Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin Metrolink (just Metrolink posts here -see post #1 )
Options
Comments
-
Sam Russell wrote: »Also, a lot of people work at the airport. A link from Clongriffin, with another one from Swords, and continue onto Heuston, and further links using existing lines would make sense.
As regards rolling stock, they have plenty of Dart rolling stock as well. For the current service (15 min interval) they need 8 to 10 trains which rquires 80 coaches. That is how many they originally bought 30 years ago. They have double that number.
The diesel commuters appear to have a place to connect pantagraphs, so maybe changing them to electric might be not to be too big a job. Afterall they retrofitted the original Dart rolling stock.
Certainly, eletrifying the Maynooth line is a no-brainer, whatever else they do.
If the money is there to electrify and upgrade the Maynooth line, then why would it not be used as the State's share of the PPP for Dart Underground?
But that's a rhetorical question.
There is no money in the State coffers at present for rail projects and one of the reasons for that is the political choice the coalition has made on prioritising current over capital spending.
And they are especially not going to come up with €X00m for a rail project in the Dublin area when they are cutting circa €1billion from the health budget.
Until the political priorities of FG&Lab change, then any capital investment in rail in Dublin is off the agenda.
I'm not sure what part of that very simple equation people don't understand.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »If the Dart spur to the Airport was built - as suggested by IE - it would not be a standalone line but service all stops between the Airport/Clongriffin and Connolly without DartU and Inchicore or Hazelhatch with DartU.
Why though. I mean building a rail line has considerable capital cost. If it's not an express service, it would be considerably slower than Dublin Bus Airport Link or Aircoach. That rules it out for most people for city centre runs other than those who want to penny pinch. In which case it would just be loss making.
I really really really don't buy into a standalone Airport Rail connection. It would be a vanity project.
It only works in the context of other big stops. DCU, Ballymun, Swords.
Both Metro North and the Dublin Metro Group proposal have this.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Certainly, eletrifying the Maynooth line is a no-brainer, whatever else they do.
Comments like this just make no sense. What's wrong with the current train service? It works perfectly well. It's proved to be extremely reliable with current rolling stock.
Electrifying the line offers nothing better to the passenger than the current service. It has considerable capital cost. It would require new trains or existing stock to be electrified.
It would be yet another vanity project with no benefit to passengers.
Slightly quieter trains perhaps.0 -
Why though. I mean building a rail line has considerable capital cost. If it's not an express service, it would be considerably slower than Dublin Bus Airport Link or Aircoach. That rules it out for most people for city centre runs other than those who want to penny pinch. In which case it would just be loss making.
I really really really don't buy into a standalone Airport Rail connection. It would be a vanity project.
It only works in the context of other big stops. DCU, Ballymun, Swords.
Both Metro North and the Dublin Metro Group proposal have this.
Where has a standalone airport rail connection been proposed?
The proposed Clongriffin spur would not be a standalone line but would be integrated into the Dart service - serving all stops between Clongriffin and Connolly (or Pearse, DL or Bray) and or Heuston, Inchicore or Hazelhatch).
And if you look at the most recent business case for Dart Underground (2010), available on the IE website, you can see such a service is implicitly factored into the planned Dart schedule post-DU construction.
The estimated cost of the Airport-Clongriffin spur is €200m - a fraction of the €4bn total projected cost of the Dart scheme.0 -
Comments like this just make no sense. What's wrong with the current train service? It works perfectly well. It's proved to be extremely reliable with current rolling stock.
It's overcrowded at peak times and there's no scope for increasing capacity to meet extra demand as the economy recovers and starts growing.Electrifying the line offers nothing better to the passenger than the current service. It has considerable capital cost. It would require new trains or existing stock to be electrified.
Electric rolling stock means more stations can be added on the line as EMUs need much less braking distance than DMUs. Also electric trains are much cheaper to operate and maintain than diesel - about 35% cheaper according to a study for the UK DoT and about 20-25% acc to a study for IE.It would be yet another vanity project with no benefit to passengers.
It would have massive benefits for passengers in terms of allowing for extra trains and more frequent services and would allow more areas along the Maynooth line to be served by rail through additional stops.Slightly quieter trains perhaps.
