BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

dashcamdanny

Bambi wrote: »

*Reducing footpaths

The current bus priority measures are not in any enforced, why would we give them more if they cant manage what they have?

That's why Bus Connects is domed to fail. Except you get to stand out the rain twice per journey instead of once.

Buses will bunch up and now you will see 3 busses coming down the road together instead of two.

KD345

Stephen15 wrote: »

What will likely have to be done is investment to be made on the provision of pedestrian access and bus on the Chapelizod Bypass.

I’m curious as to how you’d see that happening?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Sandyford will get the S8 orbital route from DL to Tallaght every 20 mins and every 15 mins during the peak it will be more useful than the 11. Goatstown will get the S6/S7 which will run every 15 mins throughout the day which will run from Blackrock to Tallaght and the 225 local route which will run every 15 mins between DL and Dundrum.

Also the 11 only runs every 30 mins off peak atm not every 20 mins as more people use the locals and orbitals less people will use routes like the 11. Tbh a place like Sandyford needs more orbital buses rather than radial routes which are slower and less frequent than the Luas.

The bus connects proposals are far more useful for Sandyford than what's currently there the infrequent 47 and 114, the 11 which will be more or less still be there and a few peak time 75s.

Spin it how you like, but for people in Goatstown, Roebuck and Clonskea, their only bus service between the city centre is being reduced. If you currently take the 11 every day to/from the city, which thousands of people do, you may now be waiting longer for your bus depending on the time of day. The fact that up the road in Sandyford there will now be better connections will mean little to them. As for Sandyford itself, I see the 11 each morning heading to Sandyford and it is packed. That’s with a 15 minute frequency.

There are many pockets like this across the network where people will find themselves waiting longer for a bus they take each day.

As you rightly point out, there are many benefits to some of what is proposed. There are some really great changes being made. But it’s important to balance these new routes with disrupting existing passengers who are actually quite happy with their service.

MJohnston

*Reducing footpaths

The current bus priority measures are not in any enforced, why would we give them more if they cant manage what they have?

You've been enjoying just making passing negative comments about the plan, so I'm just curious if you think there are any viable alternatives to propose?

Stephen15

KD345 wrote: »

I’m curious as to how you’d see that happening?

I'm not a civil engineer but I guess they build footpaths through the wooded area surrounding the bypass. Around the bridges on the Chapelizod Bypass you build access footpaths and steps. Another thing that would probably have to be built is pedestrian footbridge for ease of access to either side of the road from the bus stops. Steps may be required so wheelchair lifts may also be needed.

Anyway something will have to be done a city bus service cannot run for such a long distance without stopping if these proposals are to be implemented regarding the Chapelizod Bypass

Here is a few possible places where you could built access for stops

https://goo.gl/maps/H2EjAnx6bGk

https://goo.gl/maps/ccVMU2rgruR2

https://goo.gl/maps/sXZCQnoWV9k

https://goo.gl/maps/KCCBo6zMyRR2

Spin it how you like, but for people in Goatstown, Roebuck and Clonskea, their only bus service between the city centre is being reduced. If you currently take the 11 every day to/from the city, which thousands of people do, you may now be waiting longer for your bus depending on the time of day. The fact that up the road in Sandyford there will now be better connections will mean little to them. As for Sandyford itself, I see the 11 each morning heading to Sandyford and it is packed. That’s with a 15 minute frequency.

As I said they will now have the S6/S7 every 15 mins aswell as the 225 every 15 mins all of which can get them to Dundrum so they can catch a Luas or hopefully in the future a Metro into town. The 10 will also have the same frequency off peak as the 11 does now however I do agree it should be more frequent at peak times.

As you rightly point out, there are many benefits to some of what is proposed. There are some really great changes being made. But it’s important to balance these new routes with disrupting existing passengers who are actually quite happy with their service.

Agreed but some changes will have to be made which benefit the many and not the few.

