Dublin Bus Network Review

LXFlyer

jahalpin wrote: »

Does anyone know what is happening with the 83 in the latest Network Direct changes?

Is it being cutback to Charlestown Centre? If so, are any buses going to serve Dublin Airport Logistics Park?

It is merging with the existing route 19 and will terminate at Charlestown.

The Dublin Airport logistics park will then only be served by the limited number of Toberburr services on route 40 (which do have to continue as a social service) and URBUS.

I'd advise getting your view into them

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

It is merging with the existing route 19 and will terminate at Charlestown.

The Dublin Airport logistics park will then only be served by the limited number of Toberburr services on route 40 (which do have to continue as a social service) and URBUS.

I'd advise getting your view into them

This is an interesting,and overlooked aspect of Network Direct.

It would appear that in some cases at least,the Public Service Obligation (PSO) aspect of Dublin Bus`s operations has been somewhat grey`d out to use a PC`ism.

There would appear to have been at least some significant changes made to what constitutes a PSO route in the recent past,such as the apparent inclusion of the Nitelink services which heretofore were regarded as a fully commercial service.

Such is the level of service reduction now being seen as the real core of Network Direct,that IMO,it`s only a matter of time before the (unusually quiet) Private Operators begin to state a claim to area`s now being surrendered by Dublin Bus.

The Conspiracy Theory,often spoken of in the past,now appears to be gaining ground internally,something aided and abetted by the very nature of the Network Direct "team"s actions to date.

CIE

AlekSmart wrote: »

lxflyer wrote: »

jahalpin wrote: »

Does anyone know what is happening with the 83 in the latest Network Direct changes?

Is it being cutback to Charlestown Centre? If so, are any buses going to serve Dublin Airport Logistics Park?

It is merging with the existing route 19 and will terminate at Charlestown.

The Dublin Airport logistics park will then only be served by the limited number of Toberburr services on route 40 (which do have to continue as a social service) and URBUS.

I'd advise getting your view into them

This is an interesting and overlooked aspect of Network Direct.

It would appear that in some cases at least, the Public Service Obligation (PSO) aspect of Dublin Bus' operations has been somewhat greyed out, to use a PCism.

There would appear to have been at least some significant changes made to what constitutes a PSO route in the recent past,such as the apparent inclusion of the Nitelink services which heretofore were regarded as a fully commercial service.

Such is the level of service reduction now being seen as the real core of Network Direct that, IMO, it's only a matter of time before the (unusually quiet) Private Operators begin to stake a claim to areas now being surrendered by Dublin Bus.

The Conspiracy Theory, often spoken of in the past, now appears to be gaining ground internally, something aided and abetted by the very nature of the Network Direct "team's" actions to date.

I wonder what's really behind the claim that the buses to Toberburr really have to "continue as a social service". Would not the same have been said for the 65's former service to Donard in County Wicklow, the 41B service to Ro(w)lestown (planned to be withdrawn and not kept as an extension of route 41 "as a social service"), the service of the former route 60 to Knocksedan Cross and Leas Cross (and I had once had a reply to one of my letters to Dublin Bus back in the mid-1990s that the 60 service would be kept rather than withdrawn because it was "needed to serve the local populations"...but of course no route 60 now)...

What else, former BE service to Naul, former BE (and CIE Dublin District, in route 40B timetable) service to Kilsallaghan/Oldtown/Garristown, DB service to Kilcock and Tibradden...and you know what, with how built-up the Porterstown and Luttrellstown areas are nowadays, you could bring back the old route 80 and have it be successful and all even as a double-deck operation—no need for a purely "social service" there! (Uh-oh, did I give an idea to a private operator here?)

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is an interesting,and overlooked aspect of Network Direct.

It would appear that in some cases at least,the Public Service Obligation (PSO) aspect of Dublin Bus`s operations has been somewhat grey`d out to use a PC`ism.

There would appear to have been at least some significant changes made to what constitutes a PSO route in the recent past,such as the apparent inclusion of the Nitelink services which heretofore were regarded as a fully commercial service.

Such is the level of service reduction now being seen as the real core of Network Direct,that IMO,it`s only a matter of time before the (unusually quiet) Private Operators begin to state a claim to area`s now being surrendered by Dublin Bus.

The Conspiracy Theory,often spoken of in the past,now appears to be gaining ground internally,something aided and abetted by the very nature of the Network Direct "team"s actions to date.

Alek I don't necessarily agree. Everywhere there have been routes merged together there has generally been an alternative service available within a short walk, and I don't see anything yet to change that view.

Where routes were cancelled (such as the 10) - alternatives were provided (38/39a/46a).

Now if a potential opportunity arises, I'm sure a private operator will grab it.

My rationale re Toberburr is that it is a council estate in the middle of nowhere and will require public transport of some form.

