So what bus routes should be 24 hours?

LXFlyer

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm a regular customer, telling you purely why as a commuter (and other like thomasj above) don't see these bastardized mishmash routes as a reasonable alternative. You or tptb can dismiss it as nonsense all you want, I guess it'll follow a noble tradition of Irish service providers dismissing feedback and forcing on customers what management has decided in their wisdom that customers really want.


Great example is wee London.
The night buses basicaly have a captive market hence they are successful. Stand out in Leicester Sq for a taxi, the 50th might stop, you'll then be faced with 'not going up to Kings Cross lads', 'East Ham, youre having a laff mate', 'Soufhside of the river at this hour, not a chance guvnor'.
You'll then make your way to wherever the nightbus starts at and happily take the merged/extended route home.

But don't mistake this monopoly as being a sign of popularity or customer satisfaction or a system worth copying.

Slightly interesesting obviously that TfL are now going with the underground, buses a more flawed system than previouslly thought I'd guess.

I'm quoting practice across international cities - pretty much everywhere that has night services has merged routes at night. But you seem to think that is not acceptable here?


Without misrepresenting him, I don't think thomasj said anything about merged routes - his complaint (and I'd agree with him) is that there is not a night time network of routes that pick up and set down in both directions that facilitate people going to/from work, airport and home from a night out.


So are you seriously telling me that there is demand for, for example, the 37, 38, 39 and 70 all night throughout the week?

Aard

Polar101 wrote: »

What announcement?

Whoops, getting my lines crossed :$

LXFlyer

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'm a regular customer, telling you purely why as a commuter (and other like thomasj above) don't see these bastardized mishmash routes as a reasonable alternative. You or tptb can dismiss it as nonsense all you want, I guess it'll follow a noble tradition of Irish service providers dismissing feedback and forcing on customers what management has decided in their wisdom that customers really want.

Great example is wee London.
The night buses basicaly have a captive market hence they are successful. Stand out in Leicester Sq for a taxi, the 50th might stop, you'll then be faced with 'not going up to Kings Cross lads', 'East Ham, youre having a laff mate', 'Soufhside of the river at this hour, not a chance guvnor'.
You'll then make your way to wherever the nightbus starts at and happily take the merged/extended route home.

But don't mistake this monopoly as being a sign of popularity or customer satisfaction or a system worth copying.

Slightly interesesting obviously that TfL are now going with the underground, buses a more flawed system than previouslly thought I'd guess.

The London night bus network of merged routes means that you end up with a service out to the far suburbs by merging local/orbital routes with routes that start in the city.


It means most areas have a 24 hour service that local areas together and a connection to/from the city - that's a bit more than what you seem to think it is.

cgcsb

Regarding what the customer wants. If the customer actually got the same service that was available in the daytime. The cost of that service would be unaffordable for the customer. The cost of running empty buses would have to be passed onto the customer. Consequently routes must be merged, otherwise there'd be no service at all for the customer.

AlekSmart

lxflyer wrote: »

The London night bus network of merged routes means that you end up with a service out to the far suburbs by merging local/orbital routes with routes that start in the city.


It means most areas have a 24 hour service that local areas together and a connection to/from the city - that's a bit more than what you seem to think it is.

I wonder does Armani Jeanss think TfL are replacing night buses with The Tube ?

There is no suggestion that Night Bus services,both N route and 24hr routes are to be abolished,but definitely the notion of mainstream Public Transport operating 24/7 is being pursued.

As another poster mentioned,the requirement for 24 hr public transport is no longer driven by recreational needs,but rather by a rapidly changing society.

Take a look at the delivery window in Dublin City Centre 06.00 -11.00.
How many businesses can have stockrooms/premises open to recieve that 06.00 delivery ?
Answer,very few,with the inability to get staff in to work early enough being the major reason

To be up and running for 06.00,a business will have to have Staff in place by 05.30 at the latest,the upside being that these early starters also FINISH earlier,thus reducing the egg-timer effect of morning and evening peaks.

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder does Armani Jeanss think TfL are replacing night buses with The Tube ?

There is no suggestion that Night Bus services,both N route and 24hr routes are to be abolished,but definitely the notion of mainstream Public Transport operating 24/7 is being pursued.

As another poster mentioned,the requirement for 24 hr public transport is no longer driven by recreational needs,but rather by a rapidly changing society.

Take a look at the delivery window in Dublin City Centre 06.00 -11.00.
How many businesses can have stockrooms/premises open to recieve that 06.00 delivery ?
Answer,very few,with the inability to get staff in to work early enough being the major reason

To be up and running for 06.00,a business will have to have Staff in place by 05.30 at the latest,the upside being that these early starters also FINISH earlier,thus reducing the egg-timer effect of morning and evening peaks.

Indeed Alek, there has been no suggestion that the night bus network in London is going to change - rather that the Underground will complement it on Friday and Saturday nights.

thomasj

lxflyer wrote: »

Indeed Alek, there has been no suggestion that the night bus network in London is going to change - rather that the Underground will complement it on Friday and Saturday nights.

Ah you're not suggesting that DARTs should complement night buses are you? :eek:

LXFlyer

thomasj wrote: »

Ah you're not suggesting that DARTs should complement night buses are you? :eek:

I think that's another battle - get some form of public transport operating first!

ArmaniJeanss

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder does Armani Jeanss think TfL are replacing night buses with The Tube ?

Nope, but it indicates that there is a nightime demand for the regular normal daytime service which isn't being currently met by the buses.

