Bus Éireann and M3 motorway

chewed

I (half) overheard the bus driver on the 111 (Trim) bus the other day talking to a passenger about busses using the old route again, once the flyover is completed to/from Clonee.

Does this mean that the Navan/Trim/Ratoath buses will have to exit for Clonee on the N3, go through the village and use the old road again?

This will add more time onto the journey!

Colm R

I would think so, as I think there is no exit between the Clonnee/Damastown and Ratoath/Fairyhouse outbound exits and the bus needs to service the bus stops alond the original route.

Same problem exists the country over with our buses forced to use the original routes parellel to motorways.


One would hope that the way buses are licensed and operated in this country will change to allow express routes along motorways and local routes parallel sevicing the express routes at designated stops. This though, requires a change of government because Dempsey ain't going to do it.

etchyed

chewed wrote: »

I (half) overheard the bus driver on the 111 (Trim) bus the other day talking to a passenger about busses using the old route again, once the flyover is completed to/from Clonee.

Does this mean that the Navan/Trim/Ratoath buses will have to exit for Clonee on the N3, go through the village and use the old road again?

This will add more time onto the journey!

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by exiting the N3 and using the old road again. If (as I presume the bus driver means) the bus carries on past Bracetown Business Park to serve the stops there, it will inescapably head towards the new bridge and thus through Clonee. It's not really a case of exiting the N3, but rather not getting onto it for longer.

If this all comes to pass it'll be a massive pain in the arse. Stupid as it is, it'd be better if the bus kept doing U-Turns and going back to the Dunboyne roundabout and on to the M3 as it does at present.

BrianD

chewed wrote: »

I (half) overheard the bus driver on the 111 (Trim) bus the other day talking to a passenger about busses using the old route again, once the flyover is completed to/from Clonee.

Does this mean that the Navan/Trim/Ratoath buses will have to exit for Clonee on the N3, go through the village and use the old road again?

This will add more time onto the journey!

Well given that nobody lives on the M3 it would nake sense that the buses use the non-motorway allignment apart from express services.

Transportuser09

BrianD wrote: »

Well given that nobody lives on the M3 it would nake sense that the buses use the non-motorway allignment apart from express services.

Exactly. Fast non-stop buses are all well and good if you live in the towns the termini are in but you have to remember the people in town in between.

etchyed

BrianD wrote: »

Well given that nobody lives on the M3 it would nake sense that the buses use the non-motorway allignment apart from express services.

You're obviously not familiar with the area in question. If this is true then in order to continue serving a small office block (Bracetown Business Park) the 109 will now travel through Clonee, which it didn't before. It will presumably not even stop there as it's Dublin Bus territory and this will add about 10 minutes to its journey time,possibly much longer at busy times.

BrianD

etchyed wrote: »

You're obviously not familiar with the area in question. If this is true then in order to continue serving a small office block (Bracetown Business Park) the 109 will now travel through Clonee, which it didn't before. It will presumably not even stop there as it's Dublin Bus territory and this will add about 10 minutes to its journey time,possibly much longer at busy times.

I'm from the area so therefore familiar with it. Prior to the Clonee bypass Dunshaughlin/Navan buses used to gp through Clonee and alternate into Dunboyne which were also served by Dublin Bus.

etchyed

BrianD wrote: »

I'm from the area so therefore familiar with it. Prior to the Clonee bypass Dunshaughlin/Navan buses used to gp through Clonee and alternate into Dunboyne which were also served by Dublin Bus.

Apologies.

The fact remains, however, that your general point about buses serving intermediate towns does not apply here. I don't think the buses will stop in Clonee, yet they will have to go through it. I know there's not much that can be done about this but it's going to cause a lot of inconvenience for people and we're entitled to moan about it.

BrianD

Well apart from the business park and the small estate behind the sheaf of wheat there is also people who live down the road that turns east beside the business park who will no longer have direct access to the bus route. I'm sure they'll argue that that road changes only apply after their stop.