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

Alek I don't necessarily agree. Everywhere there have been routes merged together there has generally been an alternative service available within a short walk, and I don't see anything yet to change that view.......



.......Now if a potential opportunity arises, I'm sure a private operator will grab it.

........

Yes that is indeed a good reprise of the ND situation lxflyer.

I can see however that you and I are of perhaps,differing perspectives.

It`s very easy in making such comparisons to become taken-in by the PR speak.

That word "alternative" for example may well mean significantly different things to the many different groups of our customers,as indeed will the word "potential" to our would be competitors....

LXFlyer

CIE wrote: »

I wonder what's really behind the claim that the buses to Toberburr really have to "continue as a social service". Would not the same have been said for the 65's former service to Donard in County Wicklow, the 41B service to Ro(w)lestown (planned to be withdrawn and not kept as an extension of route 41 "as a social service"), the service of the former route 60 to Knocksedan Cross and Leas Cross (and I had once had a reply to one of my letters to Dublin Bus back in the mid-1990s that the 60 service would be kept rather than withdrawn because it was "needed to serve the local populations"...but of course no route 60 now)...

What else, former BE service to Naul, former BE (and CIE Dublin District, in route 40B timetable) service to Kilsallaghan/Oldtown/Garristown, DB service to Kilcock and Tibradden...and you know what, with how built-up the Porterstown and Luttrellstown areas are nowadays, you could bring back the old route 80 and have it be successful and all even as a double-deck operation—no need for a purely "social service" there! (Uh-oh, did I give an idea to a private operator here?)

Ah sure why not have yet another rant about the days of yore! It's been a while.

The 65 service to Donard is still covered by Bus Eireann to/from Annalecky Cross with route 5 and 132 several times daily, a short walk to/from Donard, along with the twice weekly rural transport service to Tallaght and Baltinglass.

Obviously you have a direct track to DB as I've not seen any confirmation anywhere that the 41b is to go? In fact no plans have been published yet for the Swords corridor as yet.

Route 60 was another service from years back (yet another trip back to 20 years ago) that just stopped carrying anyone on its unique section so it was rather pointless, as indeed was the BE route 102 (source - the regular drivers on the route).

Kilcock is now served by extra BE services on route 115, so no one has lost out there, and Tibradden is still served by route 161.

As for Porterstown - why put another bus service in when the reasonably much higher frequency 37 does the job within a 5 minute walk, routing via where the actual estates are? But sure yeah, lets go back 20 years ago yet again and suggest reinstating another "thin air route"
.
But I'm sure that I'm just imagining all this and that these are just fabrications along the lines of my explanation of why the 63 went via Kerrymount Avenue. But given that you're obviously such a frequent user of public transport in Ireland then you do of course know all of this already.

Cue next rant - bring back the horse and cart!!

Meanwhile the rest of the country will remain in the vaccuum that you seem to think that we should all stay in and make no changes to anything whatsoever.

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yes that is indeed a good reprise of the ND situation lxflyer.

I can see however that you and I are of perhaps,differing perspectives.

It`s very easy in making such comparisons to become taken-in by the PR speak.

That word "alternative" for example may well mean significantly different things to the many different groups of our customers,as indeed will the word "potential" to our would be competitors....

It has nothing to do with PR speak. In virtually every case of a route merger/cancellation another route has been diverted to serve the areas concerned or very close to it. The only ones that didn't had no one on them!!

Given the drop in numbers using services, the current recession, and everything else there is no justification for maintaining the status quo - things have to change. The bus service in Dublin is no different to any other business in that regard.

The key is that sufficient capacity is provided to cope with the changes.

I have to admit that I am struggling to find an example of such a scenario that you are referring to?

CIE

lxflyer wrote: »

Meanwhile the rest of the country will remain in the vacuum that you seem to think that we should all stay in and make no changes to anything whatsoever

Thanks for mischaracterising; it's a great way to undermine your argument, and opens me up to say that you still appear to be an apologist for bad government policy.

The mischaracterisation: Me against change? How about merely being against the wrong change, which frankly a lot of people on here are against, and that puts me in their company, which (again frankly) is good company?

lxflyer wrote: »

Obviously you have a direct track to DB as I've not seen any confirmation anywhere that the 41b is to go? In fact no plans have been published yet for the Swords corridor as yet

Well, I apologise for taking this earlier post literally then. I'll certainly be glad to hear that claim positively refuted.

lxflyer wrote: »

Given the drop in numbers using services, the current recession, and everything else there is no justification for maintaining the status quo - things have to change

Nobody said the status quo was the perfect scenario. Changes that don't fit the customers' needs and are instead concocted upon the whims of people out of touch with said needs is a solution in search of a problem rather than a solution that corrects an existing problem.

