Dublin Bus Network Review

Devilman40k

darragh16 wrote: »

Also, does anyone know if Tallaght will be undergoing any network direct changes. I've heard it about re-routing of buses in certain parts of the local area but that was a while ago.

The Tallaght changes are coming soon, the first 2 of these have already been announced (on the quiet) for the 76/a/b and (soon to be former) 77

I'd imagine, going by the posts of some of the more informed posters here, that Tallaght is going to be something akin to a bloodbath with the changes that are proposed for the area.

rx8

darragh16 wrote: »

Just wondering does anyone have a list of the Real-Time information bus stops?

Also, does anyone know if Tallaght will be undergoing any network direct changes. I've heard it about re-routing of buses in certain parts of the local area but that was a while ago.

Some of the proposed changes for Tallaght in April include, merging the 77 and 27,running the 77a from Britian Quay to Citywest,via Killinarden.Cancelling routes 50 56A and 65B,but keeping the 56 and running it from Dolphins Barn,via ballymount and killinarden into the Square.Also the 150 will be combined with the 121, and run from Rossmore to Crumlin hospital and then via Kildare road and the 121 route.

As for the RTPI bus stops, I don't think there is a list as such, but I do believe the idea is to have signs at most bus-stops.

bg07

They changed the 4 timetable again. The only difference I can find (other than the updated formating) is that departures are now every 20 minutes instead of every 15 between 19:00 and 20:00 from Harristown and the 20:45 departure from Monkstown is gone.

Link to website

SafetyPin

The new route 4 timetable, I think the keyword here is ABOUT every 15 minutes. So instead of having it timetabled to leave Harristown/Monkstown Avenue at a specific time we'll now (the customers) have to guess if a bus will arrive 15-30-whatever mintues after the previous one. I also noticed that the Sunday service still stays the same, every hour.

Are they gradually trying to reduce the 4 until numbers begin to drop and eventually in time, scrap it all together?

In my own opinion the main reason this route was re-established in 2006 was to accomodate the bendy buses because the route was generally just a straight road. With these buses not being in use anymore, why should DB want to keep the route. (Obviously the customer demand is high, but it's not like they really care about the customer now, is it?)

AlekSmart

SafetyPin wrote: »

Are they gradually trying to reduce the 4 until numbers begin to drop and eventually in time, scrap it all together?

In my own opinion the main reason this route was re-established in 2006 was to accomodate the bendy buses because the route was generally just a straight road. With these buses not being in use anymore, why should DB want to keep the route. (Obviously the customer demand is high, but it's not like they really care about the customer now, is it?)

The route 4 is another particularly interesting one where the Network Direct "Improvements" have served to significantly disimprove the general service level on what is,in Dublin Bus Service terms,a very new route indeed.

As safety pin points out,the 4 has since it`s inception,been a very successful route which attracted a significant amount of NEW business to the Bus.

Pre Network Direct the 4 was Frequent,Direct and Reliable as a route,a textbook example of what Mssrs Deloitte recommended as a template for the Company.

What the tender attentions of the Network Direct "Team" has now given customers is a route which has significantly less of those attributes.

This result,particularly with the 4 route,now appears to be the Company`s interpretation of what Deloitte recommends.

It is somewhat perplexing to see the Company pressing on with "Phase 2" of Network Direct when many of the essential elements of Phase 1 remain in a state of flux.

Rather than make any co-ordinated attempt to market or innovate it`s way out of a deepening crisis we have a management set which has it would seem several other "agendas" rather than attracting new,or retaining existing business.

The revelations to the Staff earlier this week all focus on fleet reductions,with buses being withdrawn from almost every route mentioned.

The continuing pretence on the DB website that Network Direct will result in an improved level of service is,IMO,no longer sustainable and should be replaced by a more realistic and truthful statement that a major cutback in service levels is ongoing.

As an example,withdrawing 5 Buses from the route 11 whilst truncating it to operate between two effective ghost-towns along an alignment without any effective Bus Priority measures is a somewhat difficult concept to dress up as an "Improvement",even to the most gullible of customers.

If one adds to that the reality of the route 11 being withdrawn from the North Side of it`s alignment which has significant,virtually total Bus Priority with a long established and varied Customer Base then one is left with an overiding impression that some form of hallucinogenic substance is being pumped into the Network Direct boardroom.

