Dublin Bus Network Review

spareman

New 77A timetable still unworkable, Changes were too minor.

27 timetable will remain as is, Management have point blank refused to review 27 timetable despite it being clearly not workable, Drivers working this route are not happy bunnies and staff moral at all time low.

imo I think our passengers would rather have 20 departures a day that they know will be there instead of 30 hit and miss departures.

I just don't understand the decisions our great Managers make sometimes, If we are to retain our routes past 2014 DTA Memo of understanding and all, surely we should be giving additinal running time to ensure we dont miss departures, You would actually think Managers are trying to loose routes with the kind of timetables being printed lately.

LXFlyer

Bazzer2 wrote: »

Isn't that a part of what Network Direct is supposed to be about?

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Benefits-of-Planned-Changes/


"Benefits of Planned Changes
The Dublin Bus Network Direct project will deliver the following benefits to you:

More direct routes: Bus routes will be straightened out with fewer diversions off Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs). Buses will operate on the most direct routes from the suburbs to the city centre."

It is part of it.

The central parts of the project are:
1) Redesigning the network to eliminating unnecessary duplication of routes
2) Offering far more cross-city journey opportunities
3) Straightening out routes where practical to operate along QBCs without deviating
4) Redesigning timetables to create regular interval services and integrated timetables along corridors where possible
5) Reducing over-capacity in the network where it exists

The North Clondalkin QBC route designated by the NTA is along Thomas Street, Kilmainham and Emmet Road.

There is a dilemma here. Dublin Bus have to deliver a service to all the areas of Ballyfermot that it currently serves - basically the current 78a and 79/a routes. That is a given.

However at the same time they are under (and I don't think I can really stress this enough) extremely serious pressure from government to cut costs wherever possible, and seeing their PSO grant being cut again.

Under that basis there is no possibility of more than two routes to Ballyfermot, namely the 40 and 79. Frankly expecting the 40 to not serve Emmet Road, Kilmainham and Thomas Street is a non-runner. The numbers of passengers using the 78a (as is) between North Clondalkin/Ballyfermot and Inchicore, Kilmainham and Thomas Street are far too great. Expecting people to walk from the Quays up (what for many would be) steep hills is not acceptable.

Also routing the 40 via St John's Road would mean duplication between the 40 and 79 - something DB are trying to eliminate.

The choice is there - you can change buses at Sarsfield Road from a 78a to a 79 as is and then go down the quays. When the Leap card is operational that will have no extra cost.

I understand the point Monument is trying to make about providing a faster journey from North Clondalkin and Ballyfermot to the city - the reality is there is not enough money available to do it. The two existing routes have to be retained - the markets are too great. Adding a third in this climate is not going to be economically viable. Personally I'd like to see the 26 extended to Liffey Valley via Coldcut Road - that would offer a faster alternative to the 40. Whether the resources are there to do it I don't know as the longer journey time might mean requiring additional buses/drivers.

spareman wrote: »

New 77A timetable still unworkable, Changes were too minor.

27 timetable will remain as is, Management have point blank refused to review 27 timetable despite it being clearly not workable, Drivers working this route are not happy bunnies and staff moral at all time low.

imo I think our passengers would rather have 20 departures a day that they know will be there instead of 30 hit and miss departures.

I just don't understand the decisions our great Managers make sometimes, If we are to retain our routes past 2014 DTA Memo of understanding and all, surely we should be giving additinal running time to ensure we dont miss departures, You would actually think Managers are trying to loose routes with the kind of timetables being printed lately.

Well then why was the 77a roster change approved by drivers? Surely if it is not going to work then it needs to go to arbitration?

Similarly the 27?

While I certainly would not defend producing schedules that are impossible to deliver - it is not acceptable, I do understand that management are under serious pressures to cut costs, and that does involve cutting the resources/running time where possible. It should not however be done in such a way that service levels are impacted and rosters become impossible.

monument

As I already said, this is all fairly academic if BRT is going to be properly progressed on the N4 anyway.

But it also goes back to my "we want it all" comment -- people want faster, more reliably services, but want every route right at door steps or other.

At the other end of things, it's not technically imposable to put in strong bus priority into Emmet Road to James's Street. But it would likely be very politically hard to do. I would rate it close to imposable currently -- you would need to sure up the bus priority on Emmet Road and traffic using Old Kilmainham to James's Street would have to be hugely restricted to the point not allowing through traffic at peak times or at all. But this is a bit pointless take when BRT is being looked at for the N4.