With the ne road alignments under construction, perhaps the delay will not be ss bad as you imaine. Clonee can still be bypassed if the buses turn towards Damastown before Clonee and use the road on the otherside of the M3 to Clonee. Still a lot of round abouts to be negotiated.

Ham'nd'egger

Colm R wrote: »

Same problem exists the country over with our buses forced to use the original routes parellel to motorways.

One would hope that the way buses are licensed and operated in this country will change to allow express routes along motorways and local routes parallel sevicing the express routes at designated stops. This though, requires a change of government because Dempsey ain't going to do it.

The sole reason why the Trim bus will revert to the former M 3 is that this is the routing that it covers under it's route licence so it will stay serving the areas it always did.

@Eytched; There are a few areas that see both Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann services going to them from Dublin; Balbriggan, Maynooth and Kilcock are others.

shtory

Hopefully private coaches will step in and provide more direct services from the main towns straight down the M3, like Matthews bus does for Dundalk and Drogheda on the M1.

And who knows, maybe drive the prices down?:rolleyes:

munchkin_utd

Theres plenty of scope for getting some of the 109 services as an express from Navan to Dublin on the motorway and others as a stage carraige on the old road. Theres a 109 every 15 minutes at peak.

Theres also the hourly 109A from 5 in the morning till 11 at night that runs from Navan via Dunshaughlin to the Airport. If this were to serve as a stage carraige between Navan and Dunsaughlin, you could send all other busses without leaving the people along the old road serviceless.

It would be madness if ALL 109s still take the old road.
At least there is a precident on the Drogheda/ Dundalk services, that they have the 100X using the motorway direct to Drogheda and the 101 services the area between dublin and Drogheda

BrianD

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Theres plenty of scope for getting some of the 109 services as an express from Navan to Dublin on the motorway and others as a stage carraige on the old road. Theres a 109 every 15 minutes at peak.

Theres also the hourly 109A from 5 in the morning till 11 at night that runs from Navan via Dunshaughlin to the Airport. If this were to serve as a stage carraige between Navan and Dunsaughlin, you could send all other busses without leaving the people along the old road serviceless.

It would be madness if ALL 109s still take the old road.
At least there is a precident on the Drogheda/ Dundalk services, that they have the 100X using the motorway direct to Drogheda and the 101 services the area between dublin and Drogheda

But the passengers still live on the old road and BE are obliged to serve them! Even if the 109 uses the M3 it is still going to have to divert into, say, Dunshaughlin to pick up passengers there. I would suggest that this diverting on/off the m-way would negate any advantages of using it in the first place.

Using the M3 would provide a speedy service to some but would be to the detriment of others.

munchkin_utd

BrianD wrote: »

But the passengers still live on the old road and BE are obliged to serve them!

True. But they dont need a bus every 15 minutes either as is currently the case with every Cavan, Kells or Navan bus serving Dunshauglin, as well as Dunshaughlin only busses!
On top of the 109A, which can also bring people from the Navan-Dunshaughlin road to Dunshaughlin (or to Navan) to do their spot of grocery shopping.

BrianD

munchkin_utd wrote: »

True. But they dont need a bus every 15 minutes either as is currently the case with every Cavan, Kells or Navan bus serving Dunshauglin, as well as Dunshaughlin only busses!
On top of the 109A, which can also bring people from the Navan-Dunshaughlin road to Dunshaughlin (or to Navan) to do their spot of grocery shopping.

Why not?!? Are you less in need of a bus depending on where you live on the route?

The solution might be to make routes like the 30 or the ones that go to Donegal the express routes.

shtory

The solution might be for a private operator to come in and break Bus Eireanns monopoly on the route, offering a Dublin Direct service on the M3 every hour.

Matthews Coaches in Dundalk offer a direct service for 12 euro return (open ended return too), where Navan-Dublin return can be as much as 17.50!, for pretty much the same journey time.

Bus Eireann have to compete price wise on the Dundalk/Drogheda route, so hopefully someone comes in to force them into doing the same on the Navan/Kells route.

