BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

After a long time spent around the Irish Bus World,I am now of the opinion that the NTA policy on Centre Door specification is flawed.

Having both Driven & Conducted single and dual doored vehicles,I believe there is little or no tangible advantage to using centre doors within our current operational setup.

One second there now, lets put the record straight and lay the blame for the current failed operational setup squarely where it belongs, at the feet of Dublin Bus themselves.

It was Dublin Bus who on getting rid of conductors, made the regressive step of getting rid of Double Door buses and moved ticketing to the drivers responsibility, instead of following the mainland European norm at the time of Luas style, multi-door operation, entry-exit through any door, on-board validation and roaming ticket inspector teams and big fines.

The current operational environment is due to horrible operational decisions by Dublin Bus. DB choose an operational model that was out of the 50's and not at all suitable for a modern, busy, European city.

The NTA has inherited this mess and has to try and drag Dublin Bus into the modern world. Forcing Leap, RTPI and Dual door buses, etc. on Dublin Bus.

But clearly it has been an uphill battle. Dual door operation won't really work properly until 100% of buses in the fleet are dual door and that will take 12 years or so. And then they have to get the drivers to actually use the doors, since so many couldn't be bothered and there is such an ingrained mythos in DB drivers about not using dual doors. It is clear that they see it as something that is forced on them but an outside power and that they should thus refuse to use, rather then something that might actually make the lives of their passengers better!

Clearly the NTA hasn't gotten everything right, for instance I absolutely agree that the rear door should be placed across from the stairs like London Bus, but at least they have been trying to drag Irish Transport companies out of the 1950's and implement modern European best practises for the benefit of their customers.

I believe their design for BRT is absolutely right. Luas style, single decker artics, 3 or 4 doors, entry/exit through all of them, off bus ticketing. And funnily I think this is why you see so many drivers against the idea of BRT. They are afraid that it will finally show to the people of Dublin what a good, modern, efficient bus service looks like and how horribly out of touch with modern operational Dublin Bus is.

murphaph

Instead of colour coding the trunk routes just use a letter prefix. A1 to Z999 allows plenty of routes and you could of course avoid repeating the number portion as 999 routes will never be needed anyway.

No issues with the colour blind and easy to grasp.

VG31

bk wrote: »

However you have to see it from the customers perspective. From my experience, 90% of drivers never bother to open the rear door. So for them, you are the great exception, but far from the rule.

There's about three or four drivers on my route who use the centre doors regularly. I wait at the centre doors if they are driving the bus but otherwise I don't. Generally the new drivers tend to use them as well.

The positioning of the centre doors if definitely a problem. They should be opposite the stairs so people can just walk straight off the bus. The position to the left of the stairs means that people automatically turn right and don't often see that they are open.

Victor

Several drivers on the 83 use the rear doors at suburban stops and there is good usage.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Directly replacing a 76 seat AV/AX vehicle with a 64 seat SG on any given route will most certainly lead to capacity "issues" particularly at peak times.

At peak times, people standing use less space than people sitting.

brokenarms wrote: »

But a stop is blocked by cars

**cough** Set them on fire. **cough** Which brings us to:

devnull wrote: »

c) that I don't want to piss my stop

:pac:

murphaph wrote: »

Instead of colour coding the trunk routes just use a letter prefix. A1 to Z999 allows plenty of routes and you could of course avoid repeating the number portion as 999 routes will never be needed anyway.

Using letters is inappropriate in public transport - a German "i" is an Engligh "e" and vice versa.

Sometimes while waiting for a 15/a/b/c I see a 150 or 151 coming, only to have my hopes dashed.

bk

VG31 wrote: »

The positioning of the centre doors if definitely a problem. They should be opposite the stairs so people can just walk straight off the bus. The position to the left of the stairs means that people automatically turn right and don't often see that they are open.

I agree completely, it is badly placed and I'm surprised they haven't changed it for later orders, it is an obvious mistake.