Flippancy - the last resort of the clueless.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19092
Comments like this just make no sense. What's wrong with the current train service? It works perfectly well. It's proved to be extremely reliable with current rolling stock.
Electrifying the line offers nothing better to the passenger than the current service. It has considerable capital cost. It would require new trains or existing stock to be electrified.
It would be yet another vanity project with no benefit to passengers.
Slightly quieter trains perhaps.
Diesels are slow to accelerate and consequently are not of any use on a Dart style service. You cannot have stops close to each other. Just watch the nonsense of the commuter trains struggle between Connolly, Tara St, and Pearse. They are also extremely noisey and smelly. They could be used on a Connolly to Airport expess service via Clongriffin though.
Electrifying Connolly to Maynooth would integrate that service into the Dart and allow much more frequent services with direct connection to DL or Bray (all stops) with perhaps a few more stops added.
IE do not need new trains, they just restocked with Dart, Commuter and Intercity.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »Where has a standalone airport rail connection been proposed?.
The proposed part talked about by others is standalone between Clongriffin and the Airport. It doesn't serve any extra standard commuters.
Any investment should be to improve service for Dublin commuters, not serve the airport only which already has good express coach services through Port Tunnel, which offers good clear road.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
Why stop at the airport? Continue on to Heuston via Ballymun and Cabra and Phoenix Park Tunnel.The proposed part talked about by others is standalone between Clongriffin and the Airport. It doesn't serve any extra standard commuters.
Any investment should be to improve service for Dublin commuters, not serve the airport only which already has good express coach services through Port Tunnel, which offers good clear road.0 -
The proposed part talked about by others is standalone between Clongriffin and the Airport. It doesn't serve any extra standard commuters.
Any investment should be to improve service for Dublin commuters, not serve the airport only which already has good express coach services through Port Tunnel, which offers good clear road.
What planet are you on?
It's a spur off an existing line.
It's no different to the spur off the Luas Red line from Belgard to Saggart - except that the airport will generate far more trips.
There is nothing 'standalone' about it.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »What planet are you on?
It's a spur off an existing line.
It's no different to the spur off the Luas Red line from Belgard to Saggart - except that the airport will generate far more trips.
There is nothing 'standalone' about it.
Serving nothing but an airport, which is already well served by an express bus service through the port tunnel.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »Why stop at the airport? Continue on to Heuston via Ballymun and Cabra and Phoenix Park Tunnel.
Not my suggestion in the first place.
Metro North serves the airport better, as does the proposal from Dublin Metro group which indeed servers Ballymun, Cabra etc. via Phoenix Park Tunnel. I agree with both of these proposals.
My disagreement is that building a spur from either Clongriffin or Maynooth line is not such a great idea.
I don't agree with a spur or connection that just adds on service to the airport.
Nor do I agree with the crayons that have been brought out on this thread with peoples personal ideas on how to connect Dublin Airport to our commuter system.
Connecting the airport is pointless, unless built as part of a bigger system such as Metro.0 -
Serving nothing but an airport, which is already well served by an express bus service through the port tunnel.
Today - this is future development we are talking about.
Why do people insist on viewing the future through the prism of today?
Dublin Airport traffic is growing again and it will continue to grow as the economy recovers, strengthens and grows. As will the numbers employed there.
But such a spur will not simply serve Dublin Airport - there will be plenty of land either side of it to develop to serve future residential and employment needs.
Secondly, with the Dart Underground tunnel and the future electrification of the mainline intercity network - as IE is proposing through the 2020s - Dublin Airport can be served directly by Cork, Limerick, Galway and Belfast trains without the need to change.
As I said, there is nothing 'standalone' about the Airport spur from Clongriffin.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Diesels are slow to accelerate and consequently are not of any use on a Dart style service. You cannot have stops close to each other. Just watch the nonsense of the commuter trains struggle between Connolly, Tara St, and Pearse. They are also extremely noisey and smelly. They could be used on a Connolly to Airport expess service via Clongriffin though.
Electrifying Connolly to Maynooth would integrate that service into the Dart and allow much more frequent services with direct connection to DL or Bray (all stops) with perhaps a few more stops added.
IE do not need new trains, they just restocked with Dart, Commuter and Intercity.