BrianD

shtory wrote: »

The solution might be for a private operator to come in and break Bus Eireanns monopoly on the route, offering a Dublin Direct service on the M3 every hour.

Matthews Coaches in Dundalk offer a direct service for 12 euro return (open ended return too), where Navan-Dublin return can be as much as 17.50!, for pretty much the same journey time.

Bus Eireann have to compete price wise on the Dundalk/Drogheda route, so hopefully someone comes in to force them into doing the same on the Navan/Kells route.

Where's the benefit to the consumer?

There is no benefit to consumers by having competition on the route. Yes, competition will force down prices in the short term but in the long run it's unsustainable. Eventually somebody will claim a state subsidy. It would be better to licence a new route and put that out to tender. It is a nonsense to suggest that having competing services on the same route benefits the consumer.

At the moment BE offer a good service on the 109. The frequency is there but I would agree it's not cheap,

gjim

BrianD wrote: »

Where's the benefit to the consumer?

There is no benefit to consumers by having competition on the route. Yes, competition will force down prices in the short term but in the long run it's unsustainable. Eventually somebody will claim a state subsidy. It would be better to licence a new route and put that out to tender. It is a nonsense to suggest that having competing services on the same route benefits the consumer.

Lower prices, better journey times, more comfortable/modern stock and higher frequencies is of "no benefit to consumers"? What exactly are the sort of things you view as being of benefit to consumers? There are plenty of examples all over the country where private operators have forced down prices (long term) and have resulted in improved services on routes. And if it's not "sustainable", then the operator gives up after a few years and at worse the public is left with what it had before. That's the chance a private operator takes.

We all know how well how badly the "licensing" system has served the public for bus routes in Dublin for example. The only reason I can see for suggesting expanding it would be to provide protection for BE; knowing that it will be so inefficient and badly done that it will constitute a trickey and long-winded extra barrier to entry for private operators.

valentino1

Do any of you know if they plan to do express services from Cavan to Dublin via the motorway? I'm living in Dublin at the moment but would love to move home! There is no way I could drive it every day but if the journey time travelling by bus was an hour and half up and down I think I could handle it!

BrianD

gjim wrote: »

Lower prices, better journey times, more comfortable/modern stock and higher frequencies is of "no benefit to consumers"? What exactly are the sort of things you view as being of benefit to consumers? There are plenty of examples all over the country where private operators have forced down prices (long term) and have resulted in improved services on routes. And if it's not "sustainable", then the operator gives up after a few years and at worse the public is left with what it had before. That's the chance a private operator takes.

We all know how well how badly the "licensing" system has served the public for bus routes in Dublin for example. The only reason I can see for suggesting expanding it would be to provide protection for BE; knowing that it will be so inefficient and badly done that it will constitute a trickey and long-winded extra barrier to entry for private operators.

there's no consumer benefit in having competing operators on standard routes. Doesn't work in the long run. It's good to have competition for route franchises but not "within" the route. Plus Bus Eireann have a modern fleet on the 109 route. With the exception of pricing, I don't think a private operator would offer more - certainly not in frequency or vehicle quality.

GTE

Is there some sort of toll on the motorway?
I wonder to BE get concessions for taking tolled roads.

gjim

BrianD wrote: »

there's no consumer benefit in having competing operators on standard routes. Doesn't work in the long run. It's good to have competition for route franchises but not "within" the route. Plus Bus Eireann have a modern fleet on the 109 route. With the exception of pricing, I don't think a private operator would offer more - certainly not in frequency or vehicle quality.

Eh? How does it "not work"? There has been competition on ex-urban routes in the country for decades and many of the same private operators are still going (as is Bus Eireann) - is that not "long run" enough for you?

Who gives a sh*te that Bus Eireann have this or that on any particular route? If a private operator wants to try to tempt customers with a better (or worse for that matter) service, then let them. If they have more luxurious/modern coaches, better value, better timetabling, better journey times, then the customer benefits. If they don't, well the customer is no worse off.