My dream is that some day we will get (and correctly operate) the Berlin double deckers. Long tri-axle buses, with three doors and two stairs. Specifically designed so that you enter through the front door, up the front stairs, exit down the rear stairs and out the rear door. Middle door is used by prams and mobility impaired users.

So German, so efficient!

VG31

Victor wrote: »

Several drivers on the 83 use the rear doors at suburban stops and there is good usage.

The figure I gave above of 3-4 regular drivers using the centre doors was about the 83. Considering there must be at least 15 regular drivers it's not really that many.

And then there's two drivers who don't use the handbrake at stops so the door alarm sounds the whole time. I can't get my head around why they do that! Does it not annoy them as well?

Victor wrote: »

At peak times, people standing use less space than people sitting.

The GTs/SGs can fit more people standing than the other two-axles buses. In lots of European cities they have bendy-buses with 3 to 4 doors as they can fit a lot more standing passengers.

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

At peak times, people standing use less space than people sitting.

I've made this point before, but got kinda shot down for it. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that there's more capacity when there's more standing room instead of seats...

bk

Victor wrote: »

At peak times, people standing use less space than people sitting.

It is a clear that a massive cultural change needs to be made at DB.

DB services are currently setup to "serve the whole community", that seems to mean slowly meandering through every estate, slowly loading people via the one door, a seat for everyone as it will take SO long for the slow bus to get into town!

I think this thinking needs to completely change. DB needs to move towards more like a modern European city bus service. Basically that means, fast, frequent, high capacity mass transport.

Services with lots of standing space and less seats, as people shouldn't be spending much time on the bus anyway as it gets to their destination quickly, due to more direct routes, better bus lanes, more priority, spending mere seconds at even the busiest stop, due to multi-door use, etc.

In many ways it is very different from what DB has offered in the past. But I truly believe it is the direction they have to move.

BTW with relation to dual door use. I maybe wrong about this, but I get the feeling that DB/NTA have been focused on moving some routes over to 100% dual door buses, in particular some busy cross city routes and I think they have been putting a much greater emphasis on getting the drivers on these routes in particular to actually use the two doors on these specific routes.

That actually makes sense, until the fleet is 100% dual door, it makes sense to convert some routes to 100% dual doors, so at least on those routes, the regular passengers will get use to using the back door.

thomasj

bk wrote: »

It is a clear that a massive cultural change needs to be made at DB.

DB services are currently setup to "serve the whole community", that seems to mean slowly meandering through every estate, slowly loading people via the one door, a seat for everyone as it will take SO long for the slow bus to get into town!

I think this thinking needs to completely change. DB needs to move towards more like a modern European city bus service. Basically that means, fast, frequent, high capacity mass transport.

Services with lots of standing space and less seats, as people shouldn't be spending much time on the bus anyway as it gets to their destination quickly, due to more direct routes, better bus lanes, more priority, spending mere seconds at even the busiest stop, due to multi-door use, etc.

In many ways it is very different from what DB has offered in the past. But I truly believe it is the direction they have to move.

BTW with relation to dual door use. I maybe wrong about this, but I get the feeling that DB/NTA have been focused on moving some routes over to 100% dual door buses, in particular some busy cross city routes and I think they have been putting a much greater emphasis on getting the drivers on these routes in particular to actually use the two doors on these specific routes.

That actually makes sense, until the fleet is 100% dual door, it makes sense to convert some routes to 100% dual doors, so at least on those routes, the regular passengers will get use to using the back door.

i was thinking this myself the other night!

I stood waiting for a bus in Hartstown last night for 25 minutes, before a 39 and 39a came within minutes of each other.

What I would love to see for the Blanchardstown area would be:

• Local buses replacing the 38/39/70 routes and connect to an interchange at Blanchardstown Shopping Centre and where possible connect to rail stations, buses running every 15 minutes
  
• A high frequency BRT route from Blanchardstown centre to UCD
  
• As the importance of the interchange increases, opens up commercial opportunities, a bit like Ballally , would include a late night grocery store, restauraunt pub etc makes the interchange an attractive quarter

sounds like iit will be just a dream!