Dodge wrote: »

1) explain to me how the bus gets from Emmet Road to the N4

I never suggested it should go to Emmet Road.

Dodge wrote: »

2) explain how you think people will be happier with a longer point to point journey when extra walking is included (and I dispute that your convulated Bridge st/north quays route is quicker but for this purpose we'll say you're right)

Re which is quicker, you can dispute that black is black and white is white, but I'm not sure how you think such a small congested road could be faster at peek time than the QBC on quays and other parts of the N4.

I didn't say everybody would be happy, and already said some may not like it (ie "you alienate a small few" etc). But the other users and potential uses of the route would be happier.

Dodge wrote: »

3) again, what's the basis for your 'vast majoirty' of users on that route claim

Because it's a small percentage of the soon-to-be route 40. On my suggested route change, you'd also pick up new passengers.

Dodge wrote: »

4) what percentage of the people from Ballyfermot who currently use the 79 instead of the 78a do so because of its more direct route, and what would happen this route?

I never said the 79 is perfect, before it takes the quicker route it goes into estates where no route length (ie only very local routes should be going into small estate roads without a very good reason).

starviewadams wrote: »

The 13 practicaly half empties and then re-fills when it reaches the stop outside Spar on Thomas Street inbound.People going to work around the liberties or students going to the NCAD presumably.The same for the 78A.I don't see how removing this obviously well used service from the James/Thomas Street area would mkae it more successful at all.

NCAD is under 300m from the bus stop at High Street!

It would more successful by speeding it up and make it more reliably, even if some people have to walk a little more or have to use other services -- maybe speed and reliability are not things you look for, but these are important to most people when picking their mode of transport.

meanmachine3

lxflyer wrote: »

Well then why was the 77a roster change approved by drivers? Surely if it is not going to work then it needs to go to arbitration?

Similarly the 27?

good point lx.most of you go on about unions this that and the other. what most of you dont realize is that the unions are in collusion with management. in most cases new schedules are rejected by the drivers but they're still forced in by management. the only way this wont happen is if the schedule goes over our working hours. other wise it's brought in. i know of certain routes that are on their 3or4 new schedule this year alone. drivers are arguing on a weekly basis about the running times we have, but unless theres something illegal in the new schedule unions dont want to know. the unions there days dont have the bottle to stand up for drivers any more. it's that bad most of us are actually wondering why we pay nearly €5 p/w to a bunch of useless wasters that do S.F.A. and are only interested in what cushy number they can get from day to day.
in a general context to most posters here: please dont compare the unions to drivers any more. we're sick of them just as much as all of you.:mad:

prettyboy81

From a Northside, Finglas point of view I am looking forward to the change of the 40 being extended heading southside part of city centre & liberties area.

But from reading on this forum & previous bus changes 13 & 27 for example it sounds like the service may become hit & miss in keeping with the timetable/drivers not getting lost on the route......This time next week all be revealed but the acid test will be during the midweek morning/evening traffic!

spareman

lxflyer wrote: »

Well then why was the 77a roster change approved by drivers? Surely if it is not going to work then it needs to go to arbitration?

Over 40 drivers are on route 27/77A in Ringsend, The vote passed 14 to 6, So half the drivers didn't even bother to vote, unusual? After all the vote will effect what hours they will be working in the future.

If we look at Route 50/56A timetable changes recently, which involved the scrapping of route 50 and a revised 56A timetable which would mean 11 of the 17 drivers on this route would revert back to spare status, which means day to day rostering, not knowing what time you will work tommorrow until 1pm today, basically having no work/life balance at all. The vote passed at the first timetable by 6 votes to 1.

The recent 145 timetable changes may explain drivers complete lack of interest when it comes to voting, The 145 timetable was overwelmingly rejected by drivers on a thursday, and by the Sunday they were told to work the new timetable by the unions?

This may explain a little.

Alot of drivers not happy at the moment, between the forced changes and the lack of good repesentation from the people who get €5 per week from every driver in the city.

Anything we say is met with a 'Sure your lucky to have a Job'

Staff Morale=All time Low

The_Wrecker

spareman wrote: »

Alot of drivers not happy at the moment, between the forced changes and the lack of good repesentation from the people who get €5 per week from every driver in the city.