SG317

I don't understand why people who don't live or commute from certain areas, think they understand the needs of the people in those areas better than the people who actually live or commute from there. I notice this especially on Twitter, where a few users who claim to be just commuters are basically glorifying the plan and telling people who actually live in the areas that their service would be better, when that is not true.

The major problem with this plan is, it was not created with any public consultation. I know that they have a public consultation now, but that's after the plan has been proposed and it's clear they don't want to alter too much of it. After what happened with the liveries, where the Public despite being consulted were basically ignored, not everyone has a lot of faith in the Bus Connects consultation process. Especially, when people desperate to have the plan go through are trying to continously brush of negatives as "tiny problems, that won't have a very big impact". The Consultants also said that if there is heavy opposition the plan won't go through, which would result in yet again money being wasted on drawing fancy maps and plans of public transport infrastructure, that is then not implemented. Plan wouldn't have so much opposition if the public were also consulted before the plans were drawn up. Doesn't matter what statistics they used, some of the proposed changes are thoughtless. People who don't use public transport and don't commute from certain areas, won't know the public transport needs of that areas as-well as the people who do commute from those areas. To be honest one of the main aspects of this plan I think was to make the bus service as profitable as possible. Why else have rural areas with an already infrequent bus service, had their bus service withdrawn completely under this plan. As-well as numerous housing estates losing their bus services, not to mention the loss of many expresso's, and forcing people onto the already packed Luas, Darts and Trains. Of course some of it is efficiency, for instance it's not practical to have buses servicing evwry single housing estate, but the degree to which it gets rid of the bus services there, it's clear profitability was a key component in designing the plan.

There are aspects of this plan that are a long overdue change, however there are also other aspects that are thoughtless.

Dyr

MJohnston wrote: »

You've been enjoying just making passing negative comments about the plan, so I'm just curious if you think there are any viable alternatives to propose?

Roughly translated: I know those are valid points, so I'm going to rely on the old ad hominem instead to defend the honour of Sir Jarret of Walker and the consensus of this forum.:)

I actually stand to gain quite a bit in the terms of bus services if the plan went ahead successfully as is, even if its a ****show the high frequency and orbital plan will probably benefit me.

But the plan doesn't address any of the organisational shortcomings that have made a hames out of every bus plan thus far. I don't think Jarret Walker and Co even know what these shortcomings are, no surprise there. But whats really funny is this bus connects plan relies totallyon those shortcomings magically disappearing. So we're going to dig up half the city for a plan that will fail.

Makes you wonder if the NTA are really more interested in narrowing the footpaths for bike lanes than anything else in the plan

john boye

SG317 wrote: »

After what happened with the liveries, where the Public despite being consulted were basically ignored, not everyone has a lot of faith in the Bus Connects consultation process.

Whatever about Bus Connects, I don't think anyone is saying that about the liveries. The vast majority of people probably didn't even know there was a consultation process about something so trivial. That just seems to be a stick you're clinging to.

Slutmonkey57b

Bambi wrote: »

But the plan doesn't address any of the organisational shortcomings that have made a hames out of every bus plan thus far. I don't think Jarret Walker and Co even know what these shortcomings are, no surprise there. But whats really funny is this bus connects plan relies totallyon those shortcomings magically disappearing. So we're going to dig up half the city for a plan that will fail.

So.... On the one hand, you're complaining other plans failed in the past... Then you're complaining this plan doesn't do anything to address previously failed plans... Then you're complaining they're digging up huge areas of the city, which none of the previous plans did, as the plan identified proper road design as a key element which made previous plans fail.

?

sharper

Bambi wrote: »

Roughly translated: I know those are valid points, so I'm going to rely on the old ad hominem instead to defend the honour of Sir Jarret of Walker and the consensus of this forum.:)

Multiple people have responded to the same sets of criticisms many times in this thread. There's only a finite set of answers to the same points being made repeatedly.

I don't know why you keep focusing on Jarrett Walker as an individual.

sharper

SG317 wrote: »

The major problem with this plan is, it was not created with any public consultation. I know that they have a public consultation now, but that's after the plan has been proposed and it's clear they don't want to alter too much of it.