You are seriously advocating a system of government granted monopolies for all scheduled coach services in the country; i.e. filling an office block with civil servants to issue tenders, judge submissions, monitor service levels, plan new routes, etc.? It would swallow tens of millions a year, for what exactly? To replicate the hames they've made of licensing routes in Dublin across the whole country?

Next you'll be arguing that there has been no consumer benefit to having competing operators providing flights between Dublin and London and that it "doesn't work" long term.

Vic_08

gjim wrote: »

Eh? How does it "not work"? There has been competition on ex-urban routes in the country for decades and many of the same private operators are still going (as is Bus Eireann) - is that not "long run" enough for you?

Who gives a sh*te that Bus Eireann have this or that on any particular route? If a private operator wants to try to tempt customers with a better (or worse for that matter) service, then let them. If they have more luxurious/modern coaches, better value, better timetabling, better journey times, then the customer benefits. If they don't, well the customer is no worse off.

You are seriously advocating a system of government granted monopolies for all scheduled coach services in the country; i.e. filling an office block with civil servants to issue tenders, judge submissions, monitor service levels, plan new routes, etc.? It would swallow tens of millions a year, for what exactly? To replicate the hames they've made of licensing routes in Dublin across the whole country?

Take away the editorialising and that is more or less a description of by far the best model for running a public transport system.

The major caveat is that it requires very good people to run it who have expertise in transport and the freedom to control the network for the common good without constant interference from vested intrests and political favours.

The TfL operation in London is a good example, the bus service is all centrally controlled with the result that as far as the public is concerned there is one all-inclusive network with one fare structure and complete integration.

The idea of "choice" in short-medium distance transport is stupid. What people want is to get from A-B as quickly, cheaply and easily as possible. Having seperate competing operators effectively means duplication of services and reduction in choice. Regular Passengers have to decide on which operator to use to benefit from cheaper multi-journey fares so can often have to wait longer than necessary for a service as the soonest one will in many cases be from a different operator.

gjim wrote: »

Next you'll be arguing that there has been no consumer benefit to having competing operators providing flights between Dublin and London and that it "doesn't work" long term.

If people used commuter buses the way they do low-cost flights then maybe you would have a point. How many commuters do you think would be happy with having to pre-book each bus trip seperately weeks in advance, have no option to take an earlier or later bus without paying again, have constatly fluctuating fares based on demand and face €100 fares for single journeys if they change plans last minute?


The current "Licencing" system is nonsense, it is in the best interest of nobody as far as I can see.

A de-regulated free-for all would be another mess IMO and it would only mean an end to state funding if we were willing to see large areas without any service and operating hours reduced to peak-only in many others. If that was not acceptable then as in Britian the authorities would end up having to fund fill-in services all over the place for any route or service no commercial operator believes they can profit from. Many local authorities spend large amounts on these services, particularly in rural areas.

It would also eventually lead to de-facto monopolies as has happened in many places in Britian where one dominant operator ends up controlling most services in particular areas making it very difficult for competitors, particularly small ones to get a foothold.

Vic_08

valentino1 wrote: »

Do any of you know if they plan to do express services from Cavan to Dublin via the motorway? I'm living in Dublin at the moment but would love to move home! There is no way I could drive it every day but if the journey time travelling by bus was an hour and half up and down I think I could handle it!

Yes, there are plans for changes to allow some services on the 109 to use the M3. I can't give any details at the moment as I have not seen any confirmed timetables yet.

bbk wrote: »

Is there some sort of toll on the motorway?
I wonder to BE get concessions for taking tolled roads.

Yes there are tolls for buses/coaches same as with all tolled roads in the country, except for the Port Tunnell.

BE pay the same as any other bus/coach oparator and get no concessions on any tolled roads except for the East Link in Dublin which is free for all CIE vehicles. This is down to the original contract AFAIR which was due to CIE land being part of the project.