A lot of the Network Direct stuff is just too reminiscent of the failed 1990s experiments with route consolidations; and as the saying goes, repeating the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. There seem to be a number of foregone conclusions about why there would be drops in bus useage, and some of the obvious reasons (slower average speeds, unpredictable arrival times at intermediate stops, need for more articulated bus services instead of fewer) are being glossed over (or should I say "painted over", since the state operator of late seems to be more concerned about paint schemes on buses and trains instead of the nuts-and-bolts of the operation).

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

It has nothing to do with PR speak. In virtually every case of a route merger/cancellation another route has been diverted to serve the areas concerned or very close to it. The only ones that didn't had no one on them!!

Given the drop in numbers using services, the current recession, and everything else there is no justification for maintaining the status quo - things have to change. The bus service in Dublin is no different to any other business in that regard.

The key is that sufficient capacity is provided to cope with the changes.

I have to admit that I am struggling to find an example of such a scenario that you are referring to?

Indeed lxflyer,and I for one,am not suggesting otherwise.

Maintaining the "Status Quo" is what Dublin Bus could be said to have majored in for far too long.

There are areas such as Express Services,Nitelink Services which the company have singularly failed to develop and improve over time.

Sadly we now see these very services being curtailed and dispensed with when many would see them as being even more viable in recessionary times.

Examples of individual scenarios I really don`t want to get into on this forum,but at least some of the ones which involve my own route will see regular wheelchair bound customers being asked to transfer buses in a City-Centre location and still regard this as an improvement to their present single journey to their place of work/education.

There are others,but I`m assured that all of them have been fully considered by the Network Direct team during their lengthy deliberations.

The reality of the "PR Speak" bit is quite easily seen now each day directly outside Head Office as queue`s build up for the "Improved" number 4 route which was quite a strong performer up until it was Network Directed.

It`s as if the wild notion that all buses must be Full to achieve the holy grail of success has suddenly taken root in Head Office,but hey I suppose a Full Bus is a happy bus....whatever about the intending customers it leaves in it`s wake ?

LXFlyer

CIE wrote: »

Thanks for mischaracterising; it's a great way to undermine your argument, and opens me up to say that you still appear to be an apologist for bad government policy.

The mischaracterisation: Me against change? How about merely being against the wrong change, which frankly a lot of people on here are against, and that puts me in their company, which (again frankly) is good company?Well, I apologise for taking this earlier post literally then. I'll certainly be glad to hear that claim positively refuted.Nobody said the status quo was the perfect scenario. Changes that don't fit the customers' needs and are instead concocted upon the whims of people out of touch with said needs is a solution in search of a problem rather than a solution that corrects an existing problem.

A lot of the Network Direct stuff is just too reminiscent of the failed 1990s experiments with route consolidations; and as the saying goes, repeating the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. There seem to be a number of foregone conclusions about why there would be drops in bus useage, and some of the obvious reasons (slower average speeds, unpredictable arrival times at intermediate stops, need for more articulated bus services instead of fewer) are being glossed over (or should I say "painted over", since the state operator of late seems to be more concerned about paint schemes on buses and trains instead of the nuts-and-bolts of the operation).

I don't think that is an official confirmation from Dublin Bus is it?

I don't think I am mischaracterising as you just keep on posting here about things you patently don't know about, such as Carrickmines and each of the examples in the post above, based on your knowledge from 20 years ago.

Let's keep it relevant and forward looking.

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

Indeed lxflyer,and I for one,am not suggesting otherwise.

Maintaining the "Status Quo" is what Dublin Bus could be said to have majored in for far too long.

There are areas such as Express Services,Nitelink Services which the company have singularly failed to develop and improve over time.

Sadly we now see these very services being curtailed and dispensed with when many would see them as being even more viable in recessionary times.

Examples of individual scenarios I really don`t want to get into on this forum,but at least some of the ones which involve my own route will see regular wheelchair bound customers being asked to transfer buses in a City-Centre location and still regard this as an improvement to their present single journey to their place of work/education.

There are others,but I`m assured that all of them have been fully considered by the Network Direct team during their lengthy deliberations.

The reality of the "PR Speak" bit is quite easily seen now each day directly outside Head Office as queue`s build up for the "Improved" number 4 route which was quite a strong performer up until it was Network Directed.

It`s as if the wild notion that all buses must be Full to achieve the holy grail of success has suddenly taken root in Head Office,but hey I suppose a Full Bus is a happy bus....whatever about the intending customers it leaves in it`s wake ?

Alek I am under no illusions that there will be people put out by these changes - I said so before in this thread. I already said in my view that the project is a combination of cost cutting and introducing more direct routes on each corridor.

The company are faced with a choice - continue running full services for those small number of customers that you're listing above on your route (unfortunate I agree) or does it change routes around, facilitate customers by re-routing other routes as part of an effort to cut back on costs. Every company in this country is having to do this.