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

I believe their design for BRT is absolutely right. Luas style, single decker artics, 3 or 4 doors, entry/exit through all of them, off bus ticketing. And funnily I think this is why you see so many drivers against the idea of BRT. They are afraid that it will finally show to the people of Dublin what a good, modern, efficient bus service looks like and how horribly out of touch with modern operational Dublin Bus is.

I don't really agree with the vehicle choice. Some of the BRT routes (Swords and Blanchardstown) are very long and the proposed capacity of the articulated single decks will have a significant amount of people standing.

Off the shelf double decks with three doors and with exactly the same capacity as the NTA proposed vehicles, but with the majority of passengers seated, are already available and currently are in use in Berlin.

Comfort is an issue and standing on a bus is nowhere near as smooth as on a train, and as such I think that they are perhaps making a mistake, considering the length of the routes. The NTA reckoned that all passengers would be standing from the Swords bypass inbound along the Swords BRT route - not an improvement from a comfort perspective.

LXFlyer

VG31 wrote: »

And then there's two drivers who don't use the handbrake at stops so the door alarm sounds the whole time. I can't get my head around why they do that! Does it not annoy them as well?

This drives me mad - it's a very shrill alarm and it's exceptionally annoying.

orangerhyme

thomasj wrote: »

i was thinking this myself the other night!

I stood waiting for a bus in Hartstown last night for 25 minutes, before a 39 and 39a came within minutes of each other.

What I would love to see for the Blanchardstown area would be:

• Local buses replacing the 38/39/70 routes and connect to an interchange at Blanchardstown Shopping Centre and where possible connect to rail stations, buses running every 15 minutes
  
• A high frequency BRT route from Blanchardstown centre to UCD
  
• As the importance of the interchange increases, opens up commercial opportunities, a bit like Ballally , would include a late night grocery store, restauraunt pub etc makes the interchange an attractive quarter

sounds like iit will be just a dream!

Ye are both right about everything.
Read up on Jarrett Walker and his plans.
I read one initial report and he specifically mentioned Blanch. Basically regionally buses will feed into suburban hubs, then there's high frequency buses from there.
So ,it might require changing buses, but you'll get there faster.
I'd imagine these interchanges hubs will attract little coffee shops/spars also.
Although I think in the longer term, the Luas will extend from Broom bridge to Blanch

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Clearly the NTA hasn't gotten everything right, for instance I absolutely agree that the rear door should be placed across from the stairs like London Bus, but at least they have been trying to drag Irish Transport companies out of the 1950's and implement modern European best practises for the benefit of their customers.

There are many bus models in London, and a significant number of them don't have the centre door opposite the stairs - it's seen as a safety precaution if someone is unfortunate enough to fall down the stairs.

LXFlyer

orangerhyme wrote: »

Ye are both right about everything.
Read up on Jarrett Walker and his plans.
I read one initial report and he specifically mentioned Blanch. Basically regionally buses will feed into suburban hubs, then there's high frequency buses from there.
So ,it might require changing buses, but you'll get there faster.
I'd imagine these interchanges hubs will attract little coffee shops/spars also.
Although I think in the longer term, the Luas will extend from Broom bridge to Blanch

The illustrative example regarding Blanchardstown (using the resources currently deployed on the hourly 70 to increase the 270 to three per hour from one) is all well and good, but at one of the seminars he seemed a bit flummoxed when it was suggested that surely the 39A would have to have its capacity increased to cope with the extra loadings off the 270. He seemed to think it wouldn't which I suspect is not really the case.

I still think that at peak times proper limited stop services will be needed from outlying areas - the 70 for example can be full at peak times leaving Little Pace.

I suspect a mix of the two will be needed.

ED E

@DB Drivers: If you arrive at a stop to find a car parked directly in front of the marked area such that you cant pull in (without magic 360* wheels) what is the "textbook" action. Is allowing pax to alight into the roadway(cycle lane) formally permitted/prohibited? Seems like a big liability issue.

