End of Year Review of Dublin Bus

KC8

As we head into a new year, as a regular user of Dublin Bus for decades, across numerous routes, for what it’s worth, I thought I’d make the following observations.

Without doubt, the current service is far better than in the past. The single biggest improvement, imo, is the introduction of RTPI. No longer do I feel the fool waiting in the rain for hours for a bus as hundreds of cars pass me – at least now I can wait in a warmer drier location or make alternative plans. The evolution of cross city services is a significant improvement opening up many more connections. The quality of vehicle is also most improved in terms of reliability, comfort, cleanliness and accessibility. The Leap card also helps.

However there are so many things that I think are within the gift of Dublin Bus, to improve services further that I just can’t understand why they don’t do it. If these simple changes were made, I believe the demands for privatisation would diminish as a real improvement in services would become evident

• Alter running times to reflect greater traffic congestion due to the economy improving. I know some users experience capacity issues at peak times, especially in the last few months but I believe any additional resources should be first deployed to increase running times. The new high profile cross city services need adequate running times if any semblance of a quality service is to be maintained. Personal experience on Route 4, 7, 40 and 145 tell me that addressing running time issues is far too slow a process within Dublin Bus. With AVL in place, there is no excuse not to act quickly.
• Have an official “Plan B” when there is a major city centre disruption. For example, if there is a city centre disruption state that all cross city services will split into two legs each and such a development will be announced on Dublin Bus’s website and on RTPI displays. Once this is announced people will learn over time what this means. For example it might mean – N11 services terminate at the Burlinton. Rathmines Services terminate at Hatch Street. Lucan and Blanchardstown Services terminate at Dublin City Council Offices etc. What this offers the customer is the certainty that if they walk to a certain point they will be able to get a bus. Irish Water protests and chronic traffic congestion in the run up to Christmas exposed this lack of planning.
• Improve RTPI – issues remain around dropped services still showing on RTPI until they pass their departure time. Similarly RTPI should anticipate delays when driver changeovers are planned. Short running services should also show as such on RTPI – not as the normal scheduled destination.
• Be strong and put it up to politicians and refuse to run empty buses when capacity issues on other routes exist. For example routes 44B, 68A and 161.
• Specific route comments below

There are certain matters outside the control of Dublin Bus. These matters also need urgent attention if service to the public is to reach international best standards (You would have thought the NTA should be coordinating these matters). These include

1. A single responsible person for efficient movement of public transport (a point already made by another poster) – the complete collapse of services in the run up to Christmas due to car gridlock must not be repeated. But it will be repeated as no one took responsibility.
2. Lack of Garda enforcement for bus priority. The College Green Bus Gate is a good example – its a big improvement for public transport users. Its also a big improvement for car drivers who wish to give the ‘two fingers’ to all other road users by ignoring the car ban. They might think twice if a fine was automatic every time they are caught but on the rare occasions a Garda is present all they seem to do is divert the drivers away from the Bus Gate – therefore for those staring out with the mind-set that laws are for the little people, they have very little to loose. Why aren’t loads of Gardaí present to issue fines (and indirectly pay their wages) until a high level of compliance is achieved?
3. The retention of car park spaces or extra lanes of traffic rather than the introduction of bus priority lanes should cease as it gives out all the wrong signals. Just a few obvious examples:
• Outbound Clanbrassil Street (if its good enough to use one of the two traffic lanes as a bus lane inbound, why is it not justified outbound?). Same goes for Stretch between Templeouge Village and Spawell outbound.
• Summerhill for 123 Route – two lanes in both direction but no bus lanes
• Use bus priority signals properly – Templeogue Road is a good example of an engineering solution that isn’t used properly.
• Remove car parking on St. Stephen’s Green to introduce a bus lane. (Also ironic to see the double outbound bus lane on SSG South introduced a couple of months before all Ealrsfort Terrace buses are rerouted through Camden Street!).

The mix of local and long distance in the city centre must be addressed. With some political backbone this can be easily done. Using all sides of Merion Square and Mountjoy Square for coaches would easily remove all such coaches for lay overs on the Quays, Connolly and the O’Connell Bridge / Nassau Street stretch

It’s worth remembering that the majority don’t enter the city centre by car – they do so by public transport, bike and foot – but media and political noise would imply otherwise. Politicians need to be brave and push through what is best for the majority of people notwithstanding stakeholder protests.