The financial situation in this country is that serious that cutbacks are inevitable - anyone who does not believe this is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I do understand your concern but there has got to be a reality check here.

KD345

CIE wrote: »

A lot of the Network Direct stuff is just too reminiscent of the failed 1990s experiments with route consolidations;

There was very little failure with the changes made in the 90s. Routes like 22,22A,24,34,83,55, were revamped into busy services. There is now nothing failed with the 19a, 122, 123, 83. Perhaps you can give some examples of these failed routes? (Although, perhaps it would be better in a different thread reminiscing on the past).

I agree cuts need to happen due to the severe financial strain Dublin Bus is under. However, I feel if they explained this in their route changes, people might be a bit more sympathetic towards the cuts instead of trying to present some of these changes as an improvement. Passengers are not silly. They know their bus route and understand the impact of these new changes. But, and perhaps I'm wrong here, I also think passengers adapt easily when there is an alternative service available close by.

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

Alek I am under no illusions that there will be people put out by these changes - I said so before in this thread. I already said in my view that the project is a combination of cost cutting and introducing more direct routes on each corridor.

The company are faced with a choice - continue running full services for those small number of customers that you're listing above on your route (unfortunate I agree) or does it change routes around, facilitate customers by re-routing other routes as part of an effort to cut back on costs. Every company in this country is having to do this.

The financial situation in this country is that serious that cutbacks are inevitable - anyone who does not believe this is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I do understand your concern but there has got to be a reality check here.

Lxflyer,we may well be at cross-purposes on this issue as you appear to believe i`m agin ND changes per se.

Not so,I actually believe the general thrust of the Deloitte recommendations are of sound fundamental basis.

I do have issue with the manner in which Dublin Bus management (or a small section thereof) have interpreted and implimented these recommendations.

To return to the latest changes and specifically the route 11,I still cannot see the commercial or social sense inherent in dispensing with the 50% of the route which is fully prioritized and which has far more capability to perform if it were to be enhanced rather than dispensed with.

The desireability of maintaining the cross-city route alignment is not open to debate,it is a pre-requisite of almost every recent study into Dublin`s Bus service provision.

Removing Bus Termini from the City Centre streets has been a mantra of so many experts and politicians alike.

Yet in the 11 route we not only have a cross-city route but one along an axis not served by any other. Ballymun/Drumcondra/An Lar/Leeson St/Ranelagh.

To say the ND plan offers any "replacement" is,I fear,being somewhat disingenuous as none of the options manages to come close to the useability of the current 11 route.

While lxflyer and others may well doubt it,I can personally testify to the solidity of the routes customer demand between Bird Avenue Clonskeagh and DCU Ballymun.

That demand is both high,and far less dependant upon the academic year than might be firstly thought and would be the first thing any commercial focus would pick-up on as improveable.

However we now see those current cross-city customers not being offered any great improvement in their commute,but rather being told that it`s far more desireable and environmentally friendly to transfer someplace in An Lar for onward conveyance to their destination,whilst their formerly Northbound 11 heads off down along the North Wall,most likely empty....:o

This,if you like,IS my reality check...taking the current successful and individual 11 routeing and traducing it into a grotesque parody of the almost forgotten 62 (The CIE syndrome?) simply does`nt tick any reality check box I can think of ?

The current 11 routeing is more than robust enough to function as an integral part of Network Direct,indeed I would suggest it would fulfill that function far more successfully than the 45,47,63,84 if it were to be supportedly managed rather than discarded in a fit of managerial pique ?

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

There was very little failure with the changes made in the 90s. Routes like 22, 22A, 24, 34, 83, 55, were revamped into busy services. There is now nothing failed with the 19A, 122, 123, 83. Perhaps you can give some examples of these failed routes? (Although, perhaps it would be better in a different thread reminiscing on the past)

If there is nothing "failed" with the 19A, why is it turning into the 19? Why is the 83 getting shorter? A route that is successful on its own needs no "revamping" or changes. There can't be that many new "failures" as to perform such drastic route changes. And frankly, you're citing examples of already-successful and already-busy routes that were merely re-numbered for the most part.

One of the things I'm referring to is how a great deal of routes that were given high frequency had that frequency chopped in half. Now they're trying it again, in concert with route consolidation of the type that will leave currently-served arteries bare of service.

