BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

noelfirl

AlekSmart wrote: »

I say huzzah to the NBRU,as it has very definitely exposed the lack of focus within the NTA,who are as a result,now being seen as largely clueless.

Seriously? You think the NTA's inertia is justification for a concerted effort at well poisoning by the NBRU? I'm surprised, to be honest that you would suggest that.

The NBRU's interests should be on the working conditions of its members. It should have zero role in cogitating or rabble rousing about how the bus network is designed.

john boye

noelfirl wrote: »

Seriously? You think the NTA's inertia is justification for a concerted effort at well poisoning by the NBRU? I'm surprised, to be honest that you would suggest that.

The NBRU's interests should be on the working conditions of its members. It should have zero role in cogitating or rabble rousing about how the bus network is designed.

I can understand what Alek is saying (I think). Just that the campaign by the NBRU has been been opportunistic and actually quite clever of them while the NTA lets the grass grow under their feet.

n!ghtmancometh

NBRU document that was published earlier doesn't contain any inaccuracies as far as I can see. Why couldn't Walker and his cronies produce such a comparatively easy to digest document?

noelfirl

john boye wrote: »

I can understand what Alek is saying (I think). Just that the campaign by the NBRU has been been opportunistic and actually quite clever of them while the NTA lets the grass grow under their feet.

I get what Alek is saying. I disagree entirely that the opportunistic and clever campaign by the NBRU is justified, even if the NTA are being incompetent in getting the benefits of Bus Connects across. Selectively presenting a one sided narrative to try and head something off from happening shouldn't be condoned.

Dyr

devnull wrote: »

I think that the NTA need to start holding their own roadshows very soon because there seems to be a lot of fear being whipped up with scaremongering with community groups taking what the likes of the NBRU are saying at face value, without being presented with the actual plans from the NTA and Jarrett Walker.

Anyone want to have a crack at listing what the NBRU have wrong in this very basic but easy-to-read summary of changes that's presented on a route by route basis (thus making it useful to community groups in a manner that was beyond the NTA and JWA's combined wherewithal to comprehend )?

r93kaey5p2izun

The NBRU document seems like just a very basic summary of changes to me, neither positive nor negative. If their aim is to undermine the proposals (the narrative being promoted here) then they've missed out lots of opportunities to emphasise negative changes. Why miss that chance if they're only trying to stop it?

john boye

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

NBRU document that was published earlier doesn't contain any inaccuracies as far as I can see. Why couldn't Walker and his cronies produce such a comparatively easy to digest document?

It may not contain inaccuracies (I haven't looked at all of it so I'll take your word for it) but in all the cases I've looked at it only contains half or even a quarter of the story. For instance it says the 54A is being pulled without replacement but that's just a lie. It's being replaced as far as the Spawell by the F1/F2 (can't remember which) and Kiltipper will be served by the 16 route which is largely the current 15B extended.

Likewise the only Changes to the 150 route are a new terminus and reverting back to the Crumlin Road route instead of the torturous Kildare/Clogher Road and the tenters routing. So what do the NBRU say is happening to the route? Well of course they say that it's being replaced by the low frequency rte. 20! The only place it's replacing the 150 is on the Kildare Road section which the 150 is dropping! These are the only routes I've looked at on their document and both are blatant lies so I can only assume that the rest of it is similarly structured.

devnull

Bambi wrote: »

Anyone want to have a crack at listing what the NBRU have wrong in this very basic but easy-to-read summary of changes that's presented on a route by route basis (thus making it useful to community groups in a manner that was beyond the NTA and JWA's combined wherewithal to comprehend )?

They overly simplify the changes that are being made and consider if a bus services a particular area directly before and if it does anymore as the only way to judge if an area has adequate provision of public transport.

This is a bad way to judge such things, because whilst a place may lose a direct service that runs to place A a certain number of times a day, they may be able to reach that place many more times a day with a connection which actually will mean it is easier to get to and from their destination since they have to wait far less time for what might be an infrequent bus even if it is direct.

Also there are many places that would be able to be reached much quicker under the new network whereas now you would have to go all the way into the city center and back out to go to a lot of these places with the current system. One of my pet hates of the current system is I can be a handful of km away from a place but I have to go all the way into the city center and back out again to reach it by Public Transport.

Jarrett Walker has designed a network, the current situation in Dublin is not a functional network, it's almost every bus route out for itself without anything integrating them which is why we have little orbital routes and everything resolves around the city centre because the current system is not a network, because the word network implies that everything works together when it doesn't.

Are you telling me that you would really have one direct bus an hour for example to your destination, rather than having a feeder bus that runs every 15 minutes that connects you with an ultra high frequency spine that takes you to your destination? If so, that is plain odd. Having a direct bus is nice, but it's not worth waiting another 45 minutes for.

Stephen15

Bambi wrote: »

Anyone want to have a crack at listing what the NBRU have wrong in this very basic but easy-to-read summary of changes that's presented on a route by route basis (thus making it useful to community groups in a manner that was beyond the NTA and JWA's combined wherewithal to comprehend )?

Would you not think what they are saying in the their thesis is a little on the vague side eg. Not listing frequencies on the orbital routes or spines. Also saying that areas direct links are removed while true it's not really a valid argument if the frequency on the local/orbital route is good aswell as the spine route/Luas/Dart which it is connecting with.

Other inaccuracies they have said was that double deckers on orbital/locals would be replaced by 28 seater minibuses which is not one bit accurate as they are almost inferring that a city bus would be replaced with something like a Mercedes vario with no standing room not to mention that single deckers buses come in various different sizes

devnull

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

The NBRU document seems like just a very basic summary of changes to me, neither positive nor negative. If their aim is to undermine the proposals (the narrative being promoted here) then they've missed out lots of opportunities to emphasise negative changes. Why miss that chance if they're only trying to stop it?

Well there is an inaccuracy about the DART saying that all trains will be shrunk to allow a more frequent service, when part of the 10 minute DART timetable will involve stored sets being returned to service to increase capacity at the same time as increasing the frequency.

There's another one stating that all local services are going to be operated by 28 seater single deck buses, despite the fact that the operator who has the contract for all the local orbital routes will start off with a fleet of 85 double deck buses and 40 single deck buses.

r93kaey5p2izun

devnull wrote: »

Well there is an inaccuracy about the DART saying that all trains will be shrunk to allow a more frequent service, when part of the 10 minute DART timetable will involve stored sets being returned to service to increase capacity at the same time as increasing the frequency.

There's another one stating that all local services are going to be operated by 28 seater single deck buses, despite the fact that the operator who has the contract for all the local orbital routes will start off with a fleet of 85 double deck buses and 40 single deck buses.

I didn't claim there weren't inaccuracies - I simply stated it's strange that they've missed out on pointing out lots of negative changes if they're really set on opposing the plan.

john boye

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

I didn't claim there weren't inaccuracies - I simply stated it's strange that they've missed out on pointing out lots of negative changes if they're really set on opposing the plan.

They probably haven't looked at it enough to notice all the negatives

Stephen15

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

I didn't claim there weren't inaccuracies - I simply stated it's strange that they've missed out on pointing out lots of negative changes if they're really set on opposing the plan.

The only negatives they mentioned were loss of direct service to the city centre on certain routes. No mention of frequencies at all.

LeinsterDub

n!ghtmancometh wrote: »

NBRU document that was published earlier doesn't contain any inaccuracies as far as I can see. Why couldn't Walker and his cronies produce such a comparatively easy to digest document?

Because it's easier to tear things down than build things up?

Stevek101

The Direct Award contract is up in 2019 so everything can be changed then. It would of be favourable for the staff if the Union did not to get involved in rumour and speculation. I don't see SIPTU taking the same approach.

There most likely won't be a change of government now before 2020 or 21 so the direction the market has gone will likely continue. SIPTU might not mind a few extra union subs at the expense or someone else.

Stephen15

Another complete inaccuracy they mentioned was saying that convenience is just as important as frequency. When the matter of fact frequency is convenience if a service isin't frequent it's not convenient.

devnull

Stevek101 wrote: »

The Direct Award contract is up in 2019 so everything can be changed then. It would of be favourable for the staff if the Union did not to get involved in rumour and speculation. I don't see SIPTU taking the same approach.

NBRU have always been the more vocal union though haven't they.

On the subject of that, I came across this last week:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh1wNrWXUAA0Xsz.jpg

Has there been a lot of DB staff switching unions because of this?

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Another complete inaccuracy they mentioned was saying that convenience is just as important as frequency. When the matter of fact frequency is convenience if a service isin't frequent it's not convenient.

From reading Dermot O'Leary's tweets I get the impression that they define convenience as how many direct services they have, rather than how many journeys per day are possible from one place to another.

