Removal of bus stops to speed up buses?

monument

Isn't it about time that the streamlining of bus stops was looked at as way to speed up buses and make times more reliable?

These are some of the example I know of where bus stop bunching happens and stops are too close to each other, maybe there's some reasons for some of these, but them all?

Many of these stops apply to other routes besides the ones mentioned, and it would be ok if main roads or dual carriage ways separated the stops, but it's not the case in these examples...

In Inchicore, from Dublin Bus' map of the 78a route, example is outbound:



41C around Swords:



4a Ballymun Road, the two middle ones are ok but could be better, the top and bottom two are both very close, example is outbound:

mikemac

I can't view your pics

But on the 78A in Inchicore close by Richmond Park, there are two bus stops about 100 metres apart.

Lived in many areas of Dublin and I've never seen two bus stops so close together. Maybe it's something to do football crowds and Richmond Park needs a bus stop, I'm not sure.

But there's one for the axe for definite! The rest of the 78A route has stops evenly spaced and consistent, no issues there

Cookie_Monster

you could remove about 25% of the stops in Dublin I reckon without really affecting people all that much, They are way to close together in general

oharach

Completely agree with the principle of removing some unnecessary bus stops. However, it's often not as easy as just dropping stops. You often need something like this

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

---

New Stop

---

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

Otherwise you get several stops still bunched together, and then a large gap.

Because of the design requirements frequently applied to new stops (some of them seem gold-plated), this could cost quite a bit.

loyatemu

its been discussed here before - there's definitely too many stops, but its very difficult to make any changes to a route without local residents and "won't somebody think of the old people" rentaquote-type politicians sticking their oar in. Look at whats happening with the so-called Network Direct project...

Run_to_da_hills

oharach wrote: »

Completely agree with the principle of removing some unnecessary bus stops. However, it's often not as easy as just dropping stops. You often need something like this

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

---

New Stop

---

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

Otherwise you get several stops still bunched together, and then a large gap.

Because of the design requirements frequently applied to new stops (some of them seem gold-plated), this could cost quite a bit.

At up to a €200,000 cost to the taxpayer for a modified bus stop leave them exactly as they are. :eek:

God only knows how much it will cost to remove the old ones.

Cuddlesworth

feelingstressed wrote: »

I can't view your pics

But on the 78A in Inchicore close by Richmond Park, there are two bus stops about 100 metres apart.

I've got one better, heading northbound on the n11 coming up to Stillorgan just past "The Grange" there are two stops within 50 metre's of each other.

Colm R

There are parts of Dublin that have a stupid amound of bus stops, and this coupled with our over use of cash fares makes some routes so slow.

Getting rid of a bus stop is almost impossible. Local councillors/TD's would block any attempt. But there is a simple solution.

Make these silly 'Vote Getting' bus stops 'non operational' during rush hour.

All bus stops should (and probably will) have a timetable and route map. Simple notice should be:

Route: 1,2,3. Bus Stop not in operation: 7:30 - 10:00 & 16:00 -19:00.
Nearest alternative Stop -> 500m

The poor old lady who probably does not travel at rush hour gets to keep her bus stop, and everyone else gets a bit of exercise.

Possibly colour code the stop signs also. One colour for fully operational stops and one for non-peak hour stops. That way, you can look at road a few hunderd meters long with 4 or 5 stops and see easily where your stop is.

oharach

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

At up to a €200,000 cost to the taxpayer for a modified bus stop leave them exactly as they are. :eek:

God only knows how much it will cost to remove the old ones.

Exactly the case I was hinting at - although that one practically involved the regeneration of a small city quarter..

The only way I can see to do this systematically is as follows:

Starting point: Abolish all bus stops (on paper).

1. Stops exceeding a standard threshold for minimum number of passengers per day (50?) ("standard stops") will be reinstated.
2. Where two standard stops are located less than 250?m apart, only the stop with the higher number of passengers will be reinstated.
3. Stops which do not qualify as standard stops will nevertheless be reinstated if they meet a social threshold for minimum number of passengers per day (10?) and are located more than 500?m from the nearest stop ("social stops")
4. Stops located at a junction with another bus route ("interchange stops") will be reinstated.

Oversimplistic, but you get the idea - concrete criteria.

Abolish everything else. Painting over the bus stop sign in black would seem perfectly clear, and cheap. The next time the Council renews the footpath, Dublin Bus can pay them a small sum to remove the sign/other street furniture.