• When the 83 was converted to City Imp for example, it was given close to double the frequency (every nine minutes M-F and every 11 minutes Saturday) and was deemed a greater success initially...but later on, frequency was chopped back to where it was before the City Imp conversion and operation reverted to double deck. Nowadays, the frequency is about every fifteen minutes and no better; no improvement upon that frequency is planned, funny enough, so instead of six to seven buses per hour, it'll stay at four per hour.
• The 123, when it started, originally had timetables for one bus every seven minutes Monday through Saturday and every 11 minutes on Sundays. That's down to every ten minutes M-F, every 15 minutes Saturday and every 20 minutes on Sunday. They also changed the routing to the full length of Phillipsburgh Avenue, cutting off people who have had bus service within Marino for decades; the service via Brian Road and Croydon Park Avenue was the chief improvement over the old 24 and 51A routing.

I think some people forgot that the 40 and 40A were amalgamated in the past (or I should say "revised"; they were in part amalgamated and the 40A was applied to a completely different route to what it was originally), with the 40 operating via Farnham Drive, St. Helena's Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, Plunkett Road and going all the way back to Finglas Village, leaving all the Finglas Village traffic to the 134 (later the 83). This did not succeed, and a reversion to the original routes occurred. So now they're trying the out-of-the-way routing again since they have the 140 route in place, but doing the same thing that failed int the past won't mean it'll suddenly be successful a second time; it was already rejected by the passengers and won't be embraced by a "new generation" years later, and not too many years at that.

There are several other examples, but that would mean that my post will be excessively long. Repeating mistakes from the past won't make things all better.

KD345 wrote: »

I agree cuts need to happen due to the severe financial strain Dublin Bus is under. However, I feel if they explained this in their route changes, people might be a bit more sympathetic towards the cuts instead of trying to present some of these changes as an improvement. Passengers are not silly. They know their bus route and understand the impact of these new changes. But, and perhaps I'm wrong here, I also think passengers adapt easily when there is an alternative service available close by.

Yes, they "adapt easily" by getting into their cars and eschewing the bus. Of course, "easily" depends upon the perspective of the former passenger. The passengers are not silly, but they don't control how the bus service is administered.

Deloitte & Touche are a little too removed from Dublin to really offer insight to the needs of DB's passengers. Even though they are headquartered nowadays in New York City, I have the feeling that they would also receive as much criticism if they attempted to revamp the rather extensive MTA bus route network in their home city...

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think that is an official confirmation from Dublin Bus is it?

Well, why do you think I apologised? You're acting like I didn't.

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think I am mischaracterising as you just keep on posting here about things you patently don't know about, such as Carrickmines and each of the examples in the post above, based on your knowledge from 20 years ago.

Let's keep it relevant and forward looking

Ah, so more invective, and leftist sloganeering on top of that. "Relevant" while not proving that something is irrelevant (a past condition is not irrelevant) and "forward-looking" meaning a patent rejection of the past based on nothing. We've heard that nonsense before, especially from Marxists. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it; ever heard that saying? The ire of other posters besides myself on this thread are not dismissible either.

What proof have I that you know what you're talking about? And no, even if you were in DB's employ, that wouldn't mean you do. I never claimed you didn't know what you're talking about, on top of that, but now that you're being insulting, I must ask what you base your high-handed attitude on.

I already pointed out how you were mischaracterising me. And since you changed tack and started making other claims about me that were not related to the original claim, I must conclude that you agree with me and you will no longer claim that I am against any bus route changes, yes...?

BTW, 20 years ago is one thing, and 10 years ago is yet another; even five years ago is yet another, but if we all forget everything within that continuum, we'll have nothing to base the future on. Things do not change as fast as you think they do. George Santayana's words are still valid, even though you are trying to trample them under foot.

antoinolachtnai

The concept of 'social service' was mentioned. The official view on this is in the 'Social Impact Estimation Methodology' linked from the bottom of the following page:

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public_transport.html

As for private operators filling in the gaps - the holes aren't really big enough to be worth filling for a company that has to make a return from the farebox, although a few things will certainly be possible.

But it shouldn't really work this way anyhow. If it is possible for a private operator to run anything in the gaps that DB leaves behind, it is an indication that the operating model of DB is basically wrong, and that busy PSO services could be run without any subsidy at all and in fact could generate healthy surpluses.

dfx-

lxflyer wrote: »

Alek I am under no illusions that there will be people put out by these changes - I said so before in this thread. I already said in my view that the project is a combination of cost cutting and introducing more direct routes on each corridor.

The company are faced with a choice - continue running full services for those small number of customers that you're listing above on your route (unfortunate I agree) or does it change routes around, facilitate customers by re-routing other routes as part of an effort to cut back on costs. Every company in this country is having to do this.

The financial situation in this country is that serious that cutbacks are inevitable - anyone who does not believe this is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I do understand your concern but there has got to be a reality check here.

What cutback is needed on the 145? What was wrong with the numbers on it? Or the 39 or indeed the 4 or the 51B/C. The only problems have surfaced on these routes since and because of the cutbacks.