Anything we say is met with a 'Sure your lucky to have a Job'

Staff Morale=All time Low

Were seeing similar on the Rock rd at the moment with lads hammering the bus into town to meet the 75min timing we had in 1999 on Burgh quay.

CIE

Oh well. Only one thing to do. Merge the 27A and 77A and call the merged route by the number 28. That's a nice Network Direct-type solution...

Can't wait until the 15 and 128 merge. That's going to be even more fun. Still two conflicting pages on the DB web site, one of which gives the impression that the merged route will be called the 128 rather than the 15.

PS. Some earlier posts on this thread gave me the impression that the 14 would be re-routed onto Upper Rathmines Road once the 14A was gone, and presumably once the 128 is off Upper Rathmines Road itself and becomes the 15 to Ballycullen. The current 14, per the timetable, runs on Rathgar Road.

LXFlyer

The 140 will operate to Palmerston Park in place of the 128.

CIE

That's quite the rapid change of route numbers for people on Upper Rathmines Road. 14A goes, then you have 128, and now it'll be the 140 moved from Leeson Street to down there. (I hope they don't mistake it for the number "14O".)

LXFlyer

I think you'll find that people will adjust fairly quickly....

KD345

CIE wrote: »

That's quite the rapid change of route numbers for people on Upper Rathmines Road. 14A goes, then you have 128, and now it'll be the 140 moved from Leeson Street to down there. (I hope they don't mistake it for the number "14O".)

Rathmines Road Upper and Palmerston Park area will be served by the 140 and 142. It's not all that confusing.

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

Rathmines Road Upper and Palmerston Park area will be served by the 140 and 142. It's not all that confusing.

Where did I say the word "confusing"...? I think "annoying" might fit better, since words are now being solicited.

People will certainly adjust rapidly...to being behind the wheel of a car.

KD345

CIE wrote: »

Where did I say the word "confusing"...? I think "annoying" might fit better, since words are now being solicited.

People will certainly adjust rapidly...to being behind the wheel of a car.

You think people will switch to using their car because the route number of their bus has changed?

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

You think people will switch to using their car because the route number of their bus has changed?

There have been more trivial reasons. Combine that with the anecdotal follies of ND and we could see a sea of cars bigger than before.

KD345

CIE wrote: »

There have been more trivial reasons. Combine that with the anecdotal follies of ND and we could see a sea of cars bigger than before.

Or, perhaps people will be happy that there is a new route 140 in their area linking O'Connell Street, Parnell Square, Broadstone, Finglas and IKEA to Rathmines and decide to use the bus instead of their car! Even if they don't I seriously doubt existing passengers will stop using the bus because they're "annoyed" at the number 140.

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

Or, perhaps people will be happy that there is a new route 140 in their area linking O'Connell Street, Parnell Square, Broadstone, Finglas and IKEA to Rathmines and decide to use the bus instead of their car! Even if they don't I seriously doubt existing passengers will stop using the bus because they're "annoyed" at the number 140

For every human, there's a different viewpoint. It's not practical to shop at IKEA via bus (and I've actually tried it once or twice); it's more practical to bring the car and put your purchases in the boot (even better with a fold-down rear seat), and one can find a driving route that circumvents the city centre; not so with the 140, presuming there's even a big clientele for IKEA on Upper Rathmines Road that is. And converse to that, perhaps there are also people on Leeson Street that would be very annoyed with a frequent bus link to IKEA being severed.

One of the biggest impediments to using a bus network aside from having a slow average speed is recognisability; the more it changes, the less potential customers would tend to bother with it, and the less it changes, the more that people would learn about it and consider using it.

KD345

CIE wrote: »

For every human, there's a different viewpoint. It's not practical to shop at IKEA via bus (and I've actually tried it once or twice); it's more practical to bring the car and put your purchases in the boot (even better with a fold-down rear seat), and one can find a driving route that circumvents the city centre; not so with the 140, presuming there's even a big clientele for IKEA on Upper Rathmines Road that is. And converse to that, perhaps there are also people on Leeson Street that would be very annoyed with a frequent bus link to IKEA being severed.

Not everybody going to IKEA is shopping for bulky items. The current passenger levels would confirm there is indeed a demand for a bus service. IKEA also employs 500 people, some of whom might use the bus. Routes from many parts of the city meet at Rathmines, so the 140 offers connections to these people, not just those in Rathmines. Anyone on Leeson Street just needs to walk two stops to get the 140, which, despite cutting though the city centre actually follows a direct routing to it's destination.