IMO all operators running scheduled services should get free passes on toll roads and the non-stop tag lanes should be altered to allow buses use them.

GTE

Then if that road is tolled give the cost cutting BE a chance. The toll and lost possible revenue (however slight) by bypassing the people who live on the old road would be perfect reason to keep the route on the old road.
Getting in a private operator would do shag all if they are being asked soley to do an express service on a tolled road.

And to the person who said they are entitled to moan about, would you get outta that for God's sake. You are on a bus! Other people besides yourself needs to get places. If it takes a bit longer to serve the community OR keep your ticket at the same price it is at the moment then I say let the bus go the alternative route.

I was on a bus to Enfield one day and the driver was new to the route and it was obviously a different bus then normal as it was a low number LC with curtains so I guess someone broke down somewhere.

By accident some people were let on for Kilcock when the bus was an express and not meant to stop there.

The driver realises that he cant properly serve Kilcock after passing Maynooth. I was sitting in the front and saw his face when he realised what was going on.

The uproar from some passengers that their journey was delayed about 10 minutes at the very very very most was crazy. I had to start telling people to calm down and that a mistake was made due to the driver unfamiliar with the route.
The problem was there were a few people on the bus who thought that they were the epic royal passenger and their needs should be met before anyone else.

Thats the distinct impression Im getting from the Pro-motorway argument in this thread.
I say calm down and just let the public service bus do its job.

However, if there is one bus every half hour or less then there should be scope for peak time expresses, but if the toll was the reason BE said no, Id understand that though Id want to see what kind of passenger numbers there were.

The things we give out about. . .

etchyed

bkk, your post is wrong on many levels but in order to deconstruct it properly I'm going to have to quote it out of sequence. I hope you don't mind.

You are on a bus! Other people besides yourself needs to get places. If it takes a bit longer to serve the community OR keep your ticket at the same price it is at the moment then I say let the bus go the alternative route.

You really don't seem to understand this situation. Let me explain it to you.

Heading southbound, the N3 once followed what is now (as you can see in the image) the R147. The overbridge the arrow's pointing at did not exist, nor did the M3 north of this overbridge. The point where the new overbridge is is where the N3 became dual carriageway. I've (crudely) drawn the old N3 here in red.

Along this former-N3 stretch of R147, the 109 serves a couple of houses and an office block. Whilst the new overbridge has been under construction, the bus has been going down this road a short stretch before turning back and heading on to the M3. What I and others here suspect is that when the motorway is fully opened, the route will go all the way down the R147, forcing it to go over the new overbridge and follow the pink route leading, as I've helpfully pointed out in the image, inescapably to and through Clonee.

This is not a matter of continuing to use an old route. This is a matter of a new motorway making a bus route far more winding and unnecessarily long. In order to continue serving the little-used bus stops on this very short stretch of R147, the bus will now have to go through Clonee, which it never did before. At least that's what I think. I hope I'm wrong.

bbk wrote: »

Then if that road is tolled give the cost cutting BE a chance. The toll and lost possible revenue (however slight) by bypassing the people who live on the old road would be perfect reason to keep the route on the old road.

There are public service arguments for making a bus serve all points along its route and a motorway is not conducive to this. I get that. But purely on a business level, your suggestion that the cost of paying a toll and losing a marginal number of passengers would outweigh the costs of an increase in journey time is beyond ridiculous. Adding 10 minutes to the journey time of a route with over 50 departures per direction per day would have significant implications for staff costs, fuel costs and fleet utilisation, not to mention the customers it would drive away.

And to the person who said they are entitled to moan about, would you get outta that for God's sake.

No. I am entitled to moan. Particularly on an internet forum. I am allowed to express my dissatisfaction at the way things work and the decisions of others.

I was on a bus to Enfield one day and the driver was new to the route and it was obviously a different bus then normal as it was a low number LC with curtains so I guess someone broke down somewhere.

By accident some people were let on for Kilcock when the bus was an express and not meant to stop there.

