Dublin Bus Network Review

Stevek101

AlekSmart wrote: »

It appears that high-capacity tri-axle,dual door,double deck vehicles with provision for two wheelchairs each is to be the initial "Dublin Spec" to be placed in service.(I do hope they resist the temptation to install the Wheelchair Ramp at the rear door a lá TfL).

I`m equally confident the NTA will expand on their Bus Design thinking quite soon.

So there is some truth to the rumours of an order being placed shortly? I had read up to 60 VT's (tri-axles) will be order this year.

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting opinion Antoin.

Just to clarify,are you suggesting that the conclusions reached,and recommendations made by Deloitte in their report are therefore invalid ?

I was referring to your recent references to the report.

The subsidy for PSO services is calculated incorrectly, or at least in a way that is deceptive, and gives an impression that is wrong. It also draws comparisons with cities and bus services that are completely different from Dublin The total effect of these miscalculations and weak comparisons results in a very deceptive comparison.

The report gives the impression that (as you say) "Probably the first conclusion which Deloitte and it`s sub-contactors,the TAS partnership,reached was that both companies were within the efficiency norms for the Bus Industry EU wide,with Bus Eireann particulary highly rated for its lean and hungry look !"

In fact, it reaches no conclusion of the sort. It strongly suggests it and you are supposed to get that impression, but it does not say it anywhere.

There is no comparison in the report of efficiency and cost-effectiveness between DB and any other company on a mile-for-mile, passenger-for-passenger, euro-for-euro or any other meaningful basis. The pie chart on page 59 is just bizarre and compares nothing to nothing.

If so then we,the people are surely in-line to claim a repayment of the €400,000 reputedly invoiced by Mssrs Deloitte for the work.

No. The report has to be read in a political context. It is a work-for-hire. You have to understand it in that context. It was good value for the people who commissioned it. But you can't just take it at face value.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

..............
The report has to be read in a political context. It is a work-for-hire. You have to understand it in that context. It was good value for the people who commissioned it. But you can't just take it at face value.

And this particular theory,conspiratorial as it may at first appear,raises the somewhat stark possibility that a "NEW IMPROVED" administration might just feel the need to now disprove Deloitte,which of course would only be possible by commissioning another report from Deloitte or more likely one of their competitors....

Talk about appalling vista`s.....:(

Although,in the runup to the General Election,Fine Gael were making oblique references to a Public Transport Regulatory Authority not quite the same as the NTA,so does that mean the King is Dead,Long live the King ?

At this juncture perhaps commissioning Antoin to write up a bit of an oul report might just be the best course of action..?

Meantime I`ll just go and sit on a grassy-knoll someplace to eat my sandwiches

antoinolachtnai

I would rather be allowed run a service and deliver some value.

AlekSmart

Some interesting minor amendments to the Network Direct page on www.dublinbus.ie.

Specifically.......

Route Improvements
The northern end of Routes 11/a/b will be discontinued. It will be replaced partly by a revised Route 13 and partly by a revised Route 19.

Interestingly the original description of the "improved" 19 routing which specifically mentioned Glasnevin Drive-Pappins Road has now been amended,in typically ambiguous style to simply "Wadelai"......

Route 19
Charlestown Shopping Centre » Charlestown Link Road » Jamestown Road » Grove Park Road » Beneavin Road » Glasnevin Avenue » Wadelai » Ballymun Road (DCU) » Phibsboro Road » Western Way » O’Connell Street » Dame
Street » South Great George’s Street » Kelly’s Corner » Harold’s Cross » Kimmage Cross Road » Cromwellsfort Road » Limekiln Avenue

It`s all done with smoke`n mirrors Y`know.... :P

kthnxbai

AlekSmart wrote: »

Some interesting minor amendments to the Network Direct page on www.dublinbus.ie.

yet they still can't change the Finglas South/West page that says the changes will be implemented in January 2011....

it's actually just getting insulting at this stage... I've emailed them about 3 times asking for an update on the progress of the implementation of the changes but have been ignored each time....

*sigh*

I just think DB really need to communicate with their customers MUCH more clearly...

LXFlyer

kthnxbai wrote: »

yet they still can't change the Finglas South/West page that says the changes will be implemented in January 2011....

it's actually just getting insulting at this stage... I've emailed them about 3 times asking for an update on the progress of the implementation of the changes but have been ignored each time....

*sigh*

I just think DB really need to communicate with their customers MUCH more clearly...

I think that the approach appears to be to get all of the consultations out of the way before any more implementation happens. Tbh that makes more sense given the levels of overlap between areas.

They've still got the area east of the Naas Road and west of the N11 on the southside to do yet along with the Swords Road on the northside.

kthnxbai

lxflyer wrote: »

I think that the approach appears to be to get all of the consultations out of the way before any more implementation happens. Tbh that makes more sense given the levels of overlap between areas.