Cutbacks are a reality for routes that need them, but DB are changing every route. Cutbacks where none were needed like DB have it in their heads that cutbacks are the only answer and it's at overkill

Cutting costs is fine, if and only if you can keep your current income level at the same time. What's the point of cutting costs if you get less income as well?

Stevek101

dfx- wrote: »

Cutting costs is fine, if and only if you can keep your current income level at the same time. What's the point of cutting costs if you get less income as well?

Who said they were getting less income as a result of the cost cutting

AlekSmart

Stevek101 wrote: »

Who said they were getting less income as a result of the cost cutting

That`s an interesting one sure `nuff,as to look at the numbers of Full buses now to be seen on the N11 one would say it must be good...however I`m uncertain those Full Buses tell the Full Story.

There`s rather too many posts on here and elsewhere from folks advising of their desertion of yearly tickets,rambler tickets and even the Bus as a means of transport in itself for it to be believable that ND is seeing a revenue increase.

My belief is that if one is seeing an undue number of Full Buses along any one corridor then that points to an inherent problem rather than any great success...but my senior management appear to hold a different view,backed up by statistics it seems ....;)

BenShermin

I suggest that lxflyer take a look at routes like the 56/a, 90, 102, 210, 239 that are allowed to waste fuel and drivers salaries every day. After this maybe he can explain why extremely busy routes like the 4, 11/a, 39/a, 46a and 145 are being cutback much to the annoyance of loyal customers who are being left behind at stops due to buses being full!!

No private sector company in their right mind would keep poorly preforming services to sacrafice their bread and butter services in times of cutting back.


Strictly speaking Network Direct should have never have lead to "cutbacks", rather more efficient use of fewer buses. If one looks at the Lucan corridor you can see why lack of efficiency in the ND plan has lead to cutbacks. Buses from Maynooth and Celbridge in Kildare still crawl through Chapelizod on their way to the City Centre. The 25b crawls through Foxborough when it should be using a by-pass road with bus lanes. Dublin Bus have obviously decided on keeping the indirect routes and cutting frequency instead of making buses more direct and keeping the same frequency.

There is a clear inbalance in the Network Direct plan and that is why cutbacks and rerouting are occuring to the likes of the 11 route. Dublin Bus should be doing everything in their power to cut poor preforming routes before they have to cut popular routes, this is simply not the case though.

KD345

BenShermin wrote: »

I suggest that lxflyer take a look at routes like the 56/a, 90, 102, 210, 239 that are allowed to waste fuel and drivers salaries every day. After this maybe he can explain why extremely busy routes like the 4, 11/a, 39/a, 46a and 145 are being cutback much to the annoyance of loyal customers who are being left behind at stops due to buses being full!!

It's unlikely the 90, 210 and 239 will still be around in the coming months. The 90 will probably go once the 79 is extended cross city, as that will link Connolly to Heuston, although it's still packed for those 3 hours every morning, so it might remain. The 210 and 239 will go with the introduction of the revised 76 and new 166. We haven't seen the plans for the 56a yet but no doubt that will be changed. I disagree about the 102. If anything, I think this route has increased numbers since it's merge with the 230. It carries good numbers from Dublin Airport and locally to Swords Pavilions.

The 39/a, 46a and 145 haven't been cut, just altered with a more direct routing (bypassing Stillorgan and Monkstown Farm/Blanchardstown Village). I agree the 4 is a route which could have been left alone.

AlekSmart

KD345 wrote: »

The 39/a, 46a and 145 haven't been cut, just altered with a more direct routing (bypassing Stillorgan and Monkstown Farm/Blanchardstown Village). I agree the 4 is a route which could have been left alone.

And this,KD345,is for me the great imponderable of Dublin Bus`s interpretation of the Deloitte Recommendations.

Routes such as the 4,128,140,145 were in Dublin Bus terms "New" in that they appeared less than 10 years ago and were specifically designed and intended as high-capacity,high frequency Trunk routes,long before Noel Dempsey felt the need to have his "suspicions" expensively allayed by Mssrs Deloitte.

It`s fair to say that these routes were a success,unpalatably so for many of Dublin Bus`s many detractors.

It`s also fair to seek some form of rationale as to why it`s these very well designed and intentioned routes which are being "fiddled" with and as a result are losing the very type of custom Dublin bus needs most-The transferee to Public Transport.

Whilst the 39`s,46A,and 145 have not been shortened under ND`s attentions,the alterations made in phase 1 were spectactlarly ill-concieved and implimented by the Network Direct team in the face of very specific concerns and warnings from Drivers,Inspectors and Controllers whose input was apparently considered in a negative vein.

It`s somewhat concerning that almost 6 months later we are still hearing of a "tweaking" policy in relation to the Phase 1 change process as Phase 11 of the ND bandwagon rolls ever onwards.

I still feel that our conception of "Grandes Projets" such as Network Direct remains flawed due to our native inability to grasp the nature of linked-thought necessary in the Urban Public Transport environment.