They don't have enough DART's to run on Maynooth line so they would need new trains.
Electrifying to Maynooth on it's own fixes nothing. There isn't any extra capacity through Connolly and Loop line to run extra trains through to DL or Bray.
The money would be better spent in the short term, upgrading Connolly to have 2 segregated platforms for Maynooth line that do not cross Northern line. Services could be increased then. There is spare DMU's to cover increased service.
I'm not being flippant on the benefit of electric over diesel. I'm looking at the economies of it. It's hugely expensive to electrify a line and buy new trains. Irish Rail already made there decision and invested in Diesel DMU's for this line and Intercity over the last decade. These trains have to do for 40 years, so IE locked themselves out of electrifying the line for this time. If you want to take out your own cheque book then that's a different story.
The Dart Underground is the only way that new electric trains will be bought. Also the only way lines will be electrified. The argument that DMU's can't run through a tunnel would allow IE get around their error in buying so many DMU's (and not electrifying) in the first place.
The reality (in a recession), the DMU trains are good enough.0 -
They don't have enough DART's to run on Maynooth line so they would need new trains.
Electrifying to Maynooth on it's own fixes nothing. There isn't any extra capacity through Connolly and Loop line to run extra trains through to DL or Bray.
The money would be better spent in the short term, upgrading Connolly to have 2 segregated platforms for Maynooth line that do not cross Northern line. Services could be increased then. There is spare DMU's to cover increased service.
I'm not being flippant on the benefit of electric over diesel. I'm looking at the economies of it. It's hugely expensive to electrify a line and buy new trains. Irish Rail already made there decision and invested in Diesel DMU's for this line and Intercity over the last decade. These trains have to do for 40 years, so IE locked themselves out of electrifying the line for this time. If you want to take out your own cheque book then that's a different story.
The Dart Underground is the only way that new electric trains will be bought. Also the only way lines will be electrified. The argument that DMU's can't run through a tunnel would allow IE get around their error in buying so many DMU's (and not electrifying) in the first place.
The reality (in a recession), the DMU trains are good enough.
But they aren't. The current Maynooth line is slow and infrequent. With the resignalling finishing soon, there is plenty of scope to run a better service from Maynooth to the city. Terminating at Connolly is a bad option, as it is farther from the city centre than both Tara Street and Pearse, giving a worse service.
If, in 5 years, the Maynooth line is electrified, there will be plenty of DMUs pushing 20 which can be replaced by the 29000s currently on the Maynooth line. They can be also used to operate a more frequent Kildare - Heuston commuter service.
Electrifying a line is not hugely expensive, and, at the moment, there are unused DART trains, minimising the amount of new trains needed.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
They don't have enough DART's to run on Maynooth line so they would need new trains.
How many Dart coaches do they have?Electrifying to Maynooth on it's own fixes nothing. There isn't any extra capacity through Connolly and Loop line to run extra trains through to DL or Bray.
They are upgrading the signal system to increase capacity.
Why, it would integrate with the Dart.The money would be better spent in the short term, upgrading Connolly to have 2 segregated platforms for Maynooth line that do not cross Northern line. Services could be increased then. There is spare DMU's to cover increased service.
They do not need extra trains, imho.I'm not being flippant on the benefit of electric over diesel. I'm looking at the economies of it. It's hugely expensive to electrify a line and buy new trains. Irish Rail already made there decision and invested in Diesel DMU's for this line and Intercity over the last decade. These trains have to do for 40 years, so IE locked themselves out of electrifying the line for this time. If you want to take out your own cheque book then that's a different story.The Dart Underground is the only way that new electric trains will be bought. Also the only way lines will be electrified. The argument that DMU's can't run through a tunnel would allow IE get around their error in buying so many DMU's (and not electrifying) in the first place.
The reality (in a recession), the DMU trains are good enough.
I am sure they can find use for the extra DMUs. If they cut services, like the Rosslare to Wexford line is under threat, they wont need any DMUs and could close up shop altogether.
Running 8 coach DMUs to Bray stopping only at DL is a total waste. The DMU should terminate at Pearse, with a Connolly to Bray running behind it. The DMU should then return from Grand Canal Dock, with an advertised connecting Bray to Connolly train connecting with it. Passengers cross the platform, and DMU exits first. DMUs tend to run in groups which makes no sense at all.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22136
A spur from the DART to the airport makes little sense.
