain Disaster.

KC61

AlekSmart wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ginny


This is a post which describes a scenario which would have any professional Risk Manager quaking in his/her boots.

One of the riskiest elements of travel on public transport is the Standing Passenger and if you combine that with standing upstairs you have a VERY big problem indeed.

It would now appear that some of the elements of Phase 1 of Network Direct will be eventually adjudicated upon in the High Court following on from a major incident involving an overloaded Bus.

Whether Dublin Bus are prepared to admit it or not,the situation regarding persistent overloading of services IS a highly dangerous one and clearly indicative of a serious problem regarding headway and resource allocation on this route.

If this is not addressed then the outcome is certain Disaster.

With due respect Alek that driver should - as you have posted several times here - know exactly how many people he has on board. He has a screen allowing him to see the upstairs saloon.

He in this particular case is responsible as he let too many people on his bus.

I am in no way excusing the poor running times that may be causing the delays, but for you to start talking about High Court actions over overcrowded buses is going too far. The driver is responsible for the safety of his bus and if he has reached the limit then it is his responsbility to stop anyone else from boarding.

SickCert

KC61 wrote: »

With due respect Alek that driver should - as you have posted several times here - know exactly how many people he has on board. He has a screen allowing him to see the upstairs saloon.

He in this particular case is responsible as he let too many people on his bus.

Very true indeed.
On a certain departure yesterday i carried 230 passengers between start and finish. A high number of buses dont have a working upper CCTV monitor, BUT what i drove yesterday had the old periscope which the view was blocked with wires.
All its going to take is a need to brake rapid and 100+ pins will come together like a bowling alley strike, then there goes next years safety award!:eek:

KC61

SickCert wrote: »

Very true indeed.
On a certain departure yesterday i carried 230 passengers between start and finish. A high number of buses dont have a working upper CCTV monitor, BUT what i drove yesterday had the old periscope which the view was blocked with wires.
All its going to take is a need to brake rapid and 100+ pins will come together like a bowling alley strike, then there goes next years safety award!:eek:

Well then Sickcert you should be refusing to drive the vehicle if it is not safe to do so, where monitors/periscopes are blocked.

Drivers can't absolve responsiblity where they are driving an overloaded bus - far too often drivers have posted here saying that it is easy to keep track of how many people are on the vehicle.

At the end of the day a driver is responsible for his bus and the safety of the people on it.

I am not in any way excusing the fact that there are scheduling problems and serious ones at that - but for drivers to start suggesting that there are going to be accidents due to overloading is going too far - that is their individual responsibility.

Cookie_Monster

KC61 wrote: »

Well then Sickcert you should be refusing to drive the vehicle if it is not safe to do so, where monitors/periscopes are blocked.

if every driver refused to drive a bus because of a safety issue then none of them would be on the road. between defective lights, damaged bodywork, badly setup suspension, non working cameras, so filthy the rear plate can't be read and blocked periscopes you could probably rule out every single one of them

KC61

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if every driver refused to drive a bus because of a safety issue then none of them would be on the road. between defective lights, damaged bodywork, badly setup suspension, non working cameras, so filthy the rear plate can't be read and blocked periscopes you could probably rule out every single one of them

Cookie Monster if drivers are complaining about overloaded buses and then saying that they are driving them despite a key feature not being available to them - i.e. the ability to look upstairs then, I am sorry, but I cannot accept that they are completely blameless.

A professional driver we have been told here on numerous occasions will know what his loading is, and what is not safe. No driver should be putting themselves or their passengers at risk.

I would hasten to add that I would find the vast majority of Dublin Bus drivers to be completely professional and do not allow a bus to be overcrowded like that reported above.

SickCert

The ticket machine tells you how many passengers have boarded, just not what has got off.
Im happy with about 15 downstairs but we do see them on other buses packed to the windscreen and gawd only knows upstairs!

Back to periscopes. All the 00 AV, the views are dire (1x3in's) of view. Lenses covered in 10yrs of dust and the chute used to house the new CCTV cables.
The modern screen system doesnt stand the test of time too well, many act as a route for upper saloon water to pour through onto the dash. As from the walkabout check form, its not a defect that deems it from going out on the road.

KC61

SickCert wrote: »

The ticket machine tells you how many passengers have boarded, just not what has got off.
Im happy with about 15 downstairs but we do see them on other buses packed to the windscreen and gawd only knows upstairs!

Back to periscopes. All the 00 AV, the views are dire (1x3in's) of view. Lenses covered in 10yrs of dust and the chute used to house the new CCTV cables.
The modern screen system doesnt stand the test of time too well, many act as a route for upper saloon water to pour through onto the dash. As from the walkabout check form, its not a defect that deems it from going out on the road.

And with 15 I would say that you are on the mark! But those other drivers know their legal limits too.

med1

devnull wrote: »

How is the 17A getting on?

It seems to be doing well between Kilbarrack and Finglas, but is carrying hardly anyone between Finglas and Blanchardstown?

I know it is early days, but just wondered.

thats what we have been telling dublin bus for the last few months the 17a extension to blanch would be a failure the 220 route is what is preferred as it goes through the areas that passengers live in that go to blanch .
if the 220 does go then the 17a loading will be still poor as more cars appear on the route plus the promised private operator who has talked about taking over

AlekSmart

I am in no way excusing the poor running times that may be causing the delays, but for you to start talking about High Court actions over overcrowded buses is going too far. The driver is responsible for the safety of his bus and if he has reached the limit then it is his responsbility to stop anyone else from boarding.

I defer to KC61s opinions on most Public Transport issues and there is an element of pure truth in what he says here...logic,if you will.

However I am somewhat of the belief that he may be detached from the reality of just how serious the situation really is.

I am well aware of the legal and operational limits of my own bus and have no reluctance to call Buss-Full as and when I deem it so.
That is My call and I have no difficulty standing over it.

The High-Court actions I speak of are not related to the Bus-Full issue alone,but to the very real prospects of a serious accident which overloaded buses WILL lead to if the core issue is not addressed immediately.

It should also be noted by KC61 that,currently,the Upper Saloon viewing equipment is NOT regarded as a defect which renders a bus unfit for service,although that is now a matter being pursued by the Driver representatives.

That Bus-Full situation is not alone determined by numbers alone,but also by luggage,disabled passengers,or other factors,with SAFETY my major deciding factor.

Thats My position and I fully expect My employer to provide the necessary framework to allow me to operate to this standard.

It is now the 4th November and the ND Phase 1 changes were implemented on the 19th September.

Since then we have had a situation of massively increased stress levels imposed upon Passengers and Staff as they attempt to come to terms with something which has fundamentally serious flaws which will not be addressed by tinkering.

There now appears to be a substantial gulf between Local Garage`s and Head Office in terms of what each percieves as the reality on the ground.

It would also appear that KC61 is leaning to the Head Office "It`s getting there" line whilst I am more inclined to view the entire Phase 1 implementation process as a Failed Experiment largely caused by a rushed and disjointed approach to the overall scheme.

When we refer in the context of ND Phase 1 to "Full Buses" we are now talking of several such journeys,often at times which,pre ND1,would never have seen the issue arise.

This situation is still being marketed as an "Improvement" by Head Office,something which Passengers are very strongly challenging,especially to the Driver of the next (FULL) Bus who refuses them entry.

This was most definitely NOT a situation which existed pre 19th September and passengers,not being stupid,know this.


To deliver a lecture to Drivers on their responsibilities and their levels of professional application as they attempt to cater with an imposed Silk Purse-Sow`s Ear operational situation is not something I am prepared to accept without a robust response.

KC61

AlekSmart wrote: »

It would also appear that KC61 is leaning to the Head Office "It`s getting there" line whilst I am more inclined to view the entire Phase 1 implementation process as a Failed Experiment largely caused by a rushed and disjointed approach to the overall scheme.

Alek - point to anywhere where I said that the running time issues were NOT serious.

I have not.

Quite the opposite.

KC61 wrote: »

I am in no way excusing the poor running times that may be causing the delays

KC61 wrote: »

I am not in any way excusing the fact that there are scheduling problems and serious ones at that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68726571&postcount=1481

KC61 wrote: »

Still not good enough - it gives a very bad impression to customers.

The Network Direct project has several elements to it:
1) Network redesign
2) Public Timetable redesign
3) Driver/Bus Roster redesign
4) Customer Information - Online
5) Customer Information - On Street

For the N11 implementation, steps 1, 2, and 4 were reasonable (with the exceptions of route 4 which was cut back too much, and route 84 which should have been half-hourly), however I would contend that steps 3 and 4 were handled appallingly.

With regard to step 3, too many buses were withdrawn and running times in many cases were far too tight if not impossible. This has still to be fully addressed, with the result that staff confidence in the changes is reduced to rock bottom.

With regard to step 5, having the right information on bus stops at the time that the timetables change is vital - particularly in the case of route 4 where the service was dramatically cut back. The changes are too great not to have up to date information on street. To say that printing was delayed is not good enough. This is not something that can be implemented piecemeal. All of the five stages above need to be co-ordinated properly. Otherwise public confidence in the process is reduced to zero.

To not have any timetables at the Airport but rather an N11 poster is crazy. What should have been done is the 746 timetable covered over if they didn't have new sheets printed. This is basic stuff.

With respect saying that RTPI is on the way is not good enough - people need to have the right information at the time that the changes are made.

But what I am saying is that a driver has a responsibility to ensure his bus is not overloaded, irrespective of the other serious problems that exist. Your original post suggested that he did not.

The company has a responsibility to get the rosters sorted out properly so that the schedules are properly resourced in a manner that the service can be delivered efficiently.

AlekSmart

But what I am saying is that a driver has a responsibility to ensure his bus is not overloaded, irrespective of the other serious problems that exist. Your original post suggested that he did not.

The company has a responsibility to get the rosters sorted out properly so that the schedules are properly resourced in a manner that the service can be delivered efficiently.

KC61 the tone of your response to my post relating to Overloading appears to me to be a simple rebound,a tactic still unfortunately being resorted to in relation to ND phase one.

I have been approached by passengers who ask me if the Drivers "action" is over yet ?

The only response from the Trades Union`s in relation to ND has been to recommend to drivers that they make every endeavour to operate professionally within the constraints of the new schedules.

That is exactly what most drivers have been doing since the 19th of September and as a direct result have been subject to all manner of abuse and ill will from thoroughly disaffected previously satisfied customers .....How in God`s name can any senior management team percieve this as a functional plan.

Lest you have any doubt about my stance I,and most of my colleagues,are fully aware of our legal responsibilities in relation to loadings.

This responsibility is being stretched beyond credibility in many cases on routes such as the 46A and 145 as drivers find themselves operating in gaps of 25-40 minutes on a theoritical 8-10 min headway QUALITY BUS CORRIDOR

This was not the case pre 19th Sept so it is now a question of recognizing the reality of a plan that is essentially flawed.
That recognition was quite obvious to our Customers within 5 days...it remains to be admitted by the Company.

It`s depressing in so many ways as I remain convinced that the essence of the Deloitte Report remains positive IF it`s recommendations were taken on board and implimented in a structured manner.

What we now have is a hugely expensive report which has been picked-over and re-consulted upon until it bears little resemblance to whats out there on Dublins mean streets !

The ultimate fixers of this deliberately broken system will be our Passengers themselves.

They will vote with their feet.

Whilst presently we still hear comments of "Is`nt it great to see the buses full again" from smiling senior executives I wonder if they have any curiousity about why that bus is full less than 10% into it`s journey,or why many of those standing passengers have waited 25 minutes for it as the bus they were supposed to be on board speeds by out-of-service in a madcap attempt to get back on time or for the driver to hand over ?

We have within Dublin Bus a substantial capacity to deliver the essentials of effective,efficient and affordable Public Transport...that was the reasoning behind Deloitte and it should remain the goal,but as you point out that depends totally on the allocation of resources...and that perhaps remains the hidden-agenda in all of this ?

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

I have been approached by passengers who ask me if the Drivers "action" is over yet ?

I'd argue there are several reasons for this.

1. Most disruption over the last 10 years has been due to striking drivers and the public automatically think it now
2. DB are happy to let them take the blame.
3. No proper announcements or marketing was done really, DB execs should have been on RTE news explaining exactly what was due to happen, when and how.

Politicians were quick enough to step in and demand route changes, where are they all now when they should be castigating management for its complete failure to implement even stage 1 quickly and professionally. Deafening silence from the DTA too :mad:

KC61

AlekSmart wrote: »

KC61 the tone of your response to my post relating to Overloading appears to me to be a simple rebound,a tactic still unfortunately being resorted to in relation to ND phase one.

I have been approached by passengers who ask me if the Drivers "action" is over yet ?

The only response from the Trades Union`s in relation to ND has been to recommend to drivers that they make every endeavour to operate professionally within the constraints of the new schedules.

That is exactly what most drivers have been doing since the 19th of September and as a direct result have been subject to all manner of abuse and ill will from thoroughly disaffected previously satisfied customers .....How in God`s name can any senior management team percieve this as a functional plan.

Lest you have any doubt about my stance I,and most of my colleagues,are fully aware of our legal responsibilities in relation to loadings.

This responsibility is being stretched beyond credibility in many cases on routes such as the 46A and 145 as drivers find themselves operating in gaps of 25-40 minutes on a theoritical 8-10 min headway QUALITY BUS CORRIDOR

This was not the case pre 19th Sept so it is now a question of recognizing the reality of a plan that is essentially flawed.
That recognition was quite obvious to our Customers within 5 days...it remains to be admitted by the Company.

It`s depressing in so many ways as I remain convinced that the essence of the Deloitte Report remains positive IF it`s recommendations were taken on board and implimented in a structured manner.

What we now have is a hugely expensive report which has been picked-over and re-consulted upon until it bears little resemblance to whats out there on Dublins mean streets !

The ultimate fixers of this deliberately broken system will be our Passengers themselves.

They will vote with their feet.

Whilst presently we still hear comments of "Is`nt it great to see the buses full again" from smiling senior executives I wonder if they have any curiousity about why that bus is full less than 10% into it`s journey,or why many of those standing passengers have waited 25 minutes for it as the bus they were supposed to be on board speeds by out-of-service in a madcap attempt to get back on time or for the driver to hand over ?

We have within Dublin Bus a substantial capacity to deliver the essentials of effective,efficient and affordable Public Transport...that was the reasoning behind Deloitte and it should remain the goal,but as you point out that depends totally on the allocation of resources...and that perhaps remains the hidden-agenda in all of this ?

Alek I've said several times that I perceive there to be major problems with the scheduling - I was merely making that point clear as you stated that I viewed it as a minor matter that would disappear. It needs to be fully addressed asap so that buses can operate in a safe manner and are not overloaded.

That being said, drivers do have a responsibility to drive professionally as you point out. If a driver is driving a bus which is overloaded with people standing upstairs as reported by Ginny I would counter that he is not driving in said manner.

I don't disagree with any of your comments regarding the implementation of the project in your last post.

However, I do have to wonder whether some of the direction for the resourcing is coming from elsewhere....rather than from the company themselves.

AlekSmart

That being said, drivers do have a responsibility to drive professionally as you point out. If a driver is driving a bus which is overloaded with people standing upstairs as reported by Ginny I would counter that he is not driving in said manner.

As has been alluded to before there have been issues with buses at Heuston being loaded under the supervision of the Stance Inspector,who is also being placed in an invidious position by this system failure.

Whilst I would have absolutely no problem advising the Inspector of what I considered a safe passenger load,that confidence may not be present in some other drivers who might feel bound to accept whatever he/she said.

This issue has been compounded by the presence of another Stance Inspector at D`Olier St equally intent on moving the significant numbers from that stop.....This Quart will simply NOT fit into our pint-pots,even if they are Tri-Axles.

One thing is for sure,this is really putting our archaic Fare Collection system and poor Bus specification into sharp-relief as quite obviously unsuited for the change of emphasis inherent in Network Direct.

However, I do have to wonder whether some of the direction for the resourcing is coming from elsewhere....rather than from the company themselves.

This is indeed a matter for some speculation and deserving of some confirmation/denial from either Dublin Bus or the Minister for Transport.

My understanding is that at least one individual Driver contacted the National Transport Authority on the issue and was advised that the NTA were not involved in the mechanics of Network Direct but at this stage were merely observing developments.

The suggestion being that until the expiry of the initial 5 year contract the NTA would not be taking a hands-on approach.

True or False...we do not know as yet ?

Jaysoose

I just wish they would put timetables up in the blanch area, lots of confused people standing for 40+ minutes plus this morning only to have a 38 arrive that was packed and drove straight past.

Ended up walking to village to get a 39 and by the time i got into town nearly two hours after being at my usual stop there were 3 empty 38a's behind the packed 39 i was on.

Its a shambles.

Oh and the unreadable map they have managed to put on the stops is no help at all as the colours used are to hard to differentiate between.