I think of my Wheelchair Bound customers on route 11 who are advised of the whole new range of connections they can avail of in the City Centre.

Indeed,I say,as I peruse the eventual outcome of a multi-million euro rebuilding of O Connell St which notably failed to include any Public Transport access facilities at any of the many Bus Stops along it`s length.

Not a single Bus Shelter or Queue barrier could be provided for citizens who take Government advice to become environmentally focused and use Public Transport rather than drive their car (Which would be very well provisioned with regard to secure covered parking in the same area)

Worse still,the concept of easy-access was dispensed with altogether as the new Chinese granite kerbing was lowered rather than elevated to Kassel Kerb standard......and all of this following-on from one of the most comprehensive,lengthy and expensive environmental rebuilding jobs ever undertaken within the State...

Responsibility ? Co-operation ? Co-ordination ? .....perhaps Dublin Bus and It`s Network Direct team believe they can push through this mountain of administrative apathy to provide a brave-new-Public Transport experience,but I`ll stick with scepticism as my primary response given what I observe and deal with on a daily basis.

antoinolachtnai

It does seem that the motivation for the changes on the strongly performing trunk routes was to increase the route profitability so that the profits could be applied to keep the loss-making and borderline routes on the road.

This is good tactics but bad strategy. The trunk routes still have massive growth potential. The 4 could be as big as the Luas with care and feeding. But these routes require sustained reinvestment to grow, not profit-taking.

LXFlyer

dfx- wrote: »

What cutback is needed on the 145? What was wrong with the numbers on it? Or the 39 or indeed the 4 or the 51B/C. The only problems have surfaced on these routes since and because of the cutbacks.

Cutbacks are a reality for routes that need them, but DB are changing every route. Cutbacks where none were needed like DB have it in their heads that cutbacks are the only answer and it's at overkill

Cutting costs is fine, if and only if you can keep your current income level at the same time. What's the point of cutting costs if you get less income as well?

BenShermin wrote: »

I suggest that lxflyer take a look at routes like the 56/a, 90, 102, 210, 239 that are allowed to waste fuel and drivers salaries every day. After this maybe he can explain why extremely busy routes like the 4, 11/a, 39/a, 46a and 145 are being cutback much to the annoyance of loyal customers who are being left behind at stops due to buses being full!!

No private sector company in their right mind would keep poorly preforming services to sacrafice their bread and butter services in times of cutting back.

Strictly speaking Network Direct should have never have lead to "cutbacks", rather more efficient use of fewer buses. If one looks at the Lucan corridor you can see why lack of efficiency in the ND plan has lead to cutbacks. Buses from Maynooth and Celbridge in Kildare still crawl through Chapelizod on their way to the City Centre. The 25b crawls through Foxborough when it should be using a by-pass road with bus lanes. Dublin Bus have obviously decided on keeping the indirect routes and cutting frequency instead of making buses more direct and keeping the same frequency.

There is a clear inbalance in the Network Direct plan and that is why cutbacks and rerouting are occuring to the likes of the 11 route. Dublin Bus should be doing everything in their power to cut poor preforming routes before they have to cut popular routes, this is simply not the case though.

The project in my view as I outlined above is a combination of putting direct routes onto each corridor and then eliminating duplications. By doing the latter they reduce costs. And of course you don't cut costs beyond a point where revenue starts to fall.

I'm not sure dfx where you are seeing cutbacks in the 51b/c - a 10 minute peak and 12 minute off-peak service is the same if not better than at present. Some routes are getting increases in service.

My comments re cutbacks were meant in the context that there are certain routes that quite frankly could easily be merged with other services, and that certain posters were suggesting relaunching other withdrawn services that carried no one.

Benshermin - all the routes you quoted have yet to be dealt in the later phases of the project with but I would imagine they will be either cut back or removed. As for the 90 - it still carries in the morning peak from Heuston. The 210 and 239 are certainly for the chop.

As for the Lucan corridor - there has to be a mix. By and large from a network perspective I think that they got it right by the end. Something has to link Lucan and Palmerstown with Chapelizod and on to the city, as there is a fair bit of custom between them. Leixlip, Celbridge and Maynooth all have the 66x and 67x that by-pass Chapelizod in the morning and evening peaks. The highest loading services on the corridor (25a/25b) rightly go direct to the city. The services have integrated timetables (25a/25b and 26/66/66a/66b/67) so that you get an even spread leaving the city along the corridor.

The key to this project is getting the capacity and frequencies right. They badly mucked up on the N11/N3 corridors with the running times (and with capacity on the first week of the N11), no one denies that. But if those issues are addressed (they have been for the 46a, 47, 63 and 236) then I do think that the network redesign is the right way to go.