The current stringent financial and social climate should be prompting Dublin Bus management to force the pace on genuine Service Enhancements and Expansion.

The Government and the NTA appear all to willing to buy into this spurious "efficiency" mallarkey which seems to drive the ND team into ever more wild flights of cutback fancy.

The reality facing our country is one where private car ownership and operation is going to rapidly become ever more expensive,which will lead to real hardship amongst a social class who have never had to use Public Transport...this should be the target demographic for any Public Transport company seeking to re-entrench or develop it`s services.

Another example of this managerial funk can be seen in the admission that significant cutbacks are looming for the Nitelink services.

Not a mention,it seems,from either Management OR Unions of an alternative viewpoint on Night Services to make use of the far lower operating costs now available to the company subsequent to its last rota introductions.

BEFORE simply cutting or withdrawing any Nitelink services why not improve and publicise those improvements...operate the damn things in Both directions and halve the fare....There`s reasons for all those EMPTY Taxi`s stretching into the distance along Dublin Streets and High Fares is one of the main ones,especially for the Couple or single person out for a night.

Dublin Bus has the vehicles,it has the staff and ,more importantly,it has the existing infrastructure to allow for immediate improvements on so much of it`s Network.

However,if the current Network Direct ethos is taken to it`s logical conclusion we will have little in the way on functionality outside of the peaks. :mad:

LXFlyer

SafetyPin wrote: »

The new route 4 timetable, I think the keyword here is ABOUT every 15 minutes. So instead of having it timetabled to leave Harristown/Monkstown Avenue at a specific time we'll now (the customers) have to guess if a bus will arrive 15-30-whatever mintues after the previous one. I also noticed that the Sunday service still stays the same, every hour.

Are they gradually trying to reduce the 4 until numbers begin to drop and eventually in time, scrap it all together?

In my own opinion the main reason this route was re-established in 2006 was to accomodate the bendy buses because the route was generally just a straight road. With these buses not being in use anymore, why should DB want to keep the route. (Obviously the customer demand is high, but it's not like they really care about the customer now, is it?)

The full timetable is now up and it remains every 15 minutes. The only change is that one round trip appears to have been withdrawn after 1900.

I'd have to say that demand on the 4 was and is good in the peaks, but it certainly (from my observations) pre- the change last Autumn it was not performing to anywhere near the same levels in the off-peak for whatever reason, despite ticking all the boxes as a well designed route.

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is somewhat perplexing to see the Company pressing on with "Phase 2" of Network Direct when many of the essential elements of Phase 1 remain in a state of flux.

Would it be fair to say though Alek that most of the problems boil down to lack of running time impacting on service reliability? Many of the problems appear to be finally being resolved - the 46a, 47, 63, 236 all have new timetables/rosters that would seem to address the running time issues, and there is (I read elsewhere although I can't remember where) a new timetable/roster approved for the 38/38a?

I know the running time on the 145 remains an issue, but I read elsewhere on boards that a new roster for that is imminent. The 25a/25b appear to be far more reliable now since the phasing of the lights were changed to give a longer time for the traffic to get out of Fitzwilliam Place? You yourself pointed out the dilemma caused by DCC vetoing Wilton Terrace as a terminus at the last minute.

The lesson learnt from phase 1 has to be to get the running times right and one would hope that with AVLC in full operation that realistic running times can be gleaned.

Cookie_Monster

SafetyPin wrote: »

The new route 4 timetable, I think the keyword here is ABOUT every 15 minutes.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

Another route succumbs to this "about" nonsense. That word has no place anywhere on a timetable :mad:

"About every 15 mins", why not just have: "ah sure, it'll turn up whenever" written on it?

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Fantastic :rolleyes:

Another route succumbs to this "about" nonsense. That word has no place anywhere on a timetable :mad:

"About every 15 mins", why not just have: "ah sure, it'll turn up whenever" written on it?

As I posted above - the phrase "about every 15 minutes" is gone and the full timetable is again available so some common sense is prevailing.

markpb

Did DB every confirm if the intermediate timetables (such as the 4 from Parnell Sq or Pearse St) are actual departure times or just guidelines? Have the drivers been specifically told to stop and wait if they arrive early?

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

Would it be fair to say though Alek that most of the problems boil down to lack of running time impacting on service reliability? Many of the problems appear to be finally being resolved - the 46a, 47, 63, 236 all have new timetables/rosters that would seem to address the running time issues, and there is (I read elsewhere although I can't remember where) a new timetable/roster approved for the 38/38a?