Oh I actually completely agree with that... especially considering the fact that the 220 has been included with the Finglas east plans...

But a bit of common courtesy on DBs part to inform us that the implementation has been postponed would be nice... All they have to do is update one little webpage...

AlekSmart

kthnxbai wrote: »

......

But a bit of common courtesy on DBs part to inform us that the implementation has been postponed would be nice... All they have to do is update one little webpage...

Oddly enough kthnxbai,the company have no problem whatever updating websites,pages or any other means of communication,when they want to.

The subtle alterations in the Glasnevin/Drumcondra wording would have required a tad more attention to detail than rewriting the entire page....one might ask what mechanism was invoked to propose,sanction and impliment such a delicate crossover from definite to ambiguous..

thomasj

There is alot of anger amongst blanchardstown residents at the cutting of the village service especially as it seems that both the 220 and 76 will also no longer serve there.

For people in the village, there are often long waits for the 38s or 39s and they are sick of it. There is no real option of getting another service other than walking up to the shopping centre which takes 15-20 minutes.

A five minute walk away beside the total fitness gym there is a busstop there its currently served by the 39.

The 39a could serve this stop if it came up the hospital sliproad. It would put an extra 3 or 4 minutes onto the journey but for people around that area the extra services would be worth
walking to the next stop.

At this moment though db are saying no! Bear in mind this extra stop would have no affect on the current route 39a

LXFlyer

kthnxbai wrote: »

yet they still can't change the Finglas South/West page that says the changes will be implemented in January 2011....

it's actually just getting insulting at this stage... I've emailed them about 3 times asking for an update on the progress of the implementation of the changes but have been ignored each time....

*sigh*

I just think DB really need to communicate with their customers MUCH more clearly...

It has been changed....

Dublin Bus would like to thank all the customers and stakeholders for their input into the consultation process for service changes in Finglas West and South, covering route 17a/40/40a/40d & 220.


Following this consultation period Dublin Bus has made some slight revisions to its proposals. Dublin Bus is finalising the detail of its revised services for this area and expect implementation to commence in April 2011. All customers will be informed in advance of implementation with a strong awareness campaign.

Boulevardier

Is anything known about what DB have in mind for the services which run to or via Rathmines, especially the 14/14A and 128?

Aard

AFAIK the 14 and 14a will be amalgamated into one route which will serve Rathmines. Don't know about the 128.

thomasj

The 128 is to be amalgamated with one of the 15 group of routes I think the 15

LXFlyer

From what was published on the Malahide Road map we can glean the following:

The 14 and 14a is proposed to merge into one route 14 serving Upper Rathmines (present 14a) and then will switch over to the existing 14 route via Mount Carmel Hospital and Braemor Road.

Presumably this will be via Orwell Park or Highfield Road.

This means that the two busiest parts of the separate legs of the 14 (Churchtown-Orwell Road) and 14a (Upper Rathmines) should have a better frequency than the present individual routes.

The 128 is proposed to merge with the 15.

Aard

I'll say it again: I'm really happy that the new 14/a will be avoiding the road by Milltown Golf Club. It's always the most congested part of the trip in the evenings.

Tickityboo

Aard wrote: »

I'll say it again: I'm really happy that the new 14/a will be avoiding the road by Milltown Golf Club. It's always the most congested part of the trip in the evenings.

I don't think it will be as far as I know it will be Lr. Churchtown Rd.
Right onto Orwell Rd. Then left onto Breamor Park. Then the same route again back into town.

starviewadams

Anybody know what the story is with the Clondalkin 'network improvements'?
Were announced before Christmas and have heard nothing about them since!

LXFlyer

Tickityboo wrote: »

I don't think it will be as far as I know it will be Lr. Churchtown Rd.
Right onto Orwell Rd. Then left onto Breamor Park. Then the same route again back into town.

I would be exceptionally surprised if that were the case. It would be a pointless doubling back in order to serve an area that gets virtually no one, particularly when a more sensible option exists in the form of Orwell Park.

Boulevardier

I don't see how the 15s can usefully get mixed up with the 128. As it is, all the 15s go via Rathgar, and none has ever gone up Upper Rathmines Road. Where would they go after that?

Also, what would then happen to the Northside leg of the 128?

Another option for the 128 would be for it to go up Leinster Road, thus reviving that part of the old 47 service, and then having an enhanced 14a going up to the Dropping well and then Churchtown.

Do the public have any say in these decisions at this stage?

Tickityboo

lxflyer wrote: »

I would be exceptionally surprised if that were the case. It would be a pointless doubling back in order to serve an area that gets virtually no one, particularly when a more sensible option exists in the form of Orwell Park.

Have to dissagree about Orwell Park. Narrow road,full of ramps,large overhanging trees and very heavy traffic at peak times.