The 145 did not reduce in frequency - the problem is that the running times were insufficient meaning that reliabilty went out the window. And I am not in way excusing that. For that not to be properly resolved 6 months later is disgraceful. From what I gather elsewhere on boards, management and drivers are still trying to resolve this.

Remember also that both the 13 and 19a frequencies are increasing while the 11 is being removed from the northside.

antoinolachtnai

If the running time was sufficient before but is not sufficient now, that means the capacity is reduced, all other things being equal.

qerty

CIE wrote: »

If there is nothing "failed" with the 19A, why is it turning into the 19?

The 19a is not turning into the nineteen. It is merely being renumbered the 19, while maintaining the 19a (albeit slightly modified) routing.

The current route 19 is essentially being removed by its amalgamation with the 83. Hence the renewed availability of the number 19, which allows for the removal on the alpha suffix on the current 19a

thomasj

KD345 wrote: »

It's unlikely the 90, 210 and 239 will still be around in the coming months. The 90 will probably go once the 79 is extended cross city, as that will link Connolly to Heuston, although it's still packed for those 3 hours every morning, so it might remain. The 210 and 239 will go with the introduction of the revised 76 and new 166. We haven't seen the plans for the 56a yet but no doubt that will be changed. I disagree about the 102. If anything, I think this route has increased numbers since it's merge with the 230. It carries good numbers from Dublin Airport and locally to Swords Pavilions.

The 39/a, 46a and 145 haven't been cut, just altered with a more direct routing (bypassing Stillorgan and Monkstown Farm/Blanchardstown Village). I agree the 4 is a route which could have been left alone.

Yep that's what I heard re the 239 it will go once the new 76 is in place

With regards to the 39/a if there had've been better integration of the 2 routes departures it would have been okay but there is not!

Half hour gaps followed by 2 buses in the space of 5 minutes on a sunday evening is not an effective timetable (likewise at other times of the week) if the timetable is fixed it might work as a route!

thomasj

qerty wrote: »

The 19a is not turning into the nineteen. It is merely being renumbered the 19, while maintaining the 19a (albeit slightly modified) routing.

The current route 19 is essentially being removed by its amalgamation with the 83. Hence the renewed availability of the number 19, which allows for the removal on the alpha suffix on the current 19a

Okay so can i clear this up I am confused by the 19 changes

So the 19 southbound leg is cancelled and the 122 will take up most of the dolphins barn/rialto leg

Th19 will merge with the 83 (although wont serve Church street)

The 19a becomes the 19

Have I got that right? And what happened to the plans to send the 122 to sandymoumt? Has the 19 plans changed all that?

CIE

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The concept of 'social service' was mentioned. The official view on this is in the 'Social Impact Estimation Methodology' linked from the bottom of the following page:

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public_transport.html

As for private operators filling in the gaps - the holes aren't really big enough to be worth filling for a company that has to make a return from the farebox, although a few things will certainly be possible.

But it shouldn't really work this way anyhow. If it is possible for a private operator to run anything in the gaps that DB leaves behind, it is an indication that the operating model of DB is basically wrong, and that busy PSO services could be run without any subsidy at all and in fact could generate healthy surpluses

No, it has nothing to do with the "operating (or otherwise) model of DB" in particular, but instead the socialist-inspired model altogether. Was there any real reason for CIE to even come into being? never mind the new laws being foisted upon us from without (via "EU law" so-called). It's not the PSO service that DB's trying to abandon anyhow.

And this begs the question as to whether or not a private operator will indeed be permitted to operate "in the gaps that DB leaves behind". Other private operators have fallen by the wayside whenever they tried to compete, all thanks to socialistic support for DB and regulation that crippled their private operations. I'd predict that a private operator that's allowed to take over the direct services abandoned by routes 68, 69 and 84 would do well for themselves, for example...

And oh yes; another aspect of "increasing frequencies" has been bus bunching. Watch for that to return.

LXFlyer

thomasj wrote: »

Okay so can i clear this up I am confused by the 19 changes

So the 19 southbound leg is cancelled and the 122 will take up most of the dolphins barn/rialto leg

The19 will merge with the 83 (although wont serve Church street)

The 19a becomes the 19

Have I got that right? And what happened to the plans to send the 122 to sandymoumt? Has the 19 plans changed all that?

19 and 83 merge and effectively become a re-routed 83 via O'Connell Street.

19a is re-routed slightly and is renumbered 19.

122 is expected to operate via Rialto to/from Drimnagh and will not serve Sandymount. We've already seen that Sandymount will be served by the 2 from Mountjoy Square to UCD.

qerty

Is the 140 being merged with the 54A?
If so, the Dublin bus site mentions that the new route will operate via rathmines, which means the loss of the harolds cross section of the 54A?

Or is it merging with one of the 74s?