The driver realises that he cant properly serve Kilcock after passing Maynooth. I was sitting in the front and saw his face when he realised what was going on.

The uproar from some passengers that their journey was delayed about 10 minutes at the very very very most was crazy. I had to start telling people to calm down and that a mistake was made due to the driver unfamiliar with the route.

Lovely story about you saving some poor unfortunate bus driver from the great unwashed. Good thing your bus-spotting skills meant you were able to figure out what was going on so quickly.

The problem was there were a few people on the bus who thought that they were the epic royal passenger and their needs should be met before anyone else.

Thats the distinct impression Im getting from the Pro-motorway argument in this thread.

You picturing some belligerent arsehole in your head whilst reading my post doesn't make me that person. It just makes you narrow-minded. FYI when dealing with bus drivers, waiters, retail staff etc. I pretty much never complain, even if they make the most enormous fúckups. They're rarely to blame for stuff like this.

The people you encountered on a bus who were mean to a driver who made a mistake have precisely nothing to do with this discussion. Creating a caricature in your head and applying it to the people in this thread who are annoyed at their journey time being needlessly lengthened is pretty stupid, I have to say. It's in no way self-important or "royal" (whatever that means) to be annoyed at 20 minutes of your day being eroded away by yet more time sitting on the bus.

I say calm down and just let the public service bus do its job.

I say stop patronising me.

GTE

To be honest my intention was to wind what turned out to be you up.
The reason for the wind up is that giving out about a route change over what is in reality a small stretch of road, especially when traffic volumes will be effected after the motorway opens is a silly argument. What needs to be done instead and whats already been discussed is demanding some 109x services etc.

The 115 is a similar situation. Technically, if the 115 was to run the full route it would be serving Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and then Longwood after Enfield.

Thats a much bigger lump of journey time added on to that though at peak times the 115X completely avoids all the little towns.

What needs to be done is adjusting the current departures to provide a 109X type of service at peak times not complain about its rerouteing through Clonee.

Additionally the point that BE wont stop in Clonee isnt 100% definite. The 115 does take on and drop off passengers in the DB serviced Leixlip area. Though that route operates once or twice a day each way it still does it.

If the 109 makes the route change down the route you described live with it. They must have their own good reason because with the way the first and second phase of cutbacks have hacked away at services BE would not make a route alteration that is fundamentally going lose them money if they can help it.

There is much more chance of securing some shorter routes at certain times then fundamentally reverting the route a different way.

etchyed

bbk wrote: »

To be honest my intention was to wind what turned out to be you up.

Why would you want to do that?

The reason for the wind up is that giving out about a route change over what is in reality a small stretch of road, especially when traffic volumes will be effected after the motorway opens is a silly argument.

That's not a reason for winding me up. If you believe my argument is silly then argue with it. Don't tell some irrelevant story about a bus driver making a mistake and decide on what "vibe" you're getting from me.

And you're right, traffic volumes will be less after the motorway opens. Even for car drivers not taking the motorway, there will be less traffic on the old N3. If the 109 goes through Clonee this will be entirely negated for bus passengers. It is not a "short stretch of road". It is a busy village and a series of roundabouts which will undoubtedly add 10 minutes to journey time at peak times.

The 115 is a similar situation. Technically, if the 115 was to run the full route it would be serving Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock and then Longwood after Enfield.

Thats a much bigger lump of journey time added on to that though at peak times the 115X completely avoids all the little towns.

It is not a similar situation. Why do you persist in believing that these routes are in any way comparable? The 109 serves four major destinations. Cavan, Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin. Clonee, Dunboyne, Blanchardstown and Castleknock have been bypassed for decades and never served by the 109. Why should the bus go through Clonee now?

What needs to be done is adjusting the current departures to provide a 109X type of service at peak times not complain about its rerouteing through Clonee.

There you go again. People complain. Things get changed. That's how the world works.

Your point about express routes is a red herring. A frequent, consistent route that does not take pointless detours would be far preferable in my opinion.

If the 109 makes the route change down the route you described live with it.