New Bus priority – At very little cost (as very little engineering works are required), but with some political opposition the following simple changes would elevate some major bus snarl ups:
• Ban traffic, except buses, travelling from Aungier Street to Wexford Street
• Ban traffic, except buses, travelling inbound on Clare Street
• Permit buses only to use Phoenix Park as a commuting route – OPW refusal to allow buses (sustainable environmentally friendly transport mode) to use the park while allowing private motorists is completely hypocritical and should be challenged. If OPW say no to buses they should also say no to cars.
• New bus lane to allow buses get from Connolly to new Bus Lane at the Custom House quickly
• Use the Port Tunnel for more services

Finally, just some thoughts on improving routes. It would be great to say loads of new routes and services should be introduced but resources are obviously scarce so I’ve tried to identify improvements that won’t add to running costs significantly – this inevitable won’t be to everyone’s liking as some services are canceled.

Route 1 – Cancel Route. Extend Route 77A to Belfied.

Route 4 – Extend to Cornelscourt

Route 7 – Increase frequency to every 10 minutes and increase running times. Alter every second departure to/from Cherrywood

Route 8 – Cancel Route. Route 7 and DART adequate.

Route 11 – Extend to Belarmine on south Side and Airport on Northside

Route 14 – Extend to Airport through Santry Route 16

Route 15A/B – Reduce frequency of off peak services to half hourly each during the day and hourly each at night

Route 16 – Increase frequency to every 10 mins and route directly to Airport along N1 – away from Santry

Route 18 – Move terminus to Liffey Valley
Lucan and Maynooth services – the changes over the last few years are certainly an improvement but loadings on Routes 25 and 26 are low and they also put out of kilter fixed interval departures on Chapilizod routes from the City Centre. I suggest they be merged.

Route 26 should extend to Route 25 terminus via existing Route 26 as far as Palmerstown.

Route 27 – Could it run through the Port Tunnel and then join existing Route through Clonshaugh Road?

Route 27B should terminate at the Airport – this is, imo, one of the worst examples of a route suiting Dublin Bus and not the customer. Nobody wants to go to Harristown but the Airport is within sight!

Route 27A – Reduce frequency to hourly

Blanchardstown routes – Extend terminus of 37/38/39/70 to RDS using old Circle Line route (attract more customers and address capacity issues at peak times in general area). Reroute 39 to use Clonsilla Road direct to Ongar – no longer serving the Centre

Route 40 – swap with Route 79 along N4 to give greater bus priority and reliability

Route 43 – Merge with Route 142 and use Port Tunnel – Terminate in City Centre and run all day

Route 44 – Cancel Northside leg. A cross city service with such low frequency doesn’t make sense. Extend to Powerscourt during the day for tourists. Run every half hour – alternating between a full city centre route and another going to Kilternan and then to Cherrywood Luas

Route 44B – Cancel Route. Look to introduce Dublin Mountain tourist service subsidised by Tourisim Ireland

Route 45A – I’ve never used this route but I don’t see what it offers that the DART or a simple transfer between two existing high frequency routes (7 & 145) can offer - can it be cancelled?

Route 46A – Extend to Heuston by allowing buses use the Luas Bridge from Parkgate Street

Route 47 – Cancel (see route 11)

Route 61 – Terminate at Dundrum

Route 63 – Don’t know enough about this route – is it used much? Could resource be better placed elsewhere?

Route 65 – Run from the Square to Blessington only. Introduce Route 65X and peak times for direct city centre link.

Route 68 / 69 – Increase frequency by terminating at Red cow Luas. Have Route 68X and 69X to maintain direct peak time connection with city centre

Route 68A – Cancel Route. Route 123 and LUAS adequate.

Route 79 – Swap route with Route 40 between Ballyfermot and City Centre to maintain limited link to James’s Street. Adequate capacity maintained with Routes 13 and 123. Keep Route 79A unchanged.

Route 90 – Cancel Route. There are very few that use it as a service to the IFSC. It is addressing a capacity issue with Route 145 at peak times. Redesign bus routings outside Heustion main entrance so Route 25A/B can also pick up here to address capacity issue.