June 2017
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/nta-publishes-choices-report-bus-network-dublin-online-consultation-gets-way-today/

The NTA is seeking the public’s views on the issues raised in the Choices Report and, in particular, on the possible strategies that could be implemented in the redesign of the bus network – these are set out in Chapter 5 (Strategies for a Redesigned Bus Network) of the report. The Choices Report can be downloaded by clicking the following link – choices report.

An online web survey is available at www.BusConnects.ie or at this link Dublin Area Bus Network Redesign Survey from today. The responses to the survey will be used to inform the network redesign process which will produce a detailed Network Review Report that will published later this year. That report will itself be open to a further process of public consultation in early 2018 before any recommendations are implemented. The Network Review is one element of BusConnects, NTA’s plan to radically transform public transport in the Dublin region, which was published last week.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bus-routes-system-dublin-3429214-Jun2017/

The National Transport Authority today announced that they are looking to improve the capital city’s complex network of buses, and they’re keen to get the public’s opinion on what kind of change they would be happy with.

It’s part of the ‘Bus Connects’ project, that looks to modernise the bus route system through faster payment options, a ‘rapid’ bus service and green-energy buses.

A ‘choices’ report by a consultancy firm has looked at the habits of Dublin Bus users and has listed some options in order to make the system less complicated and more frequent.

MJohnston

Bambi wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

You've been enjoying just making passing negative comments about the plan, so I'm just curious if you think there are any viable alternatives to propose?

Roughly translated: I know those are valid points, so I'm going to rely on the old ad hominem instead to defend the honour of Sir Jarret of Walker and the consensus of this forum.:)

I actually stand to gain quite a bit in the terms of bus services if the plan went ahead successfully as is, even if its a ****show the high frequency and orbital plan will probably benefit me.

But the plan doesn't address any of the organisational shortcomings that have made a hames out of every bus plan thus far. I don't think Jarret Walker and Co even know what these shortcomings are, no surprise there. But whats really funny is this bus connects plan relies totallyon those shortcomings magically disappearing. So we're going to dig up half the city for a plan that will fail.

Makes you wonder if the NTA are really more interested in narrowing the footpaths for bike lanes than anything else in the plan

Ah so roughly translated: things haven't worked in the past so why bother?

Depressing, yet frequently encountered, attitude.

Dyr

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So.... On the one hand, you're complaining other plans failed in the past... Then you're complaining this plan doesn't do anything to address previously failed plans...

?

That's not what I said, read the post again and try correcting yourself. Good chap

SG317

john boye wrote:

Whatever about Bus Connects, I don't think anyone is saying that about the liveries. The vast majority of people probably didn't even know there was a consultation process about something so trivial. That just seems to be a stick you're clinging to.

Well if the vast majority according to you didn't know about a public consultation on the livery, don't you think that says something about the consultation? I'm sorry, but the livery of all PSO services is not trivial. Dublin Bus actually spent a fair bit of time consulting relevant parties as-well as the bus regarding the livery. There is a lot of logic to the current Dublin Bus Livery. The NTA didn't even bother themselves to consult the Public properly and came up with a much less appealing livery that is also a poor copy of London's TFL brand. Also, if the issue is so trivial according to you, there wouldn't be opposition to Dublin Bus losing its livery.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

Well if the vast majority according to you didn't know about a public consultation on the livery, don't you think that says something about the consultation? I'm sorry, but the livery of all PSO services is not trivial. Dublin Bus actually spent a fair bit of time consulting relevant parties as-well as the bus regarding the livery. There is a lot of logic to the current Dublin Bus Livery.

Your theory about the livery is great, however the problem with theory is that it is just that and doesn't take into account what is possible in practice and what you appear to be calling for is not possible in practice as Dublin Bus did not appear to be willing to hand the livery over so it was a non starter.

Dublin Bus own their own livery and recently the chairperson has stated that the livery as part of their brand, is valued at tens of millions of pounds and seemed to be suggesting that they would not be willing to hand it over without that kind of payment and that is not a wise way to spend taxpayer money.

Also, if the issue is so trivial according to you, there wouldn't be opposition to Dublin Bus losing its livery.

I've seen very few people who are upset by the change in livery outside those who do so because of ideology or the fact that they consider themselves more as a supporter of Dublin Bus rather than a supporter of public transport as a whole and see the bigger picture of what the NTA are trying to achieve.

The simple fact is that we need to have an overall public transport brand that puts the overall system first rather than a group of companies that are taking taxpayer money and all pushing their own commercial agenda, whilst claiming they are better than commercial operators because they have no commercial agenda and will put the public first.

The current system where we have each publicly funded operator having their own livery, website, app, maps and denying that others exist because they are more interested in self sustainability than the public service remit they were created to serve, is appalling for public transport users and tourists alike.

Personally I don't care about operators, I care about systems and services and moving from an operator first regime to an integration led regime is long overdue.

Stephen15

SG317 wrote: »

Well if the vast majority according to you didn't know about a public consultation on the livery, don't you think that says something about the consultation? I'm sorry, but the livery of all PSO services is not trivial. Dublin Bus actually spent a fair bit of time consulting relevant parties as-well as the bus regarding the livery. There is a lot of logic to the current Dublin Bus Livery. The NTA didn't even bother themselves to consult the Public properly and came up with a much less appealing livery that is also a poor copy of London's TFL brand. Also, if the issue is so trivial according to you, there wouldn't be opposition to Dublin Bus losing its livery.

The livery HAS to be changed because Go-Ahead and Dublin Bus buses have to be in the same livery so passengers know that both services are the same with the same fares etc. We can't have a situation where Go-Ahead and Dublin Bus buses are in two different liveries. Passengers have to be reassured both services are the same.

There was a survey done regarding the livery about a year ago. All the liveries proposed were awful and I assume the feedback was for a large part negative as a lot of people seemed to agree with me so the NTA had to go back to the drawing board to propose the new livery which will be the now be the new livery.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

There was a survey done regarding the livery about a year ago. All the liveries proposed were awful and I assume the feedback was for a large part negative as a lot of people seemed to agree with me so the NTA had to go back to the drawing board to propose the new livery which will be the now be the new livery.

Feedback was certainly taken on-board which is why the base colour was changed from white to blue, since the feedback given I've seen stated in the public domain was that white is too hard to distinguish and will show dirt early.

The simple fact is that if there are reasons that something is not possible, then however much you want it, it's not going to change the fact that it is not possible.

Slutmonkey57b

Bambi wrote: »

That's not what I said, read the post again and try correcting yourself. Good chap

I note you've had to chop the bottom half of my comment off there in order to claim I'm misrepresenting what you said.

Stephen15

SG317 wrote: »

I don't understand why people who don't live or commute from certain areas, think they understand the needs of the people in those areas better than the people who actually live or commute from there. I notice this especially on Twitter, where a few users who claim to be just commuters are basically glorifying the plan and telling people who actually live in the areas that their service would be better, when that is not true.

But perhaps those people might actually want to commute to those areas despite not living there but can't at present because of the poor bus service

The major problem with this plan is, it was not created with any public consultation. I know that they have a public consultation now, but that's after the plan has been proposed and it's clear they don't want to alter too much of it.

So what do want a situation each and every member of the public can make decisions. If that was the case boat would be being pulled about a thousand different directions as everyone would be pushing a service which suits them as an individual the most and not the wider population as a whole leading ultimately to zero joined up thinking and a plan which is never even decided on let alone implemented.

Sure what's the point on consultants, town planners and civil servants when everthing should be just put out to public consultation before a plan is even made.

The Consultants also said that if there is heavy opposition the plan won't go through, which would result in yet again money being wasted on drawing fancy maps and plans of public transport infrastructure, that is then not implemented.

And that's the worry here with the plan in general.

Doesn't matter what statistics they used, some of the proposed changes are thoughtless. People who don't use public transport and don't commute from certain areas, won't know the public transport needs of that areas as-well as the people who do commute from those areas.

Of course not that's why it's out for public consultation where the public can inform the NTA of what ideas they think are good and what are bad ideas for their own areas which are being proposed.

To be honest one of the main aspects of this plan I think was to make the bus service as profitable as possible. Why else have rural areas with an already infrequent bus service, had their bus service withdrawn completely under this plan.

You keep mentioning that the 40b, 41b and the 44b are all being withdrawn. However the proposed map only focuses on areas with a service of every 60 mins or more that's why the peak only services aren't on the map. Look at the map of the existing network on the bus connects map and you'll notice that those routes are also omitted from the map.

Where are you getting this profitability nonsense from if the aim was to be profitable there would only be a handful of routes serving a handful of people at handful of times which are profitable.

Dyr

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I note you've had to chop the bottom half of my comment off there in order to claim I'm misrepresenting what you said.

I didn't need to quote the rest of your post as the misrepresentation was in the first sentence. I never said it would fail because previous plans failed. I said it would fail because it won't address the organizational shortcomings that caused the other plans to fail.

SG317

devnull wrote:

Feedback was certainly taken on-board which is why the base colour was changed from white to blue, since the feedback given I've seen stated in the public domain was that white is too hard to distinguish and will show dirt early.

Except that the livery with the blue was rejected by attendees of a disability meeting recently. A lot of the consultation was done after buses for Go Ahead began to be painted into the new PSO livery. There were numerous concerns about how the blue is not the easiest to see when it's dark, not as clearly as the yellow. So, the public wasn't consulted really, no.

Also regarding your point that they have to operate under the same livery, I do get the logic and NTA's thinking behind that. However, at the end of the day, there is a difference in the service.
One operater is owned by the State, and is paying their drivers more while charging a lower fee.
The other operator is charging a higher fee, paying it's drivers less and operating purely for profit.
So maybe the public should be able to clearly distinguish who their opertor is. As was said by a TD, the same livery can lead the public to not being aware who their operator is and hence them not being aware of further privitasation.

SG317

Stephen15 wrote:

So what do want a situation each and every member of the public can make decisions. If that was the case boat would be being pulled about a thousand different directions as everyone would be pushing a service which suits them as an individual the most and not the wider population as a whole leading ultimately to zero joined up thinking and a plan which is never even decided on let alone implemented.

This plan was created based on a survey that 1% of the population filled out, and statistics. A plan that sees the complete overhaul of the bus network, requires the input of people who have actually use the bus service, when being drawn up. That would immediately have wiped out some of the rather thoughtless proposals in this plan. Of course there needs to be a base plan.

Stephen15 wrote:

Sure what's the point on consultants, town planners and civil servants when everthing should be just put out to public consultation before a plan is even made.

That is not what I said and is a pure misrepresentation. Consultants, Town Planner and Civil Cervants are certainly needed, but when you draw up a plan that is ultimately for the public there needs to be some public input when the plan is being drawn up too. At the end of the day the public knows best what their needs are.

Stephen15 wrote:

Of course not that's why it's out for public consultation where the public can inform the NTA of what ideas they think are good and what are bad ideas for their own areas which are being proposed.

That's great that they are having a public consultation, however how much will people be listened to is another question.

Stephen15 wrote:

You keep mentioning that the 40b, 41b and the 44b are all being withdrawn. However the proposed map only focuses on areas with a service of every 60 mins or more that's why the peak only services aren't on the map. Look at the map of the existing network on the bus connects map and you'll notice that those routes are also omitted from the map.

You will actually notice that in the maps in the report of the current network the routes are actually on the maps. They are not in the proposed network maps, because they have been withdrawn. This was confirmed by one of the consultants. Also the 235 is in one of the proposed network map, that has a less than hourly frequency. Routes are still withdrawn, so the less than hourly routes not being on the map doesn't is not really relevant.

Stephen15 wrote:

Where are you getting this profitability nonsense from if the aim was to be profitable there would only be a handful of routes serving a handful of people at handful of times which are profitable.

The fact that rural areas and housing estates are losing services. As-well as popular expresso routes being withdrawn and people being essentially forced on to the already packed Luas and Trains. Also if you look at the routes, most of them are profitable, the ones that aren't have a reduced frequency and short routing.

Stephen15

SG317 wrote: »

Except that the livery with the blue was rejected by attendees of a disability meeting recently. A lot of the consultation was done after buses for Go Ahead began to be painted into the new PSO livery. There were numerous concerns about how the blue is not the easiest to see when it's dark, not as clearly as the yellow. So, the public wasn't consulted really, no.

Of course there are going to some concerns like there is with any change. Just because there are some concerns does not mean we should be allergic to change. Plenty of cities have buses which are not painted in garish yellow and I've not heard any complaints about people not being able to see the buses in the dark. I also dont remember any complaints about the buses being hard to see when the they were in other liveries such as the Green livery or the Navy and cream livery.

It's almost as illogical an argument as when Sir Alex Ferguson blamed the players not being able to see each other when wearing an away kit for a defeat and making the players change kit at half time.

Also regarding your point that they have to operate under the same livery, I do get the logic and NTA's thinking behind that. However, at the end of the day, there is a difference in the service.
One operater is owned by the State, and is paying their drivers more while charging a lower fee.
The other operator is charging a higher fee, paying it's drivers less and operating purely for profit.
So maybe the public should be able to clearly distinguish who their opertor is. As was said by a TD, the same livery can lead the public to not being aware who their operator is and hence them not being aware of further privitasation.

There is no difference in the service all going well. Routes will be the same, timetables will be the same if not better, fares will be the same passengers won't know any different.

I'm not going anymore off topic but I do have my concerns some of which appear to be quashed with Go-Ahead which can be seen over in the other thread which is all about the tendering of routes over to Go-Ahead.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

There were numerous concerns about how the blue is not the easiest to see when it's dark, not as clearly as the yellow. So, the public wasn't consulted really, no.

So you're saying that Yellow is easier to see than blue, I can see why you come to that conclusion and as you say other groups have stated the same kind of thing, although some (but not all) of said parties are not simply against the livery because of the reasons you say.

Simple fact is that Dublin Bus could have handed over their non commercial brand and we'd not be having this conversation, but they decided not to do so, as it seems they value their commercial interests and money (which they claim they do not have) were far more important than the groups you describe.

One operater is owned by the State, and is paying their drivers more while charging a lower fee. The other operator is charging a higher fee, paying it's drivers less and operating purely for profit.

Comparing the two operators is like comparing apples and oranges right now as both have a different kind of contract, one is a net cost and one is a gross cost and since we haven't seen the bids of both parties for the tender it's impossible to make a conclusion like that.

So maybe the public should be able to clearly distinguish who their opertor is.

Personally I think that it's staggering that you do not care about the ease of usage of a public service and are more wrapped up in an argument about ideology. If we want to get people out of their cars to ease increasing congestion we need to promote a cohesive, integrated system where everyone works together for a common goal to grow passenger numbers, rather than just doing what is best for them individually.

As was said by a TD, the same livery can lead the public to not being aware who their operator is and hence them not being aware of further privitasation.

Do you really think that the most pressing concern over people who use public transport is who operates the service?
The majority of bus enthusiasts and those involved in unions and politics might have that view, but the vast majority of the public don't care about it.

Because the vast majority of people who use public transport just want a service that is easy to use and doesn't require you to have to check half a dozen different websites to find out all the information they need, or leave them to fend for themselves when their journey might involve using differnet operators or differnet transport modes.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

Also if you look at the routes, most of them are profitable, the ones that aren't have a reduced frequency and short routing.

Which routes are profitable and what do you base this on?

The reason I ask, is that the whole reason that PSO routes are deemed to be PSO routes is because they are not profitable in the first place.

SG317

Stephen15 wrote:

Of course there are going to some concerns like there is with any change. Just because there are some concerns does not mean we should be allergic to change. Plenty of cities have buses which are not painted in garish yellow and I've not heard any complaints about people not being able to see the buses in the dark. I also dont remember any complaints about the buses being hard to see when the they were in other liveries such as the Green livery or the Navy and cream livery.

My main point was that the NTA didn't consult the Public very well. For first their livery is not especially appealing and most people I have talked to agree. It also has very little though having gone in it, as-well as well as not being the easiest to see for people with visual impairments. Also there have been complicaints about the blue not being the easiest to see. I have no problem with change, I have a problem though with the public who this service is for, not having a proper say in these changes.

Stephen15

SG317 wrote: »

This plan was created based on a survey that 1% of the population filled out, and statistics. A plan that sees the complete overhaul of the bus network, requires the input of people who have actually use the bus service, when being drawn up. That would immediately have wiped out some of the rather thoughtless proposals in this plan. Of course there needs to be a base plan.

For a survey 1% is a good a response rate it's a good sample of the population I would say the overwhelming majority are bus users as why would non bus users respond to a survey which doesn't effect them

That is not what I said and is a pure misrepresentation. Consultants, Town Planner and Civil Cervants are certainly needed, but when you draw up a plan that is ultimately for the public there needs to be some public input when the plan is being drawn up too. At the end of the day the public knows best what their needs are.

Is the public consultation not enough public input? It's a proposed network and yes I agree it's not perfect and has its flaws in my opinion so I've made my submission to the NTA. How do you suggest the public get involved in drawing up the network in the first place.

That's great that they are having a public consultation, however how much will people be listened to is another question.

That remains to be seen I would suggest you do what you can and make submissions and if they are logical and popular then they be considered but again that remains to be seen. So we will have to wait and see until after the plan is made after the public consultation.

You will actually notice that in the maps in the report of the current network the routes are actually on the maps. They are not in the proposed network maps, because they have been withdrawn. This was confirmed by one of the consultants. Also the 235 is in one of the proposed network map, that has a less than hourly frequency. Routes are still withdrawn, so the less than hourly routes not being on the map doesn't is not really relevant.

They are not on the Bus Connects existing network map nor is the 235 route.

https://www.busconnects.ie/initiatives/dublin-area-bus-network-redesign-public-consultation-report/

Dyr

SG317 wrote: »

My main point was that the NTA didn't consult the Public very well. For first their livery is not especially appealing and most people I have talked to agree. It also has very little though having gone in it, as-well as well as not being the easiest to see for people with visual impairments. I have no problem with change, I have a problem though with the public who this service is for, not having a proper say in these changes.

I'm not a fan of the livery but if you can't see a double decker bus coming you might be a bit more than visually impaired. It's not like they're inconspicuous

john boye

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the livery but if you can't see a double decker bus coming you might be a bit more than visually impaired. It's not like they're inconspicuous

Also the bright LED displays they have these days are hard to miss.

r93kaey5p2izun

Was the initial survey only carried out online?

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

My main point was that the NTA didn't consult the Public very well. For first their livery is not especially appealing and most people I have talked to agree. It also has very little though having gone in it, as-well as well as not being the easiest to see for people with visual impairments. I have no problem with change, I have a problem though with the public who this service is for, not having a proper say in these changes.

A lot of people I have talked to think it's a fresh start and leaving the past behind but certainly some people don't like it, but you're not going to please every single person all of the time whatever you do.

Dublin Bus, as a company set up to serve the public before any commercial interests, could have done exactly that by handing over the livery to the NTA if they were so concerned about the effects on disability groups. However their chairman appeared at a committee meeting, seemingly naming a 8 figure price on the value of the brand instead which was always going to necessitate a new livery.