I know the running time on the 145 remains an issue, but I read elsewhere on boards that a new roster for that is imminent. The 25a/25b appear to be far more reliable now since the phasing of the lights were changed to give a longer time for the traffic to get out of Fitzwilliam Place? You yourself pointed out the dilemma caused by DCC vetoing Wilton Terrace as a terminus at the last minute.

The lesson learnt from phase 1 has to be to get the running times right and one would hope that with AVLC in full operation that realistic running times can be gleaned.

Yes indeed lxflyer,all of your points are valid.

However,this "learning curve",if you will,was totally unnecessary and has inflicted a very high degree of damage upon our services.

I remain unconvinced that we can simply shrug our shoulders and walk away from the Phase 1 mishandling issues,as I feel they have revealed a significant deficiency in the Company`s understanding of it`s customers needs.

Indeed,if the accounts of this weeks "review" meetings are to be believed we are now about to embark upon exactly the same process with Phase 2.

I`m now of the belief that having engaged Mssrs Deloitte to perform the review,Minister Dempsey (remember him ) would have been better advised to allow that company to actually impliment it`s recommendations.

The prevailing PR puff continues to speak bravely of "Improvements" whilst the reality is one of confusion,misinformation,disinformation and a general lack of focus on the Street.

A reduction of 200 buses and c 300 staff cannot be achieved or passed-off as offering any real improvement to many customers as is currently the case.

Fintan O Toole`s piece from last April is well worth highlighting once again....

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2010/0424/1224269025738.html

Above all, the idea behind Dublin Bus’s current plans that “less is more” will have to be replaced by a realisation that, in the longer term, more really has to mean more.

Perhaps the above represents a better motto for Dublin Bus than the current,now largely unsustainable,"Serving the Entire Community" ?

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yes indeed lxflyer,all of your points are valid.

However,this "learning curve",if you will,was totally unnecessary and has inflicted a very high degree of damage upon our services.

I remain unconvinced that we can simply shrug our shoulders and walk away from the Phase 1 mishandling issues,as I feel they have revealed a significant deficiency in the Company`s understanding of it`s customers needs.

Indeed,if the accounts of this weeks "review" meetings are to be believed we are now about to embark upon exactly the same process with Phase 2.

I`m now of the belief that having engaged Mssrs Deloitte to perform the review,Minister Dempsey (remember him ) would have been better advised to allow that company to actually impliment it`s recommendations.

The prevailing PR puff continues to speak bravely of "Improvements" whilst the reality is one of confusion,misinformation,disinformation and a general lack of focus on the Street.

A reduction of 200 buses and c 300 staff cannot be achieved or passed-off as offering any real improvement to many customers as is currently the case.

Fintan O Toole`s piece from last April is well worth highlighting once again....

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2010/0424/1224269025738.html



Perhaps the above represents a better motto for Dublin Bus than the current,now largely unsustainable,"Serving the Entire Community" ?

Thanks Alek - I would 100% agree with you that that there serious deficiencies in the implementation in phase one, and you are quite right that there is a serious perception issue to be overcome as a result of those deficiencies.

But it's also important to state when they have been corrected too which has not from what I can see been done here - albeit I think it has taken far too long to do this.

As I said before, to be fair the on-street information appeared to be handled much better on the Lucan phase than either of the two earlier phases which were disastrous. It would seem that lessons in that regard were learnt, and hopefully now the same capacity and running time issues will not reoccur.

I certainly do not think a shrug of the shoulders will suffice - but since we have to see the running times/timetables for phase 2 it's a bit difficult to judge yet.

The reality is that were the running times judged correctly and the information got on-street in a timely basis I would think that this thread would be half the length it is now - the interesting thing is that there are far fewer complaints about the network redesign as opposed to the reliability.

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

Thanks Alek - I would 100% agree with you that that there serious deficiencies in the implementation in phase one, and you are quite right that there is a serious perception issue to be overcome as a result of those deficiencies. ........./Snip/
........The reality is that were the running times judged correctly and the information got on-street in a timely basis I would think that this thread would be half the length it is now - the interesting thing is that there are far fewer complaints about the network redesign as opposed to the reliability.