LXFlyer

Boulevardier wrote: »

I don't see how the 15s can usefully get mixed up with the 128. As it is, all the 15s go via Rathgar, and none has ever gone up Upper Rathmines Road. Where would they go after that?

Also, what would then happen to the Northside leg of the 128?

Another option for the 128 would be for it to go up Leinster Road, thus reviving that part of the old 47 service, and then having an enhanced 14a going up to the Dropping well and then Churchtown.

Do the public have any say in these decisions at this stage?

The 128 would not serve Upper Rathmines Road anymore. It would operate on its existing route from Clongriffen as far as Rathmines Road Lower, and then follow the existing route 15 to Scholarstown and on to Ballycullen. The 15 will no longer exist, being replaced by the 128. The map showing the planned 128 route is on the Malahide Road section of the Network Direct site.

Upper Rathmines Road would only be served by the amalgamated route 14/14a (renumbered route 14).

As to what else is planned we will have to wait and see. They have yet to go to consultation for the entire area bounded by the Naas Road and the N11. I would imagine that they will start on that fairly soon.

LXFlyer

Tickityboo wrote: »

Have to dissagree about Orwell Park. Narrow road,full of ramps,large overhanging trees and very heavy traffic at peak times.

Well then Highfield Road - I cannot see any logic in doubling back via Orwell Road and Dartry - it would add 10 minutes to a journey that would be completely unnecessary.

KD345

Boulevardier wrote: »

I don't see how the 15s can usefully get mixed up with the 128. As it is, all the 15s go via Rathgar, and none has ever gone up Upper Rathmines Road. Where would they go after that?

Also, what would then happen to the Northside leg of the 128?

Another option for the 128 would be for it to go up Leinster Road, thus reviving that part of the old 47 service, and then having an enhanced 14a going up to the Dropping well and then Churchtown.

Do the public have any say in these decisions at this stage?

So far, we have only seen plans for the 15/128, although there are further changes expected for the 15a and 15b. The new route, as seen on this map will run from Clongriffin to Balycullen. It will no longer serve Upper Rathmines Road, this section will now be served by new Route 14. There is no change to the Northside section of the 128.

There are public consultation days listed on the main Dublin Bus website.

Tickityboo

lxflyer wrote: »

Well then Highfield Road - I cannot see any logic in doubling back via Orwell Road and Dartry - it would add 10 minutes to a journey that would be completely unnecessary.

How is it doubling back? It would travel the 14a route as far as the junction of Orwell Rd. Turn right onto Orwell Rd. and then left at Breamor Park onto the 14 route. No doubling back!! and not adding 10 mins to trip either.

LXFlyer

It is doubling back because it will have to turn 180 degrees from going northwest along Braemor Road to going Southeast along Orwell Road before then heading north/northwest along the Lower Churchtown Road and Dartry Road again.

Getting from the Bottle Tower to Rathmines takes about 10 minutes off-peak using either route 14 or 14a. Your route would take at least 15 because of the additional distance. Why add that extra time to serve Lower Churchtown Road or Dartry Road where virtually no-one uses the bus?

AlekSmart

Tickityboo wrote: »

I don't think it will be as far as I know it will be Lr. Churchtown Rd.
Right onto Orwell Rd. Then left onto Breamor Park. Then the same route again back into town.

Yup Ticketyboo,The tea-leaf readings thus far reveal your NEW ! IMPROVED !! 14 routing to be the preferred Network Direct one.

Yet again we see a somewhat individualistic ND "Team" interpretation of the Deloitte principles as another mainstream route becomes as "Indirect" as could possibly be fashioned.

Many years ago I seem to remember the Russian Embassy having some input into having a Route (61 ?) removed from Orwell Rd....perhaps the Commissar`s might yet oblige again here as nobody else appears to be able to stop the relentless progress of the ND "Team". :rolleyes:

Lxflyer :Why add that extra time to serve Lower Churchtown Road or Dartry Road where virtually no-one uses the bus?

It`s odd sure `nuff,but in one way it appears to conform to an emerging pattern which sees Buses stripped from parts of the City totally dependent upon them whilst being maintained to run directly alongside LUAS on the other side....

Aard

Oh god, that is ridiculous. The 14 was just about a decent route. Now this

LXFlyer

To be fair we don't know what exact route is planned - we only have speculation until they actually go to consultation on this.

My suggestions are what I would consider realistic and Orwell Park or Highfield Road maintains a reasonably direct combined route rather than the alternative suggested above.

Tickityboo

lxflyer wrote: »

To be fair we don't know what exact route is planned - we only have speculation until they actually go to consultation on this.

My suggestions are what I would consider realistic and Orwell Park or Highfield Road maintains a reasonably direct combined route rather than the alternative suggested above.

We all know that the Network Direct Team aren't being realistic or logical in some of their ideas e.g route 11 so don't be surprised.
I do think areas that don't have access to high frequency routes will be treated to this mix n match of different routes,resulting in making a farce of the whole concept!!