Route 102 – Extend to DCU

Route 111 – Cancel Route

Route 120 – Cancel extension to RDS – leads to inconsistent headways in the evening and isn’t sufficiently frequent to address capacity issues in Ballsbridge which are addressed through Blanchardstown route changes

Route 130 and Route 150 – Merge

Route 140 – Extend to Belfield along route 142

Route 151 – Service into East Wall may not be necessary of the extra services through the Tunnel are introduced. Same goes for

Route 161 – Cancel Route. Route 61 adequate.

Route 220 – Cancel Route. Route 17A adequate.

That’s it – got my views off my chest for the year – Happy New Year to all!!

thomasj

A good post there but one that I have to disagree with.

Blanchardstown routes – Extend terminus of 37/38/39/70 to RDS using old Circle Line route (attract more customers and address capacity issues at peak times in general area). Reroute 39 to use Clonsilla Road direct to Ongar – no longer serving the Centre

One of the reasons the 39 was kept the way it was was because, believe it or not, there are people on the 39a route that still want/need to go to Clonsilla road or blanchardstown village. The N3 citybound structure unfortunately does not give an option for people to disembark for the village or Clonsilla road (tesco in roselawn) so they need another way to get there.

The 220 is another option, but the frequency is poor (and you have suggested cancelling it in anyway).

The people, who look to benefit from this proposal are, ongar and Clonsilla road (from the village all the way to the train station and beyond to ongar) residents. For ongar residents, they have a short walk to the 70 for a direct probably faster run to the navan road and city than the 39 could ever do. And the 270 for a more direct faster run to the shopping centre than the 39/a could do. They also have a rail connection (albeit 1 changeover ) to both the village and the city.

For the Clonsilla road folk, I'd imagine they wouldn't care as they avoid the ongar-city traffic already and if anything, I would imagine they would be angry at losing their connection to the shopping centre.

The best option here so, is to keep the 39 as it is.

LXFlyer

OP while you have a few bright ideas, I think you are making one fatal error that several people have made here before.

The bus network is there quite obviously to facilitate people going to/from work, but it is also there to facilitate the elderly, schoolchildren and people making local journeys. These are tasks that the DART cannot necessarily do.

Suggesting cancelling or curtailing routes such as the 8, 44b, 45a, 47, 63, 65, 68, 69, 161 and 220 which all serve local communities is exactly what the bus company should not be doing.

The 47 carries significant traffic from the Ringsend and Sandymount areas to the N11 and beyond for example. How would they be served?

The original proposal for the 68 and 69 was to curtail them at Red Cow. People were furious about this (and rightly so) as they would then have to pay twice for the trip. Again, the 68 has opened up connectivity between the Naas Road and the SCR, something that wasn't there before.

The 44b is there to provide connectivity for local people - it isn't for tourists. One look at the timetable will tell you that. Similarly the 220 provides a local service for older people in the areas that it serves, rather taking the direct route that the 17a follows.

The 120 extension to Ballsbridge was something the residents association in Rathborne actively campaigned for - now you simply want to remove it?

Why should the 15a and 15b suffer a major off-peak cut back in frequency? For much of their routes there are no other alternatives.

I certainly would not be removing one of the core routes from the Malahide QBC, nor would I reroute the 43 via the Port Tunnel. Again these routes are providing connectivity between areas. How would someone in Swords get to anywhere along the Malahide QBC under your proposal?

If you were going to serve the Port Tunnel it would be through additional routes or beefing up the 142.

A bus network has to be a mix of local, core and express services to function properly. You don't just chop and change willy nilly which some of your proposals appear to be doing. You certainly don't remove a bus route such as the 39 from the biggest traffic generator in the area.

AngryLips

Looking to the year ahead, I think replacement of the ticket machines will see the biggest improvement to service for DB.

loyatemu

AngryLips wrote: »

Looking to the year ahead, I think replacement of the ticket machines will see the biggest improvement to service for DB.

to speed up Leap transactions? The problem is having Leap users interacting with the driver at all, the ticket machine is just a symptom of DB's dysfunctional fare system.

LXFlyer

loyatemu wrote: »

to speed up Leap transactions? The problem is having Leap users interacting with the driver at all, the ticket machine is just a symptom of DB's dysfunctional fare system.

The fare system is something that is being slowly simplified - we can see that now with only there now only being (excluding the city centre fare) three adult fares on LEAP as opposed to six previously.