Sorry, who are you? "live with it"? I'll say it once more for you: I'll complain if I want.

GTE

etchyed wrote: »

Why would you want to do that?

Simply because none of the arguments against the bus going through Clonee are good enough. Its giving out over nothing.

etchyed

bbk wrote: »

Simply because none of the arguments against the bus going through Clonee are good enough. Its giving out over nothing.

In your opinion.

I suspect the intention of your post wasn't to wind anyone up, but rather a chance for you to vent on a Certain Type Of Person that you presume I and others in this thread to be.

Given that you haven't actually responded directly to any of the points I've made, I can only assume you're not really capable of engaging in debate. I should probably stop allowing myself to be wound up by someone like you.

GTE

etchyed wrote: »

It is not a similar situation. Why do you persist in believing that these routes are in any way comparable? The 109 serves four major destinations. Cavan, Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin. Clonee, Dunboyne, Blanchardstown and Castleknock have been bypassed for decades and never served by the 109. Why should the bus go through Clonee now?


There you go again. People complain. Things get changed. That's how the world works.

Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock, Longwood.
Now for the vast majority of passengers who travel on the 115 Leixlip, Kilcock and Longwood would be stops they would gladly do without timewise. Fact of the matter is there is enough demand in these places to warrant a bus going through them, as well as BE's obligation to provide services in some of these areas. Stopping at each of these adds about 10 minutes to the trip however in the case of Leixlip, that bus stops in Longwood also so you are looking at around 20mins. If BE decide to go through Clonee then I have no doubt that a pick up drop off style is going to be setup for the Cloneer's who want to go further afield. That is essentially the Leixlip, Maynooth, Kilcock (to an extent) and Longwoords of the 115.
The way the 115 is structured most services take the longer route and some the even longer one, even if not a soul gets on at most stops but when its needed you have express services that barrel past these places.

The fundamental route IS similar to how the 109 seems to be going if they do go with this old road route. I think complaining does work, but you have to be complaining for the right thing.
You want all buses to go a certain way or in otherwords roughly not change the way they are going. BE seem to want the fundamental route to go another. You are wrong to argue against the fundamental route because you simply cant justify bringing every bus the way you want it. What you need to direct your complaining at getting peak time express style services or even a every second bus between certain hours type of thing.

I have not nor will I ever say that complaining about something is wrong, though in the context of this thread the area that you complaining about is wrong. Focus it for peak time reform.

BrianD

gjim wrote: »

Eh? How does it "not work"? There has been competition on ex-urban routes in the country for decades and many of the same private operators are still going (as is Bus Eireann) - is that not "long run" enough for you?

Who gives a sh*te that Bus Eireann have this or that on any particular route? If a private operator wants to try to tempt customers with a better (or worse for that matter) service, then let them. If they have more luxurious/modern coaches, better value, better timetabling, better journey times, then the customer benefits. If they don't, well the customer is no worse off.

You are seriously advocating a system of government granted monopolies for all scheduled coach services in the country; i.e. filling an office block with civil servants to issue tenders, judge submissions, monitor service levels, plan new routes, etc.? It would swallow tens of millions a year, for what exactly? To replicate the hames they've made of licensing routes in Dublin across the whole country?

Next you'll be arguing that there has been no consumer benefit to having competing operators providing flights between Dublin and London and that it "doesn't work" long term.

The route 109 is essentially a commuter route. Look at the flop that competition on commuter routes have been elsewhere i.e. the UK. While I am in favour of competition I don't believe it works well in these situations. The best option is to put the route out to a competitive tender with a set of standards that benefit the consumer. In the case of cut throat competition on commuter routes it will be the operators standards that apply and not the fare paying passenger.

gjim

Vic_08 wrote: »

Take away the editorialising and that is more or less a description of by far the best model for running a public transport system.

The major caveat is that it requires very good people to run it who have expertise in transport and the freedom to control the network for the common good without constant interference from vested intrests and political favours.