This is very true,but I remain somewhat disappointed at how the company has managed it`s internal communication with front-line staff.

The Network Direct "Team" has been afforded some form of Untouchable status with it appears no methodology in place to allow for a flow of information between Front Line and Back Office.

The traditional Trades Union IR mechanism is not particularly well suited to the requirements of Network Direct`s rapidly changing elements.

The Drivers have been kept far too much Out-Of-The-Loop on the programme in general and as a result a major conduit of positive communication between company and customer has been short-circuited.

This was a feature of Phase 1 and if current procedures continue will remain a feature of Phase 2.

We are capable of far better IMO.

markpb

The route/timetable information sheet from the bus stop at the Shantalla flyover on the Swords road disappeared over the last few days and was replaced by an A3 sheet with only a few lines about the fares (not fare increases). I wonder if this is linked to ND?

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

The route/timetable information sheet from the bus stop at the Shantalla flyover on the Swords road disappeared over the last few days and was replaced by an A3 sheet with only a few lines about the fares (not fare increases). I wonder if this is linked to ND?

I would doubt it given there has been no consultation on that corridor yet....

thomasj

markpb wrote: »

Did DB every confirm if the intermediate timetables (such as the 4 from Parnell Sq or Pearse St) are actual departure times or just guidelines? Have the drivers been specifically told to stop and wait if they arrive early?

I'm not sure but I just got off a 39 in blanchardstown centre and it left 5 minutes before it's scheduled intermediate time (unless the previous one was very late)

I'm only hazarding a guess but I Reckon the off-peak estimates line refers to departures times as well as journey. Times

CIE

One thing I forgot to ask related to the intended cancellation of route 121: What happens to bus service on Eccles Street on the north side?

LXFlyer

Well given there is only one bus stop in either direction I suspect that it will hardly be missed!! The 121 travels with a lot of thin air on board.

CIE

lxflyer wrote: »

Well given there is only one bus stop in either direction I suspect that it will hardly be missed!! The 121 travels with a lot of thin air on board.

I suppose the passengers should ultimately decide that. And by "thin air", which part of the route and at what times of day?

BTW, is there any limit to what ought to define the maximum distance DB travels out from the city, or should we create a limit beyond which the domain ought to be BE or a private service? Consider that there's no DB service to Naas (32 km from the city) but there is still DB service to Ballyknockan in County Wicklow (44 km via Harold's Cross; 46 km via Rathmines and Rathgar). On the north side, there is no DB route serving Ashbourne (23 km) and we still have service to Balbriggan (41 km via Skerries and Rush).

KD345

CIE wrote: »

I suppose the passengers should ultimately decide that. And by "thin air", which part of the route and at what times of day?

It's not a long walk either end of Eccles Street to catch a more frequent level of service. The 121 runs close to empty for many sections of it's route. It does carry a good few passengers at peak times, but nothing even close to a full bus.

It's unique routing through Frances Street/Meath Street and Ardee Street means many of the passengers who would be traveling from this area to Crumlin usually walk to Cork Street for a more frequent, direct service.

KD345

CIE wrote: »

BTW, is there any limit to what ought to define the maximum distance DB travels out from the city, or should we create a limit beyond which the domain ought to be BE or a private service? Consider that there's no DB service to Naas (32 km from the city) but there is still DB service to Ballyknockan in County Wicklow (44 km via Harold's Cross; 46 km via Rathmines and Rathgar). On the north side, there is no DB route serving Ashbourne (23 km) and we still have service to Balbriggan (41 km via Skerries and Rush).

There is no regular Bus Eireann service to Blessington/Ballyknockan which is why the 65 serves these areas. Dublin Bus do serve Ashbourne on their 88N route. There is a frequent daytime service to both Nass and Ashbourne with Bus Eireann, so no requirement for Dublin Bus to duplicate these routes.

markpb

KD345 wrote: »

There is no regular Bus Eireann service to Blessington/Ballyknockan which is why the 65 serves these areas. Dublin Bus do serve Ashbourne on their 88N route. There is a frequent daytime service to both Nass and Ashbourne with Bus Eireann, so no requirement for Dublin Bus to duplicate these routes.

That's not really answering his question though, is it? Why are DB serving a town 46k away from Dublin when BE should be serving it? Why are they not serving a town 23k away just because BE are serving it? Where is the consistency there.