The fundamental problem is that with the company finances being in the state that they are in, you just cannot do a "big bang" (such as a flat fare) no matter how much some people here might want it - the risk is too great. It needs to be done in an incremental manner so that there is not a risk of a hole in the company's finances (the company has to remain solvent) - what you are seeing is year on year the fares being simplified.

end of the road

KC8 wrote: »

If these simple changes were made, I believe the demands for privatisation would diminish

well as ireland likes a good old knee jerk reaction or to, i'd doubt it.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

we can see that now with only there now only being (excluding the city centre fare) three adult fares on LEAP as opposed to six previously.

Which adds up to four, five if you count Nitelink, six if you count Xpresso, seven if you count route 90.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Which adds up to four, five if you count Nitelink, six if you count Xpresso, seven if you count route 90.

I was referring to on board a normal bus.

Having a different fare for Xpresso or Nitelink is irrelevant as they both now have only one fare each with no other options, and no driver interaction is needed with LEAP on those services.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

I was referring to on board a normal bus.

As opposed to abnormal buses? They all look the same and have Dublin Bus written on them.

lxflyer wrote: »

Having a different fare for Xpresso or Nitelink is irrelevant as they both now have only one fare each with no other options, and no driver interaction is needed with LEAP on those services.

Big asterix needed after that statement. It's not irrelevant as it disappears off your balance, aswell as the driver charging a different Leap dare to the validator Leap fare and no-one being the wiser etc etc etc.

The fare system is still a long way from being sensible.

StreetLight

If the fare structure was sensible, we wouldn't need posters here trying to explain it.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

As opposed to abnormal buses? They all look the same and have Dublin Bus written on them.

Oh come on - you know what I meant. There's absolutely no need to start making smart comments like this, it's just detracting from the discussion. I was referring to standard Dublin Bus routes (i.e. non-premium services).

n97 mini wrote: »

Big asterix needed after that statement. It's not irrelevant as it disappears off your balance, aswell as the driver charging a different Leap dare to the validator Leap fare and no-one being the wiser etc etc etc.

The fare system is still a long way from being sensible.

Since the fare changes in December there is only one LEAP fare on both Xpresso or Nitelink services whether you go to the driver or the validator so I'm not sure what you're getting at.



The context of my comments was the point that driver interaction is being reduced and the number of different fares on particular services reduced.


The Xpresso routes no longer require any driver interaction. On standard (non -premium fare routes) there are now four fares (including the city centre fare) where there were potentially seven.


I don't see what the issue is with charging a higher fare on Xpresso or Nitelink - they are premium services.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

Oh come on - you know what I meant. There's absolutely no need to start making smart comments like this

You're right and I do apologise, but the reality is the fare system has been slightly simplified but is still way too complicated.

As regards what I'm getting at you may remember my daughter was being over charged by the validator when she was being charged for a journey to Maynooth on an Xpresso that terminated in Leixlip on an adult Leap. When she got a child Leap the driver was charging her child fares when he should have been charging school child fares, the solution being to use the validator to avoid the driver from overcharging! That sort of shít shouldn't be possible, never mind actually happen.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

You're right and I do apologise, but the reality is the fare system has been slightly simplified but is still way too complicated.

As regards what I'm getting at you may remember my daughter was being over charged by the validator when she was being charged for a journey to Maynooth on an Xpresso that terminated in Leixlip on an adult Leap. When she got a child Leap the driver was charging her child fares when he should have been charging school child fares, the solution being to use the validator to avoid the driver from overcharging! That sort of shít shouldn't be possible, never mind actually happen.

But there is now only one adult and one child fare on all Xpresso services since the recent fare changes. The second fare has been eliminated. So someone going to Leixlip or Maynooth pays exactly the same fare.

My point is that there have been incremental moves towards simplifying the fare structure - there is still a fair distance to go, but it's a step in the right direction.

coylemj

KC8 wrote: »

Route 46A – Extend to Heuston by allowing buses use the Luas Bridge from Parkgate Street

That's a completely daft suggestion, the 145 already serves the N11, UCD, Donnybrook, Leeson St. and Heuston station. Why would you divert another frequent route like the 46A down the south quays and back up the north quays when it's primary destinations north of the Liffey are Phibsboro and the NCR?

StreetLight

coylemj wrote: »

That's a completely daft suggestion, the 145 already serves the N11, UCD, Donnybrook, Leeson St. and Heuston station. Why would you divert another frequent route like the 46A down the south quays and back up the north quays when it's primary destinations north of the Liffey are Phibsboro and the NCR?