And since you would be using the same rules for everyone, no one could bring up Northside vs Southside, or other favouritism.

I understand this would require a lot of work (esp counting passengers), but it would save money even in the short term, and could be introduced on a corridor basis alongside a delayed Network Direct.

Blue skies anyway

alias no.9

oharach wrote: »

I understand this would require a lot of work (esp counting passengers)

With the exception of OAP Bus Passes, that data is generated every time someone buys or validates a ticket. Have the driver issue a €0.00 ticket for OAP's and the missing OAP numbers are included. All that is required after that is for someone to coallate the data.

goingnowhere

alias no.9 wrote: »

With the exception of OAP Bus Passes, that data is generated every time someone buys or validates a ticket. Have the driver issue a €0.00 ticket for OAP's and the missing OAP numbers are included. All that is required after that is for someone to coallate the data.

Every time pass is presented the driver presses a pass button on the ticket machine and has done for decades

Cookie_Monster

alias no.9 wrote: »

With the exception of OAP Bus Passes, that data is generated every time someone buys or validates a ticket. Have the driver issue a €0.00 ticket for OAP's and the missing OAP numbers are included. All that is required after that is for someone to coallate the data.

yes but that assuming the driver is updating the system per stop, I think this is only done per stage isin't it?

Also frequently not done at all anyway

oharach

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yes but that assuming the driver is updating the system per stop, I think this is only done per stage isin't it?

Also frequently not done at all anyway

That's exactly the problem. Although won't this get better when the tracking devices are all installed and turned on?

alias no.9 wrote: »

With the exception of OAP Bus Passes, that data is generated every time someone buys or validates a ticket. Have the driver issue a €0.00 ticket for OAP's and the missing OAP numbers are included. All that is required after that is for someone to coallate the data.

This doesn't count alighting passengers though, and there are a lot of stops that are popular for people getting off, but where very few people board buses.

alias no.9

goingnowhere wrote: »

Every time pass is presented the driver presses a pass button on the ticket machine and has done for decades

Then the data is all there, it just needs to be collated.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yes but that assuming the driver is updating the system per stop, I think this is only done per stage isin't it?

Also frequently not done at all anyway

Get the drivers to do their job and issue a ticket with the correct stop. The point is that it's not that difficult, in fact, there's practically no overhead to the collection of the data.

alias no.9

oharach wrote: »

This doesn't count alighting passengers though, and there are a lot of stops that are popular for people getting off, but where very few people board buses.

Fair enough, but for the most part the stops we're talking about are away from the city centre and will form part of a return journey, they're busy boarding stops in the morning and busy alighting stops in the evening, so counting the people boarding is a good enough proxy. The only locations where this won't work is where the inbound and outbound routes diverge, but this is rare enough outside the city centre. Let's deal with what can be done easilly and then look at the special cases on a case by case basis afterwards.

antoinolachtnai

For the most part, this wouldnt help much. The bus doesn't stop if there's nobody there. Most of the stop time is waiting for payment and issuing tickets, not in decelerating and accelerating. You will just shift the delay to a different stop. Really you will make very little saving like this.

oharach

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For the most part, this wouldnt help much. The bus doesn't stop if there's nobody there. Most of the stop time is waiting for payment and issuing tickets, not in decelerating and accelerating. You will just shift the delay to a different stop. Really you will make very little saving like this.

I disagree. You're right that it won't make much of a difference for very infrequently used stops. Where it makes a big difference is closely spaced medium-use stops, i.e. where the bus stops every 200m to pick up 3-5 people. This is really wasting time and resources.

oharach

alias no.9 wrote: »

Fair enough, but for the most part the stops we're talking about are away from the city centre and will form part of a return journey, they're busy boarding stops in the morning and busy alighting stops in the evening, so counting the people boarding is a good enough proxy. The only locations where this won't work is where the inbound and outbound routes diverge, but this is rare enough outside the city centre. Let's deal with what can be done easilly and then look at the special cases on a case by case basis afterwards.

That's fair enough.

antoinolachtnai

If you travel on such a route try counting time for a few days. Count the time taken to stop, the time for passengers to board and the number of passengers per stop. Also count as people get off. I think you will be surprised how high the time per passenger is but maybe you will surprise me.