I would say being able to jump on a bus every 15 minutes for example to join a spine that might be every 5-6 minutes for example to your destination would be preferable to having just a direct bus every 60 minutes.

r93kaey5p2izun

Going back to something raised here over the past week, I have had confirmation that commuter rail won't be included in the 90 minute fare. The current €1 discount on a second fare within 90 minutes (which currently includes rail) is not likely to continue either. No clarification on fare capping was given. I'm actually flabbergasted by this. All talk of increased connections to local train stations as compensation for lost bus services must be considered in this context. This is completely unacceptable. The short hop commuter rail zone must be included in order for this plan to work for many areas further out.

Stevek101

devnull wrote: »

NBRU have always been the more vocal union though haven't they.

On the subject of that, I came across this last week:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh1wNrWXUAA0Xsz.jpg

Has there been a lot of DB staff switching unions because of this?

Declining subs is what this is all about and fear and paranoia is what is drives the remaining members. Ironically they are the better off in the company. NBRU are all about protecting the old guard at all costs which makes sense but it doesn't make sense for their survival.


This was never about the customer and nor should it be but it would make more sense for the staff in this instance to stay out of this discussion. Especially with a pay claim coming down the tracks.

Qrt

john boye wrote: »

It may not contain inaccuracies (I haven't looked at all of it so I'll take your word for it) but in all the cases I've looked at it only contains half or even a quarter of the story. For instance it says the 54A is being pulled without replacement but that's just a lie. It's being replaced as far as the Spawell by the F1/F2 (can't remember which) and Kiltipper will be served by the 16 route which is largely the current 15B extended.

Likewise the only Changes to the 150 route are a new terminus and reverting back to the Crumlin Road route instead of the torturous Kildare/Clogher Road and the tenters routing. So what do the NBRU say is happening to the route? Well of course they say that it's being replaced by the low frequency rte. 20! The only place it's replacing the 150 is on the Kildare Road section which the 150 is dropping! These are the only routes I've looked at on their document and both are blatant lies so I can only assume that the rest of it is similarly structured.

They also say the D2 will be going through Druncondra, avoiding the Malahide Road, despite the fact that all the D buses will be going up the Malahide Road.

BonnieSituation

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

Going back to something raised here over the past week, I have had confirmation that commuter rail won't be included in the 90 minute fare. The current €1 discount on a second fare within 90 minutes (which currently includes rail) is not likely to continue either. No clarification on fare capping was given. I'm actually flabbergasted by this. All talk of increased connections to local train stations as compensation for lost bus services must be considered in this context. This is completely unacceptable. The short hop commuter rail zone must be included in order for this plan to work for many areas further out.

Confirmation from where?

Dyr

devnull wrote: »

They overly simplify the changes that are being made and consider if a bus services a particular area directly before and if it does anymore as the only way to judge if an area has adequate provision of public transport.

This is a bad way to judge such things, because whilst a place may lose a direct service that runs to place A a certain number of times a day, they may be able to reach that place many more times a day with a connection which actually will mean it is easier to get to and from their destination since they have to wait far less time for what might be an infrequent bus even if it is direct.

Also there are many places that would be able to be reached much quicker under the new network whereas now you would have to go all the way into the city center and back out to go to a lot of these places with the current system. One of my pet hates of the current system is I can be a handful of km away from a place but I have to go all the way into the city center and back out again to reach it by Public Transport.

Jarrett Walker has designed a network, the current situation in Dublin is not a functional network, it's almost every bus route out for itself without anything integrating them which is why we have little orbital routes and everything resolves around the city centre because the current system is not a network, because the word network implies that everything works together when it doesn't.

Are you telling me that you would really have one direct bus an hour for example to your destination, rather than having a feeder bus that runs every 15 minutes that connects you with an ultra high frequency spine that takes you to your destination? If so, that is plain odd. Having a direct bus is nice, but it's not worth waiting another 45 minutes for.

Thats a very long winded way to admit that you don't know if any of their document is actually incorrect.

Networks don't have to work together, although they should for optimal use of resources. In fact, good networks don't rely on single points of failure and maintain the ability for nodes to work in isolation.

We had most of Phibsboro closed off to traffic today, that would have roundly screwed Jarret's plan for transfers on that high frequency spine as I've pointed out previously. These sorts of events are not uncommon but I doubt JWA are aware of that

Add to that the previous habit of promising areas feeder buses to offset route changes and then implementing a token service that will be discontinued at the first opportunity and you'll probably see why locals will take a what-we-have-we-hold attitude. Transport Depts have a massive credibility gap that's not being narrowed to judge by recent events. I'd be a big fan of orbital routes but skeptical of low frequency orbitals that are supposed to link to high frequency routes

devnull

Bambi wrote: »

Thats a very long winded way to admit that you don't know if any of their document is actually incorrect.