I think the suggestion is to extend the terminus further down Infirmary Road onto Parkgate Street and into Heuston.

thomasj

coylemj wrote: »

That's a completely daft suggestion, the 145 already serves the N11, UCD, Donnybrook, Leeson St. and Heuston station. Why would you divert another frequent route like the 46A down the south quays and back up the north quays when it's primary destinations north of the Liffey are Phibsboro and the NCR?

They weren't.

They were suggesting running the 46a as normal to infirmary road, then left to parkgate street, then across at the luas bridge into heuston.

Although I'd say the luas bridge is tight enough, I wouldn't be doing that.

LXFlyer

coylemj wrote: »

That's a completely daft suggestion, the 145 already serves the N11, UCD, Donnybrook, Leeson St. and Heuston station. Why would you divert another frequent route like the 46A down the south quays and back up the north quays when it's primary destinations north of the Liffey are Phibsboro and the NCR?

He means extend the route down Infirmary Road from the current terminus and left onto Parkgate Street, rather than along the Quays.


I certainly think that the route should be extended to Parkgate Street - it would provide a direct connection between Phibsborough/NCR to Heuston. Whether it needs to go over the bridge to Heuston I think is probably debatable.

coylemj

lxflyer wrote: »

He means extend the route down Infirmary Road from the current terminus and left onto Parkgate Street, rather than along the Quays.

I can't see that the few people who would use that extension would justify the disruption it would cause to the schedule. How long does it take to walk down Infirmary Road and across the river to Heuston?

At part of the plan to increase the frequency of the 46A, they needed to streamline the route so they eliminated the run through Monkstown Farm. Adding a new leg from the Phoenix Park gates down to Heuston would make no sense as it would mean buses getting jammed up in traffic in Parkgate St. which would have a knock-on effect on the whole route.

LXFlyer

coylemj wrote: »

I can't see that the few people who would use that extension would justify the disruption it would cause to the schedule. How long does it take to walk down Infirmary Road and across the river to Heuston?

At part of the plan to increase the frequency of the 46A, they needed to streamline the route so they eliminated the run through Monkstown Farm. Adding a new leg from the Phoenix Park gates down to Heuston would make no sense as it would mean buses getting jammed up in traffic in Parkgate St. which would have a knock-on effect on the whole route.

What disruption? You would of course require a new schedule for it to allow for the longer route - you clearly would not use the current rosters. But that is not an impossible task.


The network needs improved connectivity and I don't see why this could not be viewed as delivering that.

KD345

Doesn't the 46a already lay over on Parkgate Street at evenings?

StreetLight

KD345 wrote: »

Doesn't the 46a already lay over on Parkgate Street at evenings?

Yes it does. Thanks to some pond life in O'Devaney Gardens, it's one option to get a turnaround.

coylemj

lxflyer wrote: »

What disruption? You would of course require a new schedule for it to allow for the longer route - you clearly would not use the current rosters. But that is not an impossible task.

Because the return trip from Heuston would require a right turn from Parkgate St. into Infirmary Road which would result in the outbound 46As showing up in Stillorgan in fours instead of twos and then there would be a 45 minute gap to the next one.

lxflyer wrote: »

The network needs improved connectivity and I don't see why this could not be viewed as delivering that.

So why not extend it to Lucan?

LXFlyer

coylemj wrote: »

Because it would mean that the 46A would start showing up in Stillorgan in fours instead of twos and then there would be a 45 minute gap to the next one.

So why not extend it to Lucan?

Oh come on - you really are going over the top here.

If you change the route you allow for that in the running time. However, by keeping the buses on the NCR rather than going around O'Devany Gardens you could possibly do it with the existing running time.

I think you are going totally OTT about the impact of this, particularly given that they lay over there already in the evenings. What's the issue? The traffic on Parkgate Street is not that bad. Do you not think that improving connectivity is a good thing?

Extending the 46a to Parkgate Street gives improved connectivity between Heuston & the Red Line LUAS with the NCR and Phibsboro, surely that is a good thing? Not everyone is as able bodied as you and I think anything that makes connecting easier is a good thing.

coylemj

lxflyer wrote: »

Oh come on - you really are going over the top here.

If you change the route you allow for that in the running time..

But by adding to the running time they either have to reduce the frequency or add more buses - would the additional (negligible by my estimations) revenue justify putting more buses and drivers on the route?