That is not to say there isn't a case for express buses though. They succeed because they are able to keep moving with the traffic wave.

oharach

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If you travel on such a route try counting time for a few days. Count the time taken to stop, the time for passengers to board and the number of passengers per stop. Also count as people get off. I think you will be surprised how high the time per passenger is but maybe you will surprise me.

That is not to say there isn't a case for express buses though. They succeed because they are able to keep moving with the traffic wave.

Oh no, I'm absolutely 100% behind plans to ban cash-payments, am fuming that the smartcard is late, think we should have retained buses with multiple doors, and actually quite like bendy buses. Time per passenger at stops is horrendous, but excessive stopping is another waste of time in many people's opinion, and that's why it has this separate thread I guess.

As you say, actual deceleration and acceleration might not be too bad, but pulling in, holding up other buses following, and trying to pull out again (especially where there is no bus lane) are examples of where time is lost when this procedure is repeated every 200m.

AlekSmart

An interesting thread.

Oharach posted :-

As you say, actual deceleration and acceleration might not be too bad, but pulling in, holding up other buses following, and trying to pull out again (especially where there is no bus lane) are examples of where time is lost when this procedure is repeated every 200m.

It has always amused me to read lurid Newspaper accounts of "Gridlock" and associated imposed horrors whilst the equally disruptive self-imposed delays were ignored.

The Dickensian Fare-Stage system is now so woebegone and inoperable that it remains only as an indicator of official inertia and lack of comprehension as to what efficient Public Transport actually entails.

For example,Bus Atha Cliath so values it`s Fare-Stage system that it removed all identifying markings from the stages themselves some years back.

Currently the only method a customer (or Staff Member) has of identifying an individual Fare-Stage is to possess a Timetable book to refer to (Most likely on the Bus platform whilst attempting to divine how much to tender).

Even then a great many of the Fare-Stage locations are ambigiously named which is a recipe for disagreement and confrontation....Try defining Stage 69 on Sandford Road.......or Stage 22 "Drumcondra Station"...a Fare-Stage has to be an actual stop,as if its a multiple we then move into a zonal system which has been stoutly resisted in Dublin for decades.

Then we have the actual design of the Bus Stop-Bus Bay itself,often designed and constructed by Engineers with absolutely no concept of the requirements of safely manouvering an 11 Metre long 2.55 Metre wide vehicle into and out of a constricted obstructed space.

By far the best approach is the Glide-Slope in and out,with no requirement to make sharp steering inputs or braking,elements which are sadly the norm in Dublin.

The reasons here are a long held affinity on the part of the City Council with maximising On-Street Car Parking spaces to the absolute detriment of Public Transport users and there is no sign of any change in that policy....Take a look at the St Stephens Green North setup any given day to see examples of imposed danger levels which could be eliminated by the stroke of an engineers crayon......some chance :mad:

This is the stuff of simple clean design with inputs from Drivers and Passengers to take precedence over the requirement of Car Drivers to park as close to a destination as possible.

As it stands,the Authorities cannot even mark out the Bus Bays and Parking Restrictions.....EG: Chelmsford Road/Ranelagh Village..

Progress...not a chance...unless the Germans invade !!! :eek:

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For the most part, this wouldnt help much. The bus doesn't stop if there's nobody there. Most of the stop time is waiting for payment and issuing tickets, not in decelerating and accelerating. You will just shift the delay to a different stop. Really you will make very little saving like this.

I'm not saying it is massive, massive problem. And it's not a problem on all routes. But it does seem to be a problem. And sure, in a line, I'd put it behind things such as joining up bus lanes, bus priority traffic lights, and promoting smartcard use.

And, yes, you're right, often there is nobody at many bus stops. But at other times you can be on a bus that is letting people on and off at nearly every bus stop along the way where many of the stops are not needed.

If you were running a city service would you have two stops within 88m or 150m away from each other as is the case on both side of Inchicore village on the 78a?

foggy_lad

oharach wrote: »

As you say, actual deceleration and acceleration might not be too bad, but pulling in, holding up other buses following, and trying to pull out again (especially where there is no bus lane) are examples of where time is lost when this procedure is repeated every 200m.

i always thought the actual waiting for the customer to go through pockets or handbags for change was the greatest delay for busses at stops?

also for stops where there is on street parking the bus stops could be placed on sections protruding out between parking spaces and have busses just stopping in the traffic lane/bus lane but only if the stopping times were minimised!

dowlingm

This works where all houses are lined up along the road. If you have to walk 200m to the road from your sidestreet and then another 200 to the stop, not so much.

oharach

I agree that cash payments are a bigger problem. I think we all do.

BUT:
since there are at least concrete plans to change to smartcards, and since we already have threads to discuss cash payments and smart cards, this thread is about removing bus stops to save time.

I would have thought it's a pretty uncontroversial idea amongst boardsies - but a lot of you don't seem to think it's necessary?

oharach

dowlingm wrote: »

This works where all houses are lined up along the road. If you have to walk 200m to the road from your sidestreet and then another 200 to the stop, not so much.

Ah come on now, according to Google Maps walking speed for geriatrics, 400m takes 4 mins. If it was right at the top of your street before, 200m so 2 mins. Extra time of 2 mins each way. Surely not unreasonable.

You've been in North America too long

Progress...not a chance...unless the Germans invade !!!

The picture I posted earlier in Infrastructure might give you a clue what country I'm living in right now

dowlingm

It's a consideration for paratransit. In Toronto, if you are medically certified as being unable to reach your nearest bus stop, you can avail of the WheelTrans door to door service (by appointment, same fare as bus, operating cost 10 times as much paid for by subsidy).

I think the city usually tries to keep the distance to stops around 300m. However, this is easier to do in a grid road system. On some of the subway routes where stop distance is >0.5km they run an infrequent bus overground so you can get off at the near stop and the bus will bring you nearer your destination if you can't walk it.

jrar

oharach wrote: »

Completely agree with the principle of removing some unnecessary bus stops. However, it's often not as easy as just dropping stops. You often need something like this

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

---

New Stop

---

Old Stop

---

Old Stop

Otherwise you get several stops still bunched together, and then a large gap.

Because of the design requirements frequently applied to new stops (some of them seem gold-plated), this could cost quite a bit.

A very simple solution I saw in Budapest back in the 80s was to have express buses on a route which only stopped at express bus stops. So for instance the route 7 in that city is particularly popular and stops at ALL stops on the route. However, the 7X bus only stops at those stops carrying the red X which are usually the stops nearest metro stations, large junctions i.e. largest movements of people.

So if you need or want the complete local service, take bus 7, but if you want to get there a bit quicker and possibly have to walk a little further at the other end because the bus cannot drop you as close as the local service might, then that's your choice..................simples.

As I recall, the fare was the exact same on both.

Carawaystick

monument wrote: »

If you were running a city service would you have two stops within 88m or 150m away from each other as is the case on both side of Inchicore village on the 78a?

In this case you'l provide an analysis of the no of through customers, the no getting off at the first stop, the no. getting off at the second stop, the no getting getting on at the first stop and the no getting no at he second stop. then you;d be able to decide.

if the stops are so close then make the first stop set down, and the second stop pickup/setdown and see how the bus service improves. In the absence of data regarding passenger usage and bus delay the fact stops re near each other is fairly meaningless.

I'm not agin reducing bus stops but it needs to be done in a rational way.

AlekSmart

Carawaystick posted :-

I'm not agin reducing bus stops but it needs to be done in a rational way.

The rationalization and restructuring of Bus Stopping arrangements is a definite requirement and perhaps the imminent introduction of the AVLS system can allow for that as it will result in a far more predictable flow on the main routes.

Timing points or even Stage points could be defined and marketed as places where Buses operated from at defined intervals,introducing a degree of certainty akin to what makes Luas services so much more popular than the Bus.

However,it all hangs on those with responsibility having some inkling of how the City`s systems actually interact and how much hands-on assistance that requires....I would suggest an expanded role for the DSPS operation directed towards keeping the new-super Bus Stop/Stage and it`s glideslope free from obstructions.......ah well ....we can dream I suppose ??

Guy:Incognito

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

At up to a €200,000 cost to the taxpayer for a modified bus stop leave them exactly as they are. :eek:

God only knows how much it will cost to remove the old ones.

i like how you link to the article that leans towards the sensationalist instead of one of the threads from here about it that gives 2 sides.

oharach

Stekelly wrote: »

i like how you link to the article that leans towards the sensationalist instead of one of the threads from here about it that gives 2 sides.

I understood it as pretty tongue-in-cheek.

If you have a link in mind, or arguments you'd like to make, I'd like to hear them.

Craig Fay

There's a terrible example of bus stops too close together westbound on the Nangor Road in Clondalkin, between Lealand and Oldchurch, less than 200m apart. If you plan on going south towards Oldchurch, from either bus stop will have to walk to the same road. If you are going to cross the road into Lealand, there's only lights near the second bus stop. The first one will require you to cross a very busy road and go up a hill. Seems the first one is completely pointless. :rolleyes:

dam099

There are two on the 142 route built in the last year or two, about 120m apart. The cut-through from the estate they service is slap bang in the middle of them, use of one over the other makes absolutely no difference to your walk. To the right is the motorway access so no other estates can use so the right one is completely redundant. It only ever gets used by someone running last minute for the bus as it gives you an extra few seconds while the bus pulls off from the first stop to get there ahead of it.

feelingstressed

feelingstressed wrote: »

But there's one for the axe for definite! The rest of the 78A route has stops evenly spaced and consistent, no issues there

On Ballyfermot Road at Markievicz Park there's two bus stops very close together. You can see one from the other and I'm sure they could eliminate one of them.

Another I know of is on Orchard Road in Clondalkin on the 51B/C route, again two very close together.

robbie_998

monument wrote: »

If you were running a city service would you have two stops within 88m or 150m away from each other as is the case on both side of Inchicore village on the 78a?

i've said it before and i'll say it again:

that poxy bus runs too often.... it really needs to be cut down,

mind, the last time they tried to cut it down by taking a few buses away from it there were signs everywhere in clondalkin village (which was/is not serviced by this bus) and all over neilstown going against the move from all the local people and what not. I thought it was a load of bollox but sure enough the locals won with the local TD's and that.

I could be on the neilstown road anywhere on it and the amount of 78A's is fecking ridicules and they are literally spaced 10 - 15 mins apart and they all end up driving right behind one another. :mad:

Monday to Friday
06:10 06:40 06:55 07:05
07:14 07:21 07:28 07:35
07:42 07:49 08:01 08:12
08:21 08:28 08:34 08:40
08:47 08:54 09:01 09:07
09:14 09:20 09:25 09:33
09:40 09:47 10:02 10:16
10:32 10:38 10:50 11:02
11:12 11:21 11:30 11:40
11:50 12:00 12:10 12:20
12:30 12:40 12:50 12:55
13:00 13:07 13:13 13:20
13:30 13:40 13:50 14:10
14:20 14:30 14:40 14:56
15:02 15:08 15:16 15:24
15:32 15:50 16:02 16:13
16:20 16:27 16:33 16:40
16:47 16:54 17:08 17:16
17:24 17:36 17:48 17:52
17:59 18:13 18:20 v 18:28
18:40 18:50 19:05 19:20
19:35 19:45 19:53 20:10
20:25 20:35 20:55 21:10
21:27 21:42 22:00 22:15
22:30 22:45 23:00 23:15
23:30

Karsini wrote: »

On Ballyfermot Road at Markievicz Park there's two bus stops very close together. You can see one from the other and I'm sure they could eliminate one of them.

Another I know of is on Orchard Road in Clondalkin on the 51B/C route, again two very close together.

yeah one at molloy's and the other across from the garda station.... they are actually looking at each other and its literally a 30 second walk between them.

one i will mention is the neilstown road: it has 6 bus stops for each direction. and mainly lazy people with bus pass's use them, a complete fecking waste !

and then there's one at the end of the neilstown road just before you go on the roundabout and when it hits the roundabout and goes on the coldcut road and theres another ****ing bus stop right after the roundabout. why ? whats the purpose of that !

http://www.dublinbus.ie/Labs.EPiServer/GoogleMap/map.aspx?id=1219&epslanguage=en&routeNumber=78A&direction=O&towards=Liffey+Valley+Shopping+Centre

Bazzer2

The 78/78a are some of DB's 'bread and butter' routes - there is no way they will reduce the service here in any meaningful way. Besides, there is no significant rail service along that corridor and never likely to be, so the bus is king around those parts.

Better get used to it!

markpb

robbie_998 wrote: »

I could be on the neilstown road anywhere on it and the amount of 78A's is fecking ridicules and they are literally spaced 10 - 15 mins apart and they all end up driving right behind one another. :mad:

10-15 minutes isn't particularly frequent for bus routes, it's about what you'd expect on core routes. The bunching problem is down to lack of bus priority by DCC, a reliance on cash fares, only using one door and the lack of GPS which could allow for proper headway maintenance.