It might be a relatively cheap project (more then €200 million so not that cheap!) but it gives little advantage over what is currently in place.
Dublin Airport is already pretty close to Dublin City in international standards and is well served by Dublin Bus and Aircoach via the port tunnel.
If they operate the spur to the airport as an express, then it at best only beats the bus by 10 minutes and that is to Connolly, rather then O'Connell Street, so you lose the 10 minutes there anyway.
If they operate it as a stopping service, then it will be significantly slower then the bus to the city center and of little benefit to most people, really only benefiting those living along the Dart stations served.
Either way you are wasting 200million that could be better spent elsewhere (DU, MN, etc.)
Metro North is really the only sensible option for linking the airport with the city. It will be much faster then the bus and it will bring rail based public transport to some of the most densely populated areas of the city. It also would serve Swords, where many if not most airport staff live.
If you want to improve public transport services to the airport today, then I would combine the 41 and 16, straighten out the route and have it run 24 hours a day.
It could be the first super route and could be used to trail 24 hours a day core routes. I've long believed that such a route would be a success, rather then the stupid night link.
It would cost little to do, at least compared to the cost of a rail spur and I believe it would be far more useful to people.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
A spur from the DART to the airport makes little sense.
It might be a relatively cheap project (more then €200 million so not that cheap!) but it gives little advantage over what is currently in place.
Dublin Airport is already pretty close to Dublin City in international standards and is well served by Dublin Bus and Aircoach via the port tunnel.
If they operate the spur to the airport as an express, then it at best only beats the bus by 10 minutes and that is to Connolly, rather then O'Connell Street, so you lose the 10 minutes there anyway.
The spur would fast to build and is over open ground so would be cheap (in relative terms). I do not know where the €200m comes from, but some of this would be for the airport bit which would be needed anyway. Nothing to stop them looping back to Swords, if it were worth it.If they operate it as a stopping service, then it will be significantly slower then the bus to the city center and of little benefit to most people, really only benefiting those living along the Dart stations served.
Either way you are wasting 200million that could be better spent elsewhere (DU, MN, etc.)
There is no reason why it could not be both an express and a stopping service, depending on demand and time of day. It could also head north to Belfast, Dundalk and Drogheda. Not necessary for it to be waste - if it is built. Extending the Dart to Greystones could be considered a waste, but not if you live in Greystones.
If the spur was installed, it could continue to Ashtown and onto Heuston. Not everyone wants to go to O'Connell St.Metro North is really the only sensible option for linking the airport with the city. It will be much faster then the bus and it will bring rail based public transport to some of the most densely populated areas of the city. It also would serve Swords, where many if not most airport staff live.If you want to improve public transport services to the airport today, then I would combine the 41 and 16, straighten out the route and have it run 24 hours a day.
It could be the first super route and could be used to trail 24 hours a day core routes. I've long believed that such a route would be a success, rather then the stupid night link.
It would cost little to do, at least compared to the cost of a rail spur and I believe it would be far more useful to people.
That is entirely upto Dublin Bus who could implement this in the morning if they wished. They just have to agree with the various players, of course, and decide frequency.
Aircoach already run a 24 hour service which appears to be successful so the notion does not need testing, but perhaps Dublin Bus do.
I agree with you about NiteLink but that has more to do with fares IMHO.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22136
Sam Russell wrote: »The spur would fast to build and is over open ground so would be cheap (in relative terms). I do not know where the €200m comes from, but some of this would be for the airport bit which would be needed anyway. Nothing to stop them looping back to Swords, if it were worth it.
The figure comes from Irish Rail:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/iarnrod-eireann-pushes-for-200m-airport-rail-link-166283.htmlSam Russell wrote: »That is entirely upto Dublin Bus who could implement this in the morning if they wished. They just have to agree with the various players, of course, and decide frequency.
Actually, not up to DB any more, I believe the NTA have full control over license changes like this now.
Which reminds me, I think that NTA are planning to do this anyway. They are planning three BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) routes, one of which will be going to the airport from the city center. They don't mention 24 hour running, but I hope they will.Sam Russell wrote: »Aircoach already run a 24 hour service which appears to be successful so the notion does not need testing, but perhaps Dublin Bus do.