Actually the point I was trying to make is that they were over simplifying the changes to the public for the most part.

The thing with oversimplification is that it's very easy to make some headline claims if you ignore the details and cherry pick the bits that suit your view and just ignore the bits that don't and simply hide them from public view. Most of the time when people are oversimplifying they do it so a distorted impression is given to make something look either much better or much worse than it actually is, because giving access to full details might give people the full story rather than the bits you selected to disclose.

And I've already called out the issues about the false claims about the 28 seater buses and the fact that the DART capacity is being increased.

Add to that the previous habit of promising areas feeder buses to offset route changes and then implementing a token service that will be discontinued at the first opportunity and you'll probably see why locals will take a what-we-have-we-hold attitude.

So what you're saying is if someone says they are going to improve things, then we shouldn't allow them to do it, because they are not going to improve things and we should never trust them?

With that kind of attitude, nothing will ever move forward, it's almost like saying, everything is bad, but I don't trust there to be change, so I'll keep saying everything is bad whilst not wanting it to change.

r93kaey5p2izun

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Confirmation from where?

Bus Connects.

MJohnston

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Is it really? I mean we all accept there are people who have major mobility issue. But frankly no bus service is going to be ideal for them.

I think its fair to point out what distance 300 - 500 metres actually is in the real world.

I think it's fair and reasonable to discuss what we are aiming to have. For example x% of people with yM of bus stop.

Something along the lines of 90% within 500m and maybe even more refined 80% within 300m. I would suggest is a reasonable target and I believe this program will meet those figures.

Yes, I think it's counterproductive because it makes the discussion about whether you're dismissing elderly people or not, which gets us all buried in silly emotional discussions.



Realistically, those of us supporting this plan need to get behind the idea that it does inconvenience some people and that this is okay as part of a compromise that overall makes things better for many more people.

Stephen15

Bambi wrote: »

Thats a very long winded way to admit that you don't know if any of their document is actually incorrect.

Networks don't have to work together, although they should for optimal use of resources. In fact, good networks don't rely on single points of failure and maintain the ability for nodes to work in isolation.

We had most of Phibsboro closed off to traffic today, that would have roundly screwed Jarret's plan for transfers on that high frequency spine as I've pointed out previously. These sorts of events are not uncommon but I doubt JWA are aware of that

Add to that the previous habit of promising areas feeder buses to offset route changes and then implementing a token service that will be discontinued at the first opportunity and you'll probably see why locals will take a what-we-have-we-hold attitude. Transport Depts have a massive credibility gap that's not being narrowed to judge by recent events. I'd be a big fan of orbital routes but skeptical of low frequency orbitals that are supposed to link to high frequency routes

So tell me how would the proposed network would fair any worse during periods of disruption than it does today? Traffic disruption due to accidents, roadworks, festivals, concerts etc. can cause severe traffic disruption and in some cases chaos at present how would this be worse after bus connects than it is right now.

The reason feeder buses failed in the past was because they introduced along side existing radial routes and also these routes had low frequencies. Integration was poor as people had to pay twice unless they bought T90 ticket and they couldn't use that to transfer to a DART.

An example I can think of was the 111 which used to run parallel to the 7 between Loughlinstown and DL the idea was that people would transfer onto the DART in DL. It had a frequency during the week of every 20 mins back on the day and the long term aim I believe was to only run the 7 to DL only as the Loughlinstown leg of the 7 would cancelled.

However people continued to use the 7 instead and would wait for it even if the 111 came first as people didn't want to have to change as they thought it was a pain which is it wasn't bear in mind this was in the 80's/90's When the DART was more frequent than it is today. People would only use the 111 if going to DL.

SG317

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote:

Going back to something raised here over the past week, I have had confirmation that commuter rail won't be included in the 90 minute fare. The current €1 discount on a second fare within 90 minutes (which currently includes rail) is not likely to continue either. No clarification on fare capping was given. I'm actually flabbergasted by this. All talk of increased connections to local train stations as compensation for lost bus services must be considered in this context. This is completely unacceptable. The short hop commuter rail zone must be included in order for this plan to work for many areas further out.

I have also gotten confirmation of this. I agree with you it is absolutely unacceptable.

BonnieSituation

Anaya Angry Meatloaf wrote: »

Bus Connects.

Expand on that.

r93kaey5p2izun

I emailed them and they replied. They also have it on their twitter I see now.


https://mobile.twitter.com/BusConnects/status/1019225037671460864?p=p

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Expand on that.