Additionally if theres a street layout issue have you any chain of complaint to get an official report to DCC/CoCo?

(Sorry for slight OT)

hmmm

What would be really nice would be some way of enforcing queues. Maybe it's just a general decline in civility, or maybe it's an influx of "new Irish" who don't share our culture, but while most people have the good grace to queue there's more than enough who will just shove their way up to the front. This will be a particular problem in a situation where people are being asked to get two buses, you don't want later arrivals forcing their way up to the front.

LXFlyer

brokenarms wrote: »

The unions are 100% right on the issue though. As it stands
The other scenario is:
Drivers must open middle doors at all times. But a stop is blocked by cars, another bus and so on. He must drive past that stop till he finds a bus stop that will facilitate safely opening both the doors. (which could be a mile down the road)

Could you imagine the fight that would take place on the bus.

There are some routes which suit the middle door operation like those up the Malahide road, but stops with a deep lay-by's for the bus to get off the road, do not suit the operation. Or streets with heavy parking and taxi traffic on it. It has to be a straight approach and exit. No lock to lock steering.

As has been said numerous times before, proper design with proper enforcement has to take place before any of this BusConnects planning can work. WHich,, in all honesty, will never happen here.

To clarify, my comment above regarding the union's position was predicated on a proper safety audit of every stop in the city taking place, and standard design stop cages and kerbing being put in place at every stop that allow buses to:
- approach;
- straighten up;
- stop; and
- exit

safely.

Many stops all over the city are badly designed and are simply not fit for purpose.

Add to that, where multiple routes serve a stop, the cage should be extended to allow multiple buses safely access the stop. In many cases they only allow one bus at a time!

There is significant infrastructural work needed to remedy this.

At the same time many car drivers seem to think that the only part of a bus stop cage that needs to be left clear is at the stop itself, and are happy to park in them, preventing buses from safely accessing the kerb.

Enforcement needs to be more rigorous.

orangerhyme

lxflyer wrote: »

The illustrative example regarding Blanchardstown (using the resources currently deployed on the hourly 70 to increase the 270 to three per hour from one) is all well and good, but at one of the seminars he seemed a bit flummoxed when it was suggested that surely the 39A would have to have its capacity increased to cope with the extra loadings off the 270. He seemed to think it wouldn't which I suspect is not really the case.

I still think that at peak times proper limited stop services will be needed from outlying areas - the 70 for example can be full at peak times leaving Little Pace.

I suspect a mix of the two will be needed.

I guess when it's moved to cashless and everyone is on Leap card, they'll have so much data about everything, these kind of changes will be easier.

Stephen15

lxflyer wrote: »

At the same time many car drivers seem to think that the only part of a bus stop cage that needs to be left clear is at the stop itself, and are happy to park in them, preventing buses from safely accessing the kerb.

A problem I see poorly sized bus bays that nowhere near reflect the actual size of a bus. I suggest anywhere that there is frequent buses running on street parking be banned. In fact on street is should be done away with in most places. It causes chaos.

Dyr

Stephen15 wrote: »

A problem I see poorly sized bus bays that nowhere near reflect the actual size of a bus. I suggest anywhere that there is frequent buses running on street parking be banned. In fact on street is should be done away with in most places. It causes chaos.

You think banning on street parking will stop it?

I live right beside a narrow residential road that has double yellow line up it, a cheap underground park on it, a free car park beside it, and a massive garda station at the top of it and the f**kers still throw their cars up on the pavement with impunity because apparently they won't make it through the door of the leisure centre unless the car is right outside it

Victor

Are bus bays a sop to drivers, not a facility for buses? On Morehampton Road, when they put in the bus lane, they move the parking to the former bus bays. Of course, there are places on the Stillorgan Road where bus bays are needed to allow following buses pass.

lxflyer wrote: »

Comfort is an issue and standing on a bus is nowhere near as smooth as on a train, and as such I think that they are perhaps making a mistake, considering the length of the routes.

While ideally there would be a rail service, BRT is an improvement on ordinary bus. For most people, being on the bus is more important than having a seat.

lxflyer wrote: »

The illustrative example regarding Blanchardstown (using the resources currently deployed on the hourly 70 to increase the 270 to three per hour from one) is all well and good, but at one of the seminars he seemed a bit flummoxed when it was suggested that surely the 39A would have to have its capacity increased to cope with the extra loadings off the 270. He seemed to think it wouldn't which I suspect is not really the case.

But there would be increased capacity anyway.

I still think that at peak times proper limited stop services will be needed from outlying areas - the 70 for example can be full at peak times leaving Little Pace.

A point made was that BusConnects is about core services. This does not prevent a 70 or 70x running at peak times. The most important thing for Little Pace is a bus gate.

hmmm wrote: »

What would be really nice would be some way of enforcing queues.

We're back to etiquette here. A solid campaign is needed.

Maybe it's just a general decline in civility, or maybe it's an influx of "new Irish" who don't share our culture, but while most people have the good grace to queue there's more than enough who will just shove their way up to the front.

I think there are a couple of factors at play here.

The biggest one is how people board the bus - some paying cash, some paying electronically. The early electronic tickets seem to correlate with the breakdown in queuing.

At stops with shelters, the 'pole' is often erratically placed. Drivers sometimes stop at the pole, sometimes before it, sometimes after. Some people queue at the RTPI pole.

While some countries don't have a queuing culture (it can be not dissimilar to survival of the fittest), I wouldn't blame migrants for management or lack thereof of the bus system. I think the erratic changes to the bus system during and since the Celtic Tiger haven't helped.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I suggest anywhere that there is frequent buses running on street parking be banned.

Not banned, but yes, it needs to be managed much better than it is currently. On street parking creates a useful traffic calming effect on residential roads. It's the "I'll only be a minute" bridge that rally messes things up.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

Work is needed on ensuring all stops are designed in a way that allows for safe operation - I've long advocated a full audit of all stops to ensure that they facilitate this (and this could include a review of whether stops should/could be merged).

If that were done, the union argument about safe centre door operation would be seriously diminished, and centre door operation would become the norm. Until then the Labour Court ruling that allows for driver discretion will dictate random operation.

You don't need to audit stops and spend millions and millions on improvements that aren't even needed. just use the doors! Buses don't need to be pulled in perfectly. People just need to take some responsibility for themselves (and have the law reflect that). Every European or Australasian city I've been to with dual door buses works apart form Dublin. No one in London gives 2 ****s whether the bus is perfectly parallel and 2 inches from the kerb. If you have to step onto the road it's simply not an issue.

This is another uniquely Irish problem

LXFlyer

Victor wrote: »

While ideally there would be a rail service, BRT is an improvement on ordinary bus. For most people, being on the bus is more important than having a seat.

But there would be increased capacity anyway.

A point made was that BusConnects is about core services. This does not prevent a 70 or 70x running at peak times. The most important thing for Little Pace is a bus gate.

I don't think you read my post correctly - I'm in favour of BRT but not the vehicle type - the exact same capacity as one of the proposed articulated vehicles can be delivered by using one of the tri-axle double decks currently in operation in Berlin - the difference is that they have more seats which I think is important - I'm suggesting using them on the BRT routes.

Re capacity - the devil will be in the detail - I'm just going on what was discussed at one of the seminars.

There has been serious local opposition in the past to any proposed bus gate at Little Pace - wouldn't be taking that as a given to happen.

Stephen15

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You don't need to audit stops and spend millions and millions on improvements that aren't even needed. just use the doors! Buses don't need to be pulled in perfectly. People just need to take some responsibility for themselves (and have the law reflect that). Every European or Australasian city I've been to with dual door buses works apart form Dublin. No one in London gives 2 ****s whether the bus is perfectly parallel and 2 inches from the kerb. If you have to step onto the road it's simply not an issue.

This is another uniquely Irish problem

And UK as outside most buses only have one set of doors

Victor

ED E wrote: »

@DB Drivers: If you arrive at a stop to find a car parked directly in front of the marked area such that you cant pull in (without magic 360* wheels) what is the "textbook" action. Is allowing pax to alight into the roadway(cycle lane) formally permitted/prohibited? Seems like a big liability issue.

Some drivers will deliberately pull the bus alongside the offending vehicle at an angle, so they can't move, thereby providing protection to boarding / alighting passengers from encroaching traffic. It also drops the hint to the driver of the offending vehicle to not stop there.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You don't need to audit stops and spend millions and millions on improvements that aren't even needed. just use the doors! Buses don't need to be pulled in perfectly. People just need to take some responsibility for themselves (and have the law reflect that). Every European or Australasian city I've been to with dual door buses works apart form Dublin. No one in London gives 2 ****s whether the bus is perfectly parallel and 2 inches from the kerb. If you have to step onto the road it's simply not an issue.

This is another uniquely Irish problem

Unobstructed use of the centre doors would be a by-product of the audit - the fact is that there are appallingly designed stops all across the city and it's about time they were addressed.

- stops for example on Camden St that only one bus at a time can access, despite there being multiple high frequency routes stopping at them. This causes extended dwell times.

- stops that are inside indented car parking bays and another that has railings and a lamppost exactly where centre doors should open preventing their use

- bus stops that have a ramp on the road built right beside them

I could cite plenty more examples - you may be prepared to accept mediocrity, but I don't see why I, as someone who actually lives here and uses the service should do so.

And again, not everyone is as agile as you - what if there was a wheelchair passenger on board (as there were on my two buses home this evening) - how are they supposed to get off the bus if it can't access the kerb properly?

Do you expect them to jump down onto the road from the bus?

Incidentally London has very clear guidelines which must be followed with regard to bus stop design.

ED E

Victor wrote: »

Some drivers will deliberately pull the bus alongside the offending vehicle at an angle, so they can't move, thereby providing protection to boarding / alighting passengers from encroaching traffic. It also drops the hint to the driver of the offending vehicle to not stop there.

On my commute there's at least one where the vehicle isnt offending, designated parking.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

I could cite plenty more examples - you may be prepared to accept mediocrity, but I don't see why I, as someone who actually lives here and uses the service should do so.

I'm prepared to accept reality and try and work with what we have now in the most efficient way, rather than put it off for 10 years while we update everything to a high standard.

And again, not everyone is as agile as you - what if there was a wheelchair passenger on board (as there were on my two buses home this evening) - how are they supposed to get off the bus if it can't access the kerb properly?

via the front door which can still, perfectly straight or not, access the kerbing. Exactly as it happens every day right now. this isn't about the 1 in 1,000 person. It's about the most efficient solution for the majority of people the majority of the time. The exceptions are easily dealt with if the system works in general.

Victor

ED E wrote: »

On my commute there's at least one where the vehicle isnt offending, designated parking.

I mean the parking is offensive, not that a crime has been committed.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm prepared to accept reality and try and work with what we have now in the most efficient way, rather than put it off for 10 years while we update everything to a high standard.

via the front door which can still, perfectly straight or not, access the kerbing. Exactly as it happens every day right now. this isn't about the 1 in 1,000 person. It's about the most efficient solution for the majority of people the majority of the time. The exceptions are easily dealt with if the system works in general.

Once again, I'm not saying that the centre door issue alone should drive this, nor I am not saying that every stop needs changing.

The reality is however, there are a significant number of stops across the city that are sub-standard and poorly designed, and saying that we should do nothing about that issue is putting your head in the sand. If the NTA are serious about the BusConnects project, then doing a full review of bus stops most definitely form part of it.

Regarding the centre door operation, whether we like it or not (and I'm not someone who particularly does), the unions have the protection of an existing Labour Court ruling which gives drivers discretion to operate them or not on safety grounds. And nothing you or I say here is going to change that.

However, as I said above, a by-product of reviewing the bus stop infrastructure would be that in many cases the potential claim by drivers of perceived safety issues would be removed.