I agree with you about NiteLink but that has more to do with fares IMHO.
Well this would be slightly different beast to Aircoach/747, it would be a full stopping service with normal ticket prices, while very common in most other European capital cities, it would be a new concept in Ireland.
So some testing of the concept would be necessary to prove that it can be run profitably (or at least break even). However I'm certain that such a combined 16/41 route would be very successful and it would act as a test and model for other similar core routes.
There are many problems with the nitelink:
- Too expensive
- Too infrequent (only weekends, etc.)
- Doesn't run all night
- See as a dangerous "drunk bus"
- Doesn't pick up inbound
In other words, it isn't a real bus service.
I believe there are a few reasons this hasn't happened yet:
- Taxi drivers would scream bloody murder.
- Dublin Bus wouldn't want it to effect their commercial and successful 747 service.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
-
Personally, I think that the lack of a 24 hour service is more to do with our government not wanting to encourage people to be out all night drinking.
Like it or not, unlike most European countries, this country has a serious alcohol abuse problem. I've long held the opinion that the lack of a normal bus service at night has far more to do with the state not wanting to encourage people to drink more.
I certainly think it has far more to do with that than any desire otherwise by the transport companies.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19092
States should not try to control alcohol abuse by curtailing the bus service. All alcohol sales are carried out under licence - this allows the state the way to curtail drinking and drunkedness. Shut the pubs and clubs earlier and challenge those who sell alcohol to the inebriated with appropriate fines and withdrawal of licence.
A poor bus service only makes the problem worse.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »States should not try to control alcohol abuse by curtailing the bus service. All alcohol sales are carried out under licence - this allows the state the way to curtail drinking and drunkedness. Shut the pubs and clubs earlier and challenge those who sell alcohol to the inebriated with appropriate fines and withdrawal of licence.
A poor bus service only makes the problem worse.
I think you may find that the thinking may be that you would be effectively subsidising people to stay out longer and drink more by providing cheap 24-hour bus services.
We have a very serious problem with this unlike most continental European countries.
I don't understand your last point. Why would the lack of a full 24 hour bus service make the alcohol problem worse?
The other issue is that it would mean having to increase the subsidy to provide it - that is not going to happen anytime soon.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »If the spur was installed, it could continue to Ashtown and onto Heuston. Not everyone wants to go to O'Connell St.
Could you diagram this for me? Seems like it would involve a reversal at Glasnevin and use of the PPT to arrive into Heuston plat 10, which would be a pretty poor service.0 -
Personally, I think that the lack of a 24 hour service is more to do with our government not wanting to encourage people to be out all night drinking.
Like it or not, unlike most European countries, this country has a serious alcohol abuse problem. I've long held the opinion that the lack of a normal bus service at night has far more to do with the state not wanting to encourage people to drink more.
I certainly think it has far more to do with that than any desire otherwise by the transport companies.
Because it's not like people work at night or anything and have to get to/from work....0 -
Mr Simpson wrote: »Because it's not like people work at night or anything and have to get to/from work....
I'm not saying it's right - but I honestly believe that is one the main reasons for it.0 -
I think you may find that the thinking may be that you would be effectively subsidising people to stay out longer and drink more by providing cheap 24-hour bus services.
We have a very serious problem with this unlike most continental European countries.
I don't understand your last point. Why would the lack of a full 24 hour bus service make the alcohol problem worse?
The other issue is that it would mean having to increase the subsidy to provide it - that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Okay I appreciate we are straying off topic, but I must address this. I agree with the subsidy aspect regarding 24 hour bus services. Absolutely no problem with that. However the old chestnut regarding alcohol really needs to be dumped from discussions about 24 hour transport.
Existing public transport services already suffer from alcohol related incidents. This happens across the world. Its a fact of life. Ireland isn't very different in terms of alcohol abuse than many other nations. But licensing laws in Ireland are prehistoric. That is actually the problem. Successive Governments are obsessed with tweaking them, but fail to notice that we are still creating a fenced in situation of very tight alcohol consumption within a certain time period. A recipe for disaster. Why are we different to other European nations? Simple. We restrict the consumption of alcohol. Tax it to the hilt and thereby create a window, typically the weekend, where its abused. I live in a very alcohol liberal country and the only people who abuse it are tourists from places where alcohol consumption is typically restricted. Ireland and the UK.