The TfL operation in London is a good example, the bus service is all centrally controlled with the result that as far as the public is concerned there is one all-inclusive network with one fare structure and complete integration.

You're very confused in your thinking if you imagine London buses is an appropriate example for this discussion. It's 50km to Navan - this is a coach journey not a trip on a double decker from Waterloo to Marble Arch. These are effectively different modes of public transport; the vehicles are completely different, the journey distances and times are not comparable, the ticket prices are not anywhere in the same ballpark and the business model for operators is completely different. Most significantly and fundamentally, it mostly does not depend on consuming finite and limited resources (urban road space and shelters/stop space) which have to be allocated and controlled. Come back with an example which is vaguely appropriate to this discussion.

Certain public transport modes absolutely require rigid centralized control and regulation (rail is an obvious example), some work much better when there is some centralized coordination and control (city bus services) but others not only don't benefit from it - they suffer when provision is by government mandated monopolies (e.g. air travel). Regional and inter-city coach travel is in the latter category.

If you think it isn't, test out your argument with REAL users of private competing coach services around the country. Tell them of how much better things will be for them if having a choice of different operators is done away with and instead we'll have a state agency (in the past this was CIE but presumably you'd need a new brand) make the choice for them.

KC61

The problem is how to serve the stops at Bracetown Business Park. That is what the current routing is for.

Perhaps a more limited local service is needed to do this, with the rest of the 109 services operating via the M3.

As bbk suggests there is a parallel with the 115 where some services still operate via Leixlip village, while the majority operate via the motorway.

As an aside, long experience in dealing with the bus companies as a customer has taught me that it pays to get in contact with the companies concerned in a positive way about getting routes/timetables changed rather than moaning ad nauseum about it.

etchyed, have you contacted Bus Eireann about this and as to whether they do plan to bypass Bracetown? That is generally the best place to start.

The relevant details are:

Regional Manager: Joe Kenny
Services Manager: David Lane
Address: Bus Éireann, Broadstone, Dublin 7
Phone: (01) 830 2222

Or perhaps use their facebook page - they are quite good at answering on that.

And before anyone has a go at me, I am not trying to be smart here. The best place to go is to ask the company themselves. They may well have plans to operate along the M3 and bypass Bracetown, but as Ham 'nd' Egger says on page 1 above that will depend on whether they get approval from the Department of Transport as it does constiute a change of routing.

etchyed

Firstly, thank you bkk for (finally) arguing your position reasonably. I still fundamentally disagree with you. I don't think arguing against a Clonee rerouting is small-minded or selfish and I'm still firmly of the opinion that all services should avoid Clonee, not just peak-time express services. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

KC61, I don't think you're being smart at all but if the bus has to continue to serve Bracetown and has no way of turning back then I don't really see that there's much Bus Éireann can do/that I can can do to influence them. My fundamental gripe with bkk was that he/she seemed to be denying my entitlement simply to say "That's a pain in the arse, isn't it?".

KC61

etchyed wrote: »

Firstly, thank you bkk for (finally) arguing your position reasonably. I still fundamentally disagree with you. I don't think arguing against a Clonee rerouting is small-minded or selfish and I'm still firmly of the opinion that all services should avoid Clonee, not just peak-time express services. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

KC61, I don't think you're being smart at all but if the bus has to continue to serve Bracetown and has no way of turning back then I don't really see that there's much Bus Éireann can do/that I can can do to influence them. My fundamental gripe with bkk was that he/she seemed to be denying my entitlement simply to say "That's a pain in the arse, isn't it?".

With due respect, if we all took that approach nothing would ever change. What have you got to lose by asking? Bus Eireann are usually good at getting back to customers.

I would imagine that there is some demand in either direction at Bracetown, but it hardly warrants every bus serving that stop. Perhaps two buses in either direction during both peak hours to cater for people travelling from Navan or Dublin.

mgmt

Bus Eireann is not allowed onto the M3 until a private operator establishes a significant business. Licences have been given out but have not yet been implemented by private contractors.