Also, saying that DB "serve" Ashbourne because a few nightlinks go through it has to be sarcasm, right?

LXFlyer

It's basically for historical reasons - they were always served by one rather than the other.

At the end of the day if it works for those concerned what's the problem?

KD345

markpb wrote: »

That's not really answering his question though, is it? Why are DB serving a town 46k away from Dublin when BE should be serving it? Why are they not serving a town 23k away just because BE are serving it? Where is the consistency there.

Also, saying that DB "serve" Ashbourne because a few nightlinks go through it has to be sarcasm, right?

It's to do with how the city developed. The 65 replaced the old tram line from Terenure to Blessington and the bus service has been in place since. I can't see Bus Eireann replacing that route serving Blessington, stopping at Tallaght, Templeogue, Terenure and Rathmines etc. The route has developed as a city service over the years and carries good numbers. I'm sure if you trace back the history of each route you will find the answer to it's development and current routing.

You could also question why there are Dublin Bus services in Enniskerry, Bray, Maynooth, Newcastle etc. Bray even has it's own local service.

I was not being sarcastic, just pointing out that the Dublin Bus 88N does serve Ashbourne.

Perhaps some of these long distance routes will change under Network Direct, just like how Kilcock was removed from route 66. Although, considering the protests at the proposal to run the 84 short to Cherrywood, you can never tell.

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

There is no regular Bus Eireann service to Blessington/Ballyknockan which is why the 65 serves these areas. Dublin Bus do serve Ashbourne on their 88N route. There is a frequent daytime service to both Na(a)s and Ashbourne with Bus Eireann, so no requirement for Dublin Bus to duplicate these routes.

No, that doesn't appear to be why. Maybe people forget that CIE used to run all of the buses under its own brand? There was no reason for them to even run extended-length routes like the 33, 84 and 65 as Dublin District versus Provincial. The history of private bus operation being folded into DUTC before CIE takeover wasn't reason enough either.

KD345 wrote:

The 65 replaced the old tram line from Terenure to Blessington

No it didn't. The 65 developed as a competing bus route to the Dublin & Blessington, started by Paragon Omnibus and later folded into General Omnibus; it was never an outgrowth of the D&B. The tram line never had the capital to allow it to electrify, otherwise it would have been operating run-through into the city centre on the DUTC network instead of turning around in Terenure. On top of that, there was also a law that limited steam tram operation to a paltry 12 mph (19 km/h); this didn't apply to the buses or other road traffic, including (apparently) electric trams. The furthest the tram line went was Poulaphouca; the extension was closed in 1927, which actually hurt the company financially since they were more dependent upon the tourist revenue of that section than they apparently realised. There was no D&B operation to Ballymore Eustace, Ballyknockan or Donard, nor can I find any information to the effect of Paragon/General Omnibus running buses to any of those locations.

One provincial replacement of Dublin District service I recall is when the 40B service to Oldtown was replaced by the provincial bus to Garristown. There used to be infrequent trips on the 40B (no number displayed on the bus, but listed in the 40B timetable) terminating at Kilsallaghan and also running through Kilsallaghan to Oldtown beyond. Now, none of those areas have bus service; BE's service to Garristown was cancelled maybe one or two years back.

lxflyer wrote: »

It's basically for historical reasons - they were always served by one rather than the other.

At the end of the day if it works for those concerned what's the problem?

Can't be "for historical reasons" if they were all operated by CIE at one point (i.e. for several decades). And it's funny to say that the status quo "works for those concerned" when that may not be the case; certainly lots of Network Destruct re-routes and consolidations are throwing wrenches into service that currently "works for those concerned".

qerty

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Network-Direct-Phase-2/Finglas-East--Glasnevin--Drumcondra/



Proposals now available for Finglas east/Glasnevin and Drumcondra

LXFlyer

CIE wrote: »

Can't be "for historical reasons" if they were all operated by CIE at one point (i.e. for several decades). And it's funny to say that the status quo "works for those concerned" when that may not be the case; certainly lots of Network Destruct re-routes and consolidations are throwing wrenches into service that currently "works for those concerned".

Yes it can.

CIE was formed of three separate divisions, each operated as such:
Rail, Dublin City Services (DCS), Provincial.

It boils down to how the private operators were subsumed into CIE and its predecessors years and years ago. Some went into the Provincial division and others into the DCS.

The Great Northern Railway double deck routes to Donabate, Portrane, Skerries and Balbriggan, along with Donaghmede, Howth and Portmarnock were taken over by DCS, while the rest went to the Provincial sector.

Similarly you can trace the history of other routes back to the private operators. It generally boils down to how the companies were subsumed into the CIE group over 70 years ago! If they had been part of the Great Southern Railway company they generally went to the Provincial side of the house, while DUTC routes became part of DCS.

The 40b was a bizarre exception on Saturdays only.

CIE

qerty wrote: »

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Network-Direct-Phase-2/Finglas-East--Glasnevin--Drumcondra/

Proposals now available for Finglas east/Glasnevin and Drumcondra

That smiling smiley may be premature. Never mind the amalgamations being quite unclear; by "combining the 19 and 83", what does that mean? They getting rid of all service on Ballygall Road East, what with the other combination (19 with 19A and 11/A/B on St. Pappin's Road), or all service via Tolka Estate? No more Harristown service per the map, so a forced transfer if you want to go from there to the parts of Glasnevin currently served by the 19 and 83. And since the 83 will be going via Western Way instead of Constitution Hill and Church Street (don't know why, because the 4 and 140 are currently going that way and they don't need more buses running that way), there's another city centre corridor left without bus service (a good kilometre); they're certainly not going to re-route the 38 and 38A back down that way. The way things are going, it would have been best to leave the old route 34 as it was (and I was only getting used to them calling it the 134 before they amalgamated it into the 83).

So what bus route will now serve Rialto and Bulfin Road, as well? They leaving that to the 17? There used to be three bus routes connecting the city centre with the SCR corridor going through Rialto; now we'll be down to zero, the way this is looking.

The 140 extension to Ellensborough is really out there. Would have made more sense to extend the 49 via Killinarden and Ellensborough, if what you wanted was to amalgamate the 65B into an existing bus route. (Well, in that case, why don't we extend the 49 northwards to Swords over the current 41C route? Makes about as much sense, yes?) The 65 ought to be a permanent limited-stop operation between the city centre and Tallaght, with this "improvement".

And let's stop calling the 17A the 17A. It was a mistake from its beginning that ought to be rectified even forty years later; was never part of the 17 that runs on the south side. There were plenty of other unused route numbers that it could have been called. (How about 87? That wasn't being used then, and it's certainly not in use now.)

CIE

lxflyer wrote: »

Yes it can.

CIE was formed of three separate divisions, each operated as such:
Rail, Dublin City Services (DCS), Provincial.

It boils down to how the private operators were subsumed into CIE and its predecessors years and years ago. Some went into the Provincial division and others into the DCS.

The Great Northern Railway double deck routes to Donabate, Portrane, Skerries and Balbriggan, along with Donaghmede, Howth and Portmarnock were taken over by DCS, while the rest went to the Provincial sector.

Similarly you can trace the history of other routes back to the private operators. It generally boils down to how the companies were subsumed into the CIE group over 70 years ago! If they had been part of the Great Southern Railway company they generally went to the Provincial side of the house, while DUTC routes became part of DCS.

The 40b was a bizarre exception on Saturdays only.

No, that's not the point. Once they were all part of CIE, they could have been better reorganised; the only part that did get so organised was the structure of the outer suburban fare system, where it was not any cheaper to ride the Dublin District route versus the parallel provincial service if it existed (e.g. service to Balbriggan that bypasses Lusk/Rush/Skerries).

Certainly Network Direct doesn't take such niggling nostalgia as "historic operations" into account.

backboiler

qerty wrote: »

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Network-Direct-Phase-2/Finglas-East--Glasnevin--Drumcondra/



Proposals now available for Finglas east/Glasnevin and Drumcondra

Summary

• 19a is getting a new name and extended around the corner to Charlestown SC(from Jamestown Rd.)
• 83 is to use O'Connell St. instead of its existing Church St. route (no bus service on any route for Church St.)
• 19 is being killed (no bus service on any route for Tolka Est.)
• 11/a/b is being killed.
• 140 extended to Tallaght so not serving Leeson St./Wilton Pl. any more.
• Now only a single 13 route and passing straight through Ballymun (no bus service on any route for Griffith Ave., west of Swords Rd., at least).

No word yet on public consultation.

As far as I can see the 140 and 83 will cross each other in Rathmines but they are divergent on the map.