One of the biggest impediments to using a bus network aside from having a slow average speed is recognisability; the more it changes, the less potential customers would tend to bother with it, and the less it changes, the more that people would learn about it and consider using it.

What is the alternative? The route number has to change because it's a different route.

monument

CIE wrote: »

For every human, there's a different viewpoint. It's not practical to shop at IKEA via bus (and I've actually tried it once or twice); it's more practical to bring the car and put your purchases in the boot (even better with a fold-down rear seat), ...

I've shopped at Ikea by bus, bicycle, cargo bicycle, car, and on foot.

I can confirm all are possible.

Boulevardier

When is the 140 coming to Rathmines? It hasn't started yet.

LXFlyer

Boulevardier wrote: »

When is the 140 coming to Rathmines? It hasn't started yet.

Whenever the 15/a/b/e/f, 65/b, 74/a and 128 changes take place, the date for which has yet to be announced. At the same time the 140 will re-route to Palmerston Park.

The argument above that nothing should ever change is frankly nonsense. We are in the middle of a fundamental network redesign, the first in my lifetime - of course numbers and routes will change, but as I say people have and will adjust to the altered routes.

Can I ask "CIE" specifically what practical changes he has noted on his Dublin commute in terms of numbers on the bus service that he uses? Maybe he could identify that route so that we can understand where he is coming from? There must have been some major changes on his particular route that he is basing this assertion of huge numbers switching to the car?

jh385

monument wrote: »

I've shopped at Ikea by bus, bicycle, cargo bicycle, car, and on foot.

I can confirm all are possible.

If you sit by the window in the IKEA cafe you can watch people hauling their flat-pack wardrobes down to that bus-stop. :rolleyes:

angel01

jh385 wrote: »

If you sit by the window in the IKEA cafe you can watch people hauling their flat-pack wardrobes down to that bus-stop. :rolleyes:

Not everyone has a car you know. I am one of those people. I do not drive and depend on public transport.

monument

jh385 wrote: »

If you sit by the window in the IKEA cafe you can watch people hauling their flat-pack wardrobes down to that bus-stop. :rolleyes:

Wow, Ikea now only sells large items and they got rid of their delivery service?! Ikea has sure changed a lot since I was last there in the bus! :rolleyes:

And all the people offering third-party delivery services closed?! :rolleyes:

You know those people who get full kitchens in Ikea? Or those who get really big beds and only have small cars? How on earth do they manage fitting all the stuff into their cars? :rolleyes:

jh385

monument wrote: »

Or those who get really big beds and only have small cars? How on earth do they manage fitting all the stuff into their cars? :rolleyes:

Oh, that's part two of an Ikea afternoon - heading down to the car park and watching the shenanigans.

On a thread-related note. I've now permanently given up on the 77a and am doing the folding-bike + LUAS thing. It's working out very well, and plus I'm getting fitter.

qerty

Maps are working on the new routes

A2000

Last services Mon-sat on new 40 towards Liffey Valley from o'connell st are 22.55 & 23.30. This will put huge pressure on the 23.30 service which will probably be full leaving town with such a big gap leaving people behind along the route. The current 78A service is 23.00 23.15 & 23.30. The late evening sevice on 78A is 15 mins going to 20 mins on 40.

Cookie_Monster

KD345 wrote: »

Not everybody going to IKEA is shopping for bulky items..

exactly, you not going for bulky items, that doesn't mean you don't come out with them

As a man the only type of shopping I like, the only shop I actually like and the only shop I end up spending far more than I should in. The car is usually not sufficient (never mind the bus) and the fathers van must be acquired for the day :pac::pac:


On a serious note it was recognised that Ikea would generate huge traffic and this was specifically planned for by ABP with several conditions, it's recognised that for most people car is the only way to get there and back with your purchases, PT is never going to be the mainstay to such a place period.

Cookie_Monster

jh385 wrote: »

On a thread-related note. I've now permanently given up on the 77a and am doing the folding-bike + LUAS thing. It's working out very well, and plus I'm getting fitter.

just need a real bike and give up on the Luas next, fitter still and save more money

Progress and all that

dfx-

People can find their way out of IKEA? :eek:

They deserve a free bus to their door for that achievement..