People travelling to Heuston from the southside or the city centre can take the 145 so the only people for whom that extension would be useful is people living in Phibsboro or along the NCR, a pretty small minority when you consider the population covered by the route as a whole.

My gripe with covering Heuston is the level of unpredictability it will add to the running time, that's why I figure it will reduce DB's ability to cover the southern part of the route with a reasonably uniform level of service. Most of the southside route has a QBC so if the service gets messed up on the northside, the net effect usually is that the buses tend to 'bunch up' when they hit the N11. One 46A picks up passengers from Donnybrook Church onwards, the next few 46As then run nonstop along a QBC and before you know it, there's four of them running together. That's precisely what will happen if you add Heuston to the northern end of the route.

LXFlyer

Well I don't think that should mean that people in Phibsboro or on the NCR should be denied a connection. You build a schedule that will be robust.

Given that the buses already go down there out of service to layover in the evenings and the schedule is maintained, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

How do you know that people don't want it given you seem to be at the other end of the route?

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

But there is now only one adult and one child fare on all Xpresso services since the recent fare changes.

Apologies, the overcharging is on (as you call) normal buses where the driver will clock up a child fare (1.10) when he should be clocking up school child (0.75).

coylemj

lxflyer wrote: »

How do you know that people don't want it given you seem to be at the other end of the route?

I never said nobody wanted it, this is what I said.....

coylemj wrote: »

.... the only people for whom that extension would be useful is people living in Phibsboro or along the NCR, a pretty small minority when you consider the population covered by the route as a whole.

And when you consider that DB decided to bypass Monkstown Farm in order to streamline the 46A service, I really can't see that they will consider extending the service to Heuston.

Aard

Great discussion. I think "hubs" like Heuston will become far more important in the future network. Leaving one of the the principal entry points to the city short of a few routes (46a, 17 come to mind) is doing the entire public transport network a disservice. Having edge-of-centre hubs like Heuston also means people can avoid O'Connell Bridge area congestion. For example the 46a could deliver people from Heuston to the Mater avoiding O'Connell Street. The would appeal to train and Red line users. Heuston is also identified as a tall buildings zone so it's likely to become a key destination once the economy starts rolling again.

Dravokivich

n97 mini wrote: »

Apologies, the overcharging is on (as you call) normal buses where the driver will clock up a child fare (1.10) when he should be clocking up school child (0.75).

Why is someone with a child card going to the driver when they've a flat fare in that period with the right hand validator?

LXFlyer

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why is someone with a child card going to the driver when they've a flat fare in that period with the right hand validator?

They weren't aware of that at the time as I recall.

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

You're right and I do apologise, but the reality is the fare system has been slightly simplified but is still way too complicated.

As regards what I'm getting at you may remember my daughter was being over charged by the validator when she was being charged for a journey to Maynooth on an Xpresso that terminated in Leixlip on an adult Leap. When she got a child Leap the driver was charging her child fares when he should have been charging school child fares, the solution being to use the validator to avoid the driver from overcharging! That sort of shít shouldn't be possible, never mind actually happen.

If you use the validator it will charge the flat fare for that service irrespective of where you board or alight.

There are no school fares on the Xpresso, the child cash fare is €1.50 and leap is €1.20.

n97 mini

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why is someone with a child card going to the driver when they've a flat fare in that period with the right hand validator?

Did you read my post?
She had an adult Leap card and was being overcharged on the 66X by the validator. Even though the bus was terminating at Leixlip the validator charged to Maynooth. €2.50 vs €3.50 iirc. So the solution was to always go to the driver.

She qualified for a child (18) Leap card and found that when she got the "regular" 66 the opposite happened during school hours. i.e. the driver over charged but the validator didn't.

This was farcical and felt like a case of "only in Ireland".

the groutch

would still like to see them tackle the elephant in the room which is the excessive number of stops on some roads.
you have places were the bus barely pulls away from one stop and they're already slowing down for the next.

Aard

the groutch wrote: »

would still like to see them tackle the elephant in the room which is the excessive number of stops on some roads.
you have places were the bus barely pulls away from one stop and they're already slowing down for the next.

Yep - the Green line corridor is about 1km to 1.5 km wide and "all" it has is a stop every 700m or so. Many QBCs could be rationalised down to at most a stop every 400-500m. Although with BRT on the cards, I can't see this being a priority. Maybe as a quick-fix some stops could be made "set down only"?