Reasonably priced alcohol and liberal opening hours to serve it, would create a currently unknown responsibility to the Irish. The knock on effect for public transport would be very rewarding. In fact the knock effect for Irish society would be even more rewarding.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
TheBandicoot wrote: »Could you diagram this for me? Seems like it would involve a reversal at Glasnevin and use of the PPT to arrive into Heuston plat 10, which would be a pretty poor service.
Look at this website. Mentioned a few pages back. That is not quite what I am suggesting, but it is a useful start.
http://www.metrodublin.ie.
I meant Glasnevin Junction rather than Ashtown. My knowledge of that part of Dublin is a bit lacking. Use of the PPT would be useful if possible. Using any existing lines would save money, and since they already exist, could be put into service readily.
Bus services can be cancelled or the route changed with little or no notice while railways tend to last longer (but still can be cancelled).0 -
A spur from the DART to the airport makes little sense.
It might be a relatively cheap project (more then €200 million so not that cheap!) but it gives little advantage over what is currently in place.
Dublin Airport is already pretty close to Dublin City in international standards and is well served by Dublin Bus and Aircoach via the port tunnel.
If they operate the spur to the airport as an express, then it at best only beats the bus by 10 minutes and that is to Connolly, rather then O'Connell Street, so you lose the 10 minutes there anyway.
If they operate it as a stopping service, then it will be significantly slower then the bus to the city center and of little benefit to most people, really only benefiting those living along the Dart stations served.
Either way you are wasting 200million that could be better spent elsewhere (DU, MN, etc.)
Metro North is really the only sensible option for linking the airport with the city. It will be much faster then the bus and it will bring rail based public transport to some of the most densely populated areas of the city. It also would serve Swords, where many if not most airport staff live.
If you want to improve public transport services to the airport today, then I would combine the 41 and 16, straighten out the route and have it run 24 hours a day.
It could be the first super route and could be used to trail 24 hours a day core routes. I've long believed that such a route would be a success, rather then the stupid night link.
It would cost little to do, at least compared to the cost of a rail spur and I believe it would be far more useful to people.
I dont think that would be allowed. The fact is that the only reason so many people choose taxis over nitelinks is because €6 one way makes a taxi better value on journey's to inner suburbs, especially if there's more than one person travelling. I don't think that's accidental. If DB introduced 24 hour routes at normal or close to normal pricess, we'd see a lot of taxis disappear. After 11pm is the busiest time for taxis.
Our country is full of vested interests and public policy is shaped to avoid upsetting the wrong people. Also if there were 24 hour routes, drivers would require tripple pay and additional training and bonuses.0 -
I dont think that would be allowed. The fact is that the only reason so many people choose taxis over nitelinks is because €6 one way makes a taxi better value on journey's to inner suburbs, especially if there's more than one person travelling. I don't think that's accidental. If DB introduced 24 hour routes at normal or close to normal pricess, we'd see a lot of taxis disappear. After 11pm is the busiest time for taxis.
Our country is full of vested interests and public policy is shaped to avoid upsetting the wrong people. Also if there were 24 hour routes, drivers would require tripple pay and additional training and bonuses.
Dublin Bus drivers already work Nitelink duties as part of normal operations. The company already has agreements in place to facilitate night time working were it required. At least keep the discussion free of more scaremongering.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19092
I don't understand your last point. Why would the lack of a full 24 hour bus service make the alcohol problem worse?
If there is a bad bus service, there will be a long queue of inebriated people waiting for it together with sober passengers, and this can lead to trouble because what is funny when drunk is not funny when sober. I][COLOR="Red"]What are you looking at?[/COLOR][/I
There have been many tragic events from this kind of situation - outside take-away joints, nightclubs, and pubs.
A poor bus service will just increase the opportunity for such incidents. The operation of the nitelink service gathers huge numbers of people to College Green when a regular bus service would disperse them over a larger area and a longer time span.
A NightDart, with limited stops might also help. Taxis could then cart the passengers the last few miles home.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement