BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

SG317

devnull wrote:

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.

I'm saying that people in general have said the yellow is easier to see than tye blue. That is why Dublin Bus chose the yellow.

From an economical sense there isn't a real incentive to hand over your company's brand to another company. At the end of the day a company can't really be expected to hand over the brand it has built over the years, to another company. It would essentially diminish their brand as it would no longer be theirs.

devnull wrote:

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.

It's been reported that Dublin Bus offered a 15% lower fee. It is also known Go Ahead will be paying less than Dublin Bus.

devnull wrote:

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.

I have to say, I actually find it staggering how people on this thread always have to make accusations to people who dare give an opposing view. Really says something. I actually do care about the easy usage of public transport and it being accessible for all, that is why unlike a lot of people on this thread I have actually asked about the areas that under this plan will be thrown under the bus and left with no bus service. I have also outlined a number of ways this plan will make it harder and more expensive for people to use public transport under this plan. While others. have tried to brush off frequency decreases as nothing to worry about. But sure surmise all you want, if it makes you feel better. FYI, I actually pointed out how it is unfair and unacceptable to get rid off services like the 33X and essentially force them onto the train for which they have to pay extra, as the 90 minute fare is only for Luas/Dart/Bus not including Commuter Lines and Dublin Short Hopper zone. Hardly proper integration there is it. Not to mention no word on whether the daily and weekly caps will be the same, a key part of integration that I again outlined. Before you make false accusations maybe you should read people's posts. Oh and also you don't convince people to not usw their cars, when you strip areas if their bus service, or make them pay extra.

devnull wrote:

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.

I did not say that is the most pressing concern, once again people on this thread exaggerating and making false accusations. You will find that people do care about who operates their service. If you tell someone you see that company over there, the NTA is paying them a higher fee and the company is paying their deivers less than the other company, I wonder how many people will not care as you claim.

devnull wrote:

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.

I never said anything about different websites, having a different livery doesn't make a big difference. There are actually capital cities that have buses doing PSO services in different liveries, doesn't seem to cause all this confusion or discourage people from using the bus as you claim. Also I fully agree that there will have to be standardised app and bus stops.

SG317

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

I was outling the concerns of people with visual impairments as-well as TD's. For me I would see it eitherway.

SG317

devnull wrote:

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

I base it on the fact that the least profitable routes that serve rural areas in Dublin and Wicklow are withdrawn with no replacement. That a lot of housing estatea are loaing their bus service. People being forced onto packed trams and trains, as bus services along those lines withdrawn in some cases or severely reduced frequency. Most if not all the spines would be profitable. A lot of the main orbital routes. Routes that are less profitable are feeder routes. Of course PSO isn't usually profitable, however under this plan it would be roughly as profitable as it could get, while fulfilling most of the PSO.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

From an economical sense there isn't a real incentive to hand over your company's brand to another company.

The thing is I would agree with you if we were talking about two commercial companies but at the end of the day the yellow livery is not a livery that is used for commercial services, it is a brand that is used for PSO services which are funded by the state to provide public services. It is not meant to be commercial.

At the end of the day a company can't really be expected to hand over the brand it has built over the years, to another company. It would essentially diminish their brand as it would no longer be theirs.

Whether or not a brand is diminished or not is a commercial matter and honestly if a public service is to be effective then the public service remit must come before any commercial interests. If it doesn't then it's laughable for such company to claim they are better than commercial companies because they don't act commercially, when they actually are.

It's been reported that Dublin Bus offered a 15% lower fee. It is also known Go Ahead will be paying less than Dublin Bus.

Can you show me a quote from someone who would have access to that information saying so, or an official press release, document or contract award that states that as a fact rather than someone speculating about it?

What we do know however is that Bus Eireann won the Waterford contract despite the fact they did not give the cheapest bid. That was confirmed by the NTA themselves in a press release at the time of the contract award.

While others. have tried to brush off frequency decreases as nothing to worry about. But sure surmise all you want, if it makes you feel better. FYI, I actually pointed out how it is unfair and unacceptable to get rid off services like the 33X and essentially force them onto the train for which they have to pay extra, as the 90 minute fare is only for Luas/Dart/Bus not including Commuter Lines and Dublin Short Hopper zone.

There are some areas which have a very high frequency of service that do not need it and there are others which are under served at the moment. Just because that somewhere is getting less frequency doesn't necessarily mean that the services will be overcrowded. I have been on bus services that go to an area every 10-15 minutes and that section of the route never takes more than a handful of passengers because the bulk of the passengers are coming further up the route.

It's worth pointing out that the vast majority of people using multi-mode options in the short hop zone would be regular users and rather than using the single tickets which have been talked about, will be hitting the already existing weekly caps which already cover all journeys within the short hop zone, so there will be no difference to the fares for them.

Hardly proper integration there is it. Not to mention no word on whether the daily and weekly caps will be the same.

There's nothing to suggest that they will change, so trying to scare people into believing that their prices are increasing when there is nothing to support it is a pretty low blow to be honest, although if you feel that strongly I'd certainly advise you to make your point known in the consultation and everyone else to do the same.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

That a lot of housing estatea are loaing their bus service. People being forced onto packed trams and trains, as bus services along those lines withdrawn in some cases or severely reduced frequency.

Are you aware that the capacity of DART is going to be increased and the fact that a fleet of stored commuter trains are being prepared for service and 26 trams are being lengthened by 10m at present with another 8 trams currently on order to add extra capacity to these modes?

Most if not all the spines would be profitable. A lot of the main orbital routes. Routes that are less profitable are feeder routes. Of course PSO isn't usually profitable, however under this plan it would be roughly as profitable as it could get, while fulfilling most of the PSO.

So what you are saying is that Dublin Bus is currently getting tens of millions of taxpayer money per year, on the basis that all routes are not profitable, but some of them actually are in practice? Do you think that they are using a large amount of profitable routes to subsidise some heavily loss making ones?

SG317

devnull wrote:

There's nothing to suggest that they will change, so trying to scare people into believing that their prices are increasing when there is nothing to support it is a pretty low blow to be honest, although if you feel that strongly I'd certainly advise you to make your point known in the consultation and everyone else to do the same.

Sorry I meant whether the caps would be the same for Bus/Luas/Dart or different as is now, else the 90 minutw fare is not too useful. They haven't mentioned this, so it is simply unknown.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

Sorry I meant whether the caps would be the same for Bus/Luas/Dart or different as is now, else the 90 minutw fare is not too useful. They haven't mentioned this, so it is simply unknown.

I don't see why they would change the caps when they have worked well up until now, although they haven't change for a little while, that is true so I imagine they would be due a raise in a little while no matter what.

Do you think the 90 minute fare is not useful now?

SG317

devnull wrote:

Are you aware that the capacity of DART is going to be increased and the fact that a fleet of stored commuter trains are being prepared for service and 26 trams are being lengthened by 10m at present with another 8 trams currently on order to add extra capacity to these modes?

Yes I am. However the Dart won't be extended to Balbriggan until 2022, plan is to be implemented in 2020 if it goes ahead. Commuter Lines are packed. Not much extra capacity can be added on the green Line apart from legntened trams, there is already two or three trams one behind another at rush hour in the City Centre on the green line.

john boye

SG317 wrote: »

I'm saying that people in general have said the yellow is easier to see than tye blue. That is why Dublin Bus chose the yellow.

That's a myth which has grown legs over the years. I worked for a company around 02/03 which was approached by DB to help design a new livery. DB were dead set on the new livery being white and there was no mention in the proposals about it needing to be visible to the visually impaired. They didn't go with us in the end (I think they designed it in-house ultimately - and you'd know) but white hite was turned down due to (understandable) opposition from maintenance who argued yellow would work better.

SG317

devnull wrote:

Do you think the 90 minute fare is not useful now?

devnull wrote:

I don't see why they would change the caps when they have worked well up until now, although they haven't change for a little while, that is true so I imagine they would be due a raise in a little while no matter what.

I don't think you got me. They are saying that the new 90 minute fare will cover Luas/Bus/Dart. To accommodate transfers. I was pointing out that there is no mention though if the daily and weekly caps wil be different depending on how many operators you would use, or would it be the same regardless if you use Bus/Luas/Dart. Hence would it be like now where if you only use the bus the cap is cheaper than if youbuse a combination of Bus/Luas/Dart, or would the daily cap be the same irregardless of whether you just use the bus, or you use the bus and Luas for example.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

Yes I am. However the Dart won't be extended to Balbriggan until 2022, plan is to be implemented in 2020 if it goes ahead. Commuter Lines are packed. Not much extra capacity can be added on the green Line apart from legntened trams, there is already two or three trams one behind another at rush hour in the City Centre on the green line.

The current capacity of the Green Line fleet is approx 11,000 passengers and that will be upgraded by 40% when the 8 new trams arrive and all existing ones are upgraded which is a substantial increase in capacity.

The upgrades to existing trams will increase that capacity by approx another 1,500 and the 8 new trams that are on order will increase it by a further 3,000 or so which gives you a new total passenger capacity of 15,500 or so.

The 10 minute DART when implemented will see a number of stored carriages go back into service and in conjunction with the frequency increases that will also increase capacity as well.

The 2700 trains coming back into service will be deployed to lines outside Dublin it looks like leaving additional commuter and ICR stock to lengthen existing commuter services as well.

So it's wrong to say that there are not capacity upgrades coming, there certainly are.

SG317

devnull wrote:

So what you are saying is that Dublin Bus is currently getting tens of millions of taxpayer money per year, on the basis that all routes are not profitable, but some of them actually are in practice? Do you think that they are using a large amount of profitable routes to subsidise some heavily loss making ones?

I am saying that under the proposed network the least profitable routes that provide a link for areas that would otherwise be isolated are gone in this plan, a lot of housing estates would not be served and Expresso's like the 33X and routes that run along the Luas/Dart/Train Lines would be gone or have severely reduced frequency, all this makes the network more profitable especially as people to get into town would most times have to use a Spine route, hence Spine routes would be profitable in the main. The proposed plan overall as network would be more profitable than the network currently, which at the moment is profitable.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

I am saying that under the proposed network the least profitable routes that provide a link for areas that would otherwise be isolated are gone in this plan.

Do you mean the ones which are losing money rather than least profitable, since I don't believe for a second that those rural routes would be profitable at all for the frequency that they have at the moment, there's just no way, especially with the high cost base of Dublin Bus.

The proposed plan overall as network would be more profitable than the network currently, which at the moment is profitable.

What you are talking about appears to be a surplus, which is what it is called when someone gets funding to do something, but still has money left over when it has finished doing it. It's technically not a profit.

In any case whether the network is profitable or not is not going to be a consideration in the future since it seems the NTA are insistent on a system where fares go to them rather than the operator.

devnull

john boye wrote: »

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

The new rage is bright white LED displays believe it or not!

SG317

devnull wrote:

Do you mean the ones which are losing money rather than least profitable, since I don't believe for a second that those rural routes would be profitable at all for the frequency that they have at the moment, there's just no way, especially with the high cost base of Dublin Bus.

Sorry, yes I mean loss making.

devnull wrote:

What you are talking about appears to be a surplus, which is what it is called when someone gets funding to do something, but still has money left over when it has finished doing it. It's technically not a profit.

Right, although people still pay tickets and some of the revenue comes from there, although surplus is probably the most correct term although news outlets and most people refer to the surplus that Dublin Bus made last year as profit. Anyway, this surplus/profit could be used to provide the 1 bus a day that do the likss of the 40B, 41B, 44B and 185 (past Enniskerry). They wouldn't even have to go into town, in reality it would not cost too much to serve these areas, especially if under the plan more routes are profitable.

Annasopra

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's the ideal solution but the hardware costs would be immense, even with a rationalisation in the number of stops. There must be thousands of bus stops on the network.

If we simply had buses with multiple doors with tag on at the front and tag off at the back it would be fine.

An aggressive revenue protection system would need to be in place with support from dedicated transport police. We can but dream.

You could have 2 or 3 machines and 1 door!!

john boye

devnull wrote: »

The new rage is bright white LED displays believe it or not!

Yeah I've seen them in other cities, I think they're an improvement. I'm not a fan of the orange/red ones Tbh.

Spanish Eyes

What's the bets that DB will have either a few strikes or demands for more pay to implement this.

It's a model for action sadly, but may be inevitable soon if yer man Dermot O' Leary is anything to go by.

LeinsterDub

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/false-information-about-dublin-bus-agenda-slated-by-planner-1.3572968?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

False information’ about Dublin Bus agenda slated by planner

SG317

devnull wrote:

The current capacity of the Green Line fleet is approx 11,000 passengers and that will be upgraded by 40% when the 8 new trams arrive and all existing ones are upgraded which is a substantial increase in capacity.

Certainly extra trams are needed on the Green Line, especially to even out services between O'Connell Street and Broombridge and Sandyford and Brides Glen. Is the Red Line not getting a capacity increase though? I noticed all the extensions to the trams and additions to fleet that you stated are for the Green Line. The Red Line is already at capacity as-well, Bus Connects also sees a reduction in frequency of lines running along the Red Line and people in certain areas having feeder buses to the Red Line. So, there will need to be a capacity increase on the Red Line as-well, from what you posted it doesn't look like the Red line will be getting an increase yet. Also 7 trams transferred from Red Cow to one of the Green Line Depots. Just wondering if the Red Line is due a capacity increase too, it should be at least before Bus Connects is introduced.

devnull wrote:

The 10 minute DART when implemented will see a number of stored carriages go back into service and in conjunction with the frequency increases that will also increase capacity as well.

10 minute Dart is certainly a welcome capacity increase, despite it initially being meant to happen in 2016. Only thing about the increased Dart frequency is Merrion Gates and Sydney Parade will have congestion issues, as the Gates will essentially be closed almost all the time. They already close quite frequently at rush hour.

devnull wrote:

So it's wrong to say that there are not capacity upgrades coming, there certainly are.

I didn't say that capacity upgrades weren't happening. I said that the Dart is not to be extended to Balbriggan until 2022. Which is the main capacity upgrade to happen on Northern Commuter Line and for users of the 33X and is certainly needed.

quadrifoglio verde

Qrt wrote: »

I don't mean to be smart, but does anyone actually live in Chapelizod? It must be one of the most unheard of places in the city.

I live in Chapelizod, a lovely village on the edge of the city with the park as my back garden.
I can be in town in 20 minutes cycling.

It doesn't need a hundred plus buses passing through it. The thing is it's a bottleneck for the bus service heading to leixlip maynooth and celbridge. 4 years of getting the 67 to and from celbridge to the city and back every day has thought me this. Easily added ten to fifteen minutes beach way. And yes a handful of people might get on in the morning, it was always small and hard to justify the significantly longer journey times. A journey on the 67x highlights this.

Fair enough, it's used by the people living here, but it never needed the level of service it currently has.

The biggest obstacle to the proposed changes to the routes is the fear of change itself. But change is needed. Currently the majority of our buses go from one destination in the suburbs to the city centre. Which is great if you work or need to get to the city centre or somewhere on that route. Not so great if you need to go anywhere else

dashcamdanny

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/false-information-about-dublin-bus-agenda-slated-by-planner-1.3572968?mode=amp&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

The NBRU has never stated false information about the Bus Connects plan.

"The committee heard from National Bus and Railworkers’ Union general secretary Dermot O’Leary who said the changes would end many direct services to the city centre and damage services to working-class communities".

Which is 100% correct.

I wonder if the consultation process was conducted in winter, would there be a more realistic view from the public.
When the true pain of getting frozen and soaked before and after your trip hits home.
People will be waiting on a second bus to take them to town, or even a 3rd to get you cross city.

Truth is, this plan will provide a loss of services to many people, and inconvenience many more.

MJohnston

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I live in Chapelizod, a lovely village on the edge of the city with the park as my back garden.
I can be in town in 20 minutes cycling.

It doesn't need a hundred plus buses passing through it. The thing is it's a bottleneck for the bus service heading to leixlip maynooth and celbridge. 4 years of getting the 67 to and from celbridge to the city and back every day has thought me this. Easily added ten to fifteen minutes beach way. And yes a handful of people might get on in the morning, it was always small and hard to justify the significantly longer journey times. A journey on the 67x highlights this.

Fair enough, it's used by the people living here, but it never needed the level of service it currently has.

The biggest obstacle to the proposed changes to the routes is the fear of change itself. But change is needed. Currently the majority of our buses go from one destination in the suburbs to the city centre. Which is great if you work or need to get to the city centre or somewhere on that route. Not so great if you need to go anywhere else

I suspect a lot of buses pass through Chapelizod simply because whoever planned the existing routes thought it would be wasteful for them to simply travel down the N4 QBC - in other words, that the only good bus is the one that is passing a bus stop every 2 minutes.

cgcsb

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ok. Back to the original point.

How are these people effected going to be accommodated? The NTA cant just swoop in and say a person may no longer keep a car on their property .


Or can they?

such is the nature of a CPO

cgcsb

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

If that's the suggestion to provide a world class bus service - reduce already low frequency to a massive centre of population growth to cover up operational deficiencies - then we may just give up altogether.

Look, I want the bus service transformed for the better. I like the whole philosophy of the plan. I can see lots of great things in the proposals if they are implemented properly. But surely something as clearly negative as decreased weekend frequency to a massive suburb can be discussed and questioned without needing to get defensive as if the whole plan is under attack!

current timetabled frequencies are a work of fiction anyway.

cgcsb

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

This hub for the blanch centre is crazy unless they've dedicated lanes. Traffic there is crazy at the best of times.

New bus only approach roads and covered bus interchange are planned.

plodder

devnull wrote: »

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.

Would make you wonder who owns Dublin Bus..

buffalo

dashcamdanny wrote: »

The NBRU has never stated false information about the Bus Connects plan.

"The committee heard from National Bus and Railworkers’ Union general secretary Dermot O’Leary who said the changes would end many direct services to the city centre and damage services to working-class communities".

Which is 100% correct

Theoretically the first part is correct, as BusConnects will end all current direct services to the city centre ...and then replace them with new ones.

Truth is, this plan will provide a loss of services to many people, and inconvenience many more.

However, I'd like to see the list of areas that are no longer served, with the working class areas highlighted. Could you provide that please?

Stephen15

MJohnston wrote: »

I suspect a lot of buses pass through Chapelizod simply because whoever planned the existing routes thought it would be wasteful for them to simply travel down the N4 QBC - in other words, that the only good bus is the one that is passing a bus stop every 2 minutes.

And the road planners who thought it would a good idea not to put any provision for bus stops or pedestrian access on the Chapelizod Bypass.

devnull

SG317 wrote: »

Certainly extra trams are needed on the Green Line, especially to even out services between O'Connell Street and Broombridge and Sandyford and Brides Glen. Is the Red Line not getting a capacity increase though? I noticed all the extensions to the trams and additions to fleet that you stated are for the Green Line. The Red Line is already at capacity as-well, Bus Connects also sees a reduction in frequency of lines running along the Red Line and people in certain areas having feeder buses to the Red Line. So, there will need to be a capacity increase on the Red Line as-well, from what you posted it doesn't look like the Red line will be getting an increase yet. Also 7 trams transferred from Red Cow to one of the Green Line Depots. Just wondering if the Red Line is due a capacity increase too, it should be at least before Bus Connects is introduced.

Before the Green Line extension to Broombridge was opened, I believe that they were not deploying the full fleet of trams on the red line, even at peak time, there was a fair few spare which means that they could potentially diagram a higher number in service should they be asked to, which would improve capacity.

You are right that a number of trams went from the Red Line to the Green line after the green line extension opened, however, the peak capacity of the Red Line was not decreased by 7 trams, because of the fact some of them were spare anyway as the timetable did not require for the full fleet to be in service on the Red Line. In any case, I believe most if not all of these have returned to the Red Cow depot now.

From what I understood whilst some Red Line trams transferred to the Green Line following the opening of the cross city line and the newer trams having been found to have issues, the majority of them have since gone back to the Red Line, which before transferring these trams to the Green Line, was not deploying it's full fleet on the red line.

10 minute Dart is certainly a welcome capacity increase, despite it initially being meant to happen in 2016. Only thing about the increased Dart frequency is Merrion Gates and Sydney Parade will have congestion issues, as the Gates will essentially be closed almost all the time. They already close quite frequently at rush hour.

Unfortunately the long drawn out issues with mentoring because of an industrial dispute meant that it was impossible to train up enough drivers to be able to run such services. I agree with you about the Merrion Gates, it's a big pinch point but it seems despite the will from the NTA to resolve it, it seems that other parties are not so in favour of the proposed fix, at least the last I heard, which is a travesty because it really is a boottleneck.

Which is the main capacity upgrade to happen on Northern Commuter Line and for users of the 33X and is certainly needed.

Sure, but if Portmarnock, Clongriffin and Malahide have a DART every 20 minutes rather than a DART every 30 minutes, that will move some of the passengers who are currently using Northern Commuter services to those three places onto the extra DART services, freeing up capacity as well as reduce the numbers taking a commuter service to Howth Junction and changing there, freeing up more space for stations that are uniquely served by the commuter lines.

Plus if we're seeing the 2700s coming back into service, that will free up a small number of 29000s which can then be redeployed to increase capacity elsewhere by increasing 4 car services to 8 car services for instance and perhaps allowing 29000 services to replace ICRs on services they are not suitable for, allowing ICRs to be used on more suitable routes and providing extra capacity there.