VG31

A few things I think should be implemented:

• No driver interaction for LEAP (Tag-on, tag-off perhaps).
• Cashless fare system.
• Improvements/removal of unsafe bus stops such as the stop on the Quays at the junction with Church Street (very poor visibility) and Suffolk Street (too many buses, some may stop far back from the stop so people may not see the bus and miss it).
• Centre door usage at all stops where possible.
• This will probably never happen but for even quicker loadings, passengers with prepaid tickets can board by the centre doors.
• Something should be done about the timetables as they are just 'estimates' so are very confusing for tourists.
• Some bus stops are too close together. On one route I sometimes get the stop I get off at is unnecessary. The stop before is adequate.

dublinbusdude

A few things from me:

Redo the timetables again do buses every half hour eg. from Outside the City 5:30am & from City at 5:30am; totally get rid of Sundays times - People in Tallaght South, South-West Tallaght & outside Tallaght towards Blessington need a better service long side the 27 & 77a to the City

Start buses at 5:30am Mon to Fri; 6:30am on Sat & 7am on Sundays; last buses from City at 12am on Mon to Sat & last buses from outside the City at 11:30pm (Sundays all buses to end at 11:30pm)

Dublin Bus thinks they are in the old days when People didn't work on a Sunday!! People work 5/7 days & that including Sundays! so thats why I think Sunday Service needs to be dropped!

LXFlyer

coylemj wrote: »

I never said nobody wanted it, this is what I said.....

And when you consider that DB decided to bypass Monkstown Farm in order to streamline the 46A service, I really can't see that they will consider extending the service to Heuston.

I think you are making the mistake of judging everything on the basis of the status quo.

You have to realise that all of this discussion is predicated on growing the bus service, and generating new business.

That will by its nature involve adding more buses to the fleet and expansion.

If a route is extended, it would get a new driver bill, timetable and roster that would take account of the impact of the extension. It may need additional buses to maintain frequency. You don't simply extend routes and not adjust the schedule.

Developing the bus network is my view a necessity and that involves improving connectivity at important hubs such as the airport and rail stations.

Extending the 46a (and indeed the 17) to Heuston Station would provide better linkage to and from the station and the LUAS.

You have to realise that the 46a serves multiple travel needs - it is not simply a cross city service, or a core N11 service. It also serves local travel along the NCR and in Dun Laoghaire in the same way as the 145 provides a local service in the Bray area.

AngryLips

the groutch wrote: »

would still like to see them tackle the elephant in the room which is the excessive number of stops on some roads.

You haven't experienced excessive number of stops until you've traveled on the London bus network imo

devnull

in London, most people don't travel longer distances by bus since they use the tube.

Meanwhile in Dublin.....

stop

I would love for Dublin Bus to announce on twitter every departure that is curtailed or cancelled. They have this information already, it should be made public as soon as a decision is made.

n97 mini

^ That's a very good point, especially pertinent when you're talking about less frequent services being cancelled, resulting in very long waits at the bus stop.

I often wondered why the RTPI signs don't show buses as cancelled. Would be very easy to display "66 Maynooth depart 16.45 - CANCELLED" instead of dropping it off the display altogether.

Aard

stop wrote: »

I would love for Dublin Bus to announce on twitter every departure that is curtailed or cancelled. They have this information already, it should be made public as soon as a decision is made.

100% agree. Transparency is key to public support. As mentioned above, post it to the RTPI too if possible. I'd rather be told my bus has been cancelled rather than for it to fall off the RTPI without explanation, and me left scratching my head.

lucernarian

I'd like to hear some Donnybrook drivers opinion on the 46a. Odevaney is routinely bypassed thanks to yobs. I'm not saying you should reroute just because of antisocial behaviour but if you wanted to rationalise, going direct via infirmary road and NCR to parkgate St could be done in the existing schedule I think. And in my experience there are plenty of passengers on the 46A southbound by the time it reaches Spar in Phibsboro. And offering a bus up to the parkgate phoenix park entrance might be useful for those going to the zoo or Garda HQ although not many will pay to travel such a short distance.

Even if fares were rationalised, there is much to be said for better ticket machines on Dublin Bus also.

Amirani

VG31 wrote: »

[*] Cashless fare system.

I think this is a tough sell without at a minimum, easier Leap top ups. If as planned, you'll be able to top up your Leap with your phone or pay entirely with your phone, fine. Otherwise it makes things too difficult. In my own case, my local Payzone shop doesn't open until 7:30 (I normally get the 7:20 bus). As a result, if I've forgotten to top up, I need to either use cash or get a late bus.

That said, I've no problem with punitive cash fares to encourage Leap use. The less cash the better.

foggy_lad

n97 mini wrote: »

^ That's a very good point, especially pertinent when you're talking about less frequent services being cancelled, resulting in very long waits at the bus stop.

I often wondered why the RTPI signs don't show buses as cancelled. Would be very easy to display "66 Maynooth depart 16.45 - CANCELLED" instead of dropping it off the display altogether.

It might just direct some questions towards the bus company and NTA about why so many departures are cancelled or delayed and what are they actually doing about it?

poggyone

Im a DB driver who is a long time lurker, i will just clear up a few things for you.
1.Boards posters have a firmly held belief that the none use of center doors is the main problem with dwell times.
The main reason for dwell times is passengers who dont have money/ticket ready when they get on bus. You could have 3 doors on the bus, but you only need 1 idiot to hold everyone up.

2.Increase the running time so buses are not taken out of service.Fix disappearing buses on RTPI.
You would need extra buses and drivers, wont be happening any time soon.

3.DB need to be strong and put it up to politicians and refuse to run empty buses when capacity issues on other routes exist
He who pays the piper calls the tune, politicians/TPTB can and do interfere with bus routes/timetables.

4.A single responsible person for efficient movement of public transport.
The government have it so the blame is spread thin. Minister of transport,NTA,council,CIE,DB,Garda, no one group is in charge, all can shift the blame with some justification.

5.Lack of Garda enforcement for bus priority.
!00% beyond the control of DB, but they still get the blame. Believe me when i say complaints are put in all the time from DB and very little happens.

6.New Bus design will get more people to travel.
No one but bus spotters knows the difference between the av,ax,ev,vt,gt,sg. In fact the new individual seats mean we carry less, on the bench seats 3 children could fit, now only 2. People want a bus to run they dont care what it look like.

7.Yes, the ticket machines are useless.

8. This Twitter obsession, dont know a single soul who uses twitter, but know many who use the DB app.

VG31

Slow boarding times may be primarily caused by the ticket system but if every one exited by the middle doors only it would speed up loadings, particularly at busy stops.

hfallada

poggyone wrote: »

Im a DB driver who is a long time lurker, i will just clear up a few things for you.
1.Boards posters have a firmly held belief that the none use of center doors is the main problem with dwell times.
The main reason for dwell times is passengers who dont have money/ticket ready when they get on bus. You could have 3 doors on the bus, but you only need 1 idiot to hold everyone up.


8. This Twitter obsession, dont know a single soul who uses twitter, but know many who use the DB app.

But I see everything I get off the bus. There is always people stopping wondering if their driver will open the middle doors. If every driver opened the middle door constantly, there would be people getting on the bus quicker.People unsure of the fare is out of your control. But the bus stopping at stops too long, as people getting on have to wait for everyone to get off is in a bus drivers control

Pretty much every person under 30 has a twitter account or regularly uses it. Twitter is super quick to update and makes more sense to update than an app.

poggyone

Something for you to do monday morning/evening on your DB commute, observe the many idiots in the queue to board who wait until they are up to the ticket machine before they start looking for their Money/Ticket.
These people are the cause of increased dwell times, the middle doors is just something that has been repeated so many times here that it is now taken as fact.

foggy_lad

poggyone wrote: »

Something for you to do monday morning/evening on your DB commute, observe the many idiots in the queue to board who wait until they are up to the ticket machine before they start looking for their Money/Ticket.
These people are the cause of increased dwell times, the middle doors is just something that has been repeated so many times here that it is now taken as fact.

On many journeys on busy dublin bus services especially on cross city routes such as the 15/145 much of the dwell time within the city centre area is from people trying to get off the bus through a very packed lower saloon and the driver has to wait for those getting off before he/she allows others to board the bus. If there were centre doors that were used at every stop this unnecessary dwell time would be kept to a minimum.

Anyone I have seen who has not got their change ready is almost certainly a person who rarely uses the bus and does not know firstly if they are on the right bus and then they must ask the fare and check where they should be getting off the bus, These people are not going to be dealt with any faster because the drivers I have seen already deal with them as efficiently as they can.