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm quoting practice across international cities - pretty much everywhere that has night services has merged routes at night. But you seem to think that is not acceptable here?

I'm genuinely not sure what other cities mean by merged routes. It can be a fine concept or it can be a terrible concept. I'm not completely against it but I'd have issues with the 39N example which you mention, to me its an example of merging done wrong.

Also as a general point of interest at what time do these cities of best practice introduce their night buses, i.e., do regular services stop at 23:30?

lxflyer wrote: »

Without misrepresenting him, I don't think thomasj said anything about merged routes - his complaint (and I'd agree with him) is that there is not a night time network of routes that pick up and set down in both directions that facilitate people going to/from work, airport and home from a night out.

I was referring to his saying that he is a regular 39 customer who doesn't use the 39N because he can't get it in an area of the city centre (Leeson St) that the 39 does serve.

lxflyer wrote: »

So are you seriously telling me that there is demand for, for example, the 37, 38, 39 and 70 all night throughout the week?

Not what I'm saying, I'm suggesting that you operate one only (39a I guess, or maybe 70 would be more logical). What you shouldnt have is have a hybrid of them all, the current 39N appears to have elements of the 39a, 37, 38 and even the old 38c.
Some would lose out (inc me in Mulhuddart fwiw) but my personal opinion is that using a direct corridor is preferable to trying to fit in every estate.

*****
Look I'm not being obstreperous for the sake of it and people can dismiss it as nonsense if they want.
But I work and socialise in the Leeson St area myself and two negatives against the Nitelink I hear are that you have to 'walk all the way into town' to get it and 'it goes into every estate on the way'.

thomasj

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm quoting practice across international cities - pretty much everywhere that has night services has merged routes at night. But you seem to think that is not acceptable here?


Without misrepresenting him, I don't think thomasj said anything about merged routes - his complaint (and I'd agree with him) is that there is not a night time network of routes that pick up and set down in both directions that facilitate people going to/from work, airport and home from a night out.


So are you seriously telling me that there is demand for, for example, the 37, 38, 39 and 70 all night throughout the week?

I have no problem with routes being merged during the night providing that they are covering the areas that are required.

The 39N and 70N cover mainly residential areas in blanchardstown. They do not cover damastown or ballycoolin areas that would have staff covering shifts that would require night services, these would need to be factored in.

Also the question is, does Dublin but drop the nitelink brand? It has a reputation as being too dangerous the "fitelink" with riff-raff only using it.

Mainly they will have to move away from the Westmoreland street terminus further south near lesson/baggott street and a better frequency

Furthermore if you are going to introduce 24 hours on some routes surely there would need to be a common face and not normal fare on 24 hour services and premium fares on nitelink services.

Whatever happens, Dublin bus need to make a better attempt on the advertising/information when introducing than network direct otherwise it won't be a success.

LXFlyer

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Nope, but it indicates that there is a nightime demand for the regular normal daytime service which isn't being currently met by the buses.

I'm genuinely not sure what other cities mean by merged routes. It can be a fine concept or it can be a terrible concept. I'm not completely against it but I'd have issues with the 39N example which you mention, to me its an example of merging done wrong.

Also as a general point of interest at what time do these cities of best practice introduce their night buses, i.e., do regular services stop at 23:30?

I was referring to his saying that he is a regular 39 customer who doesn't use the 39N because he can't get it in an area of the city centre (Leeson St) that the 39 does serve.

Not what I'm saying, I'm suggesting that you operate one only (39a I guess, or maybe 70 would be more logical). What you shouldnt have is have a hybrid of them all, the current 39N appears to have elements of the 39a, 37, 38 and even the old 38c.
Some would lose out (inc me in Mulhuddart fwiw) but my personal opinion is that using a direct corridor is preferable to trying to fit in every estate.

*****
Look I'm not being obstreperous for the sake of it and people can dismiss it as nonsense if they want.
But I work and socialise in the Leeson St area myself and two negatives against the Nitelink I hear are that you have to 'walk all the way into town' to get it and 'it goes into every estate on the way'.

Let's just be clear about this. The tube is being extended to 24 hours on Friday and Saturday only - not every day of the week. The bus network will continue as it is.


Most international cities operate a route network at night that is a hybrid of the daytime network, that merges routes and maintains a service to most areas. Most international cities run a night service between say midnight and 05:30 or so.


Go back to my original post - I did suggest starting northbound/westbound routes from Burlington Road (the current 39 terminus) which would expand the catchment area in the city.


While it might not suit you to have the current 39N/70N at night, I suspect quite a few people would disagree. By your reckoning Castleknock would have no service at all - I don't think you can quite equate running a night service with that of a daytime service. They are inevitably going to have to serve more areas to make them affordable to operate.

thomasj wrote: »

I have no problem with routes being merged during the night providing that they are covering the areas that are required.

The 39N and 70N cover mainly residential areas in blanchardstown. They do not cover damastown or ballycoolin areas that would have staff covering shifts that would require night services, these would need to be factored in.

Also the question is, does Dublin but drop the nitelink brand? It has a reputation as being too dangerous the "fitelink" with riff-raff only using it.

Mainly they will have to move away from the Westmoreland street terminus further south near lesson/baggott street and a better frequency

Furthermore if you are going to introduce 24 hours on some routes surely there would need to be a common face and not normal fare on 24 hour services and premium fares on nitelink services.

Whatever happens, Dublin bus need to make a better attempt on the advertising/information when introducing than network direct otherwise it won't be a success.

I doubt very much that there are huge numbers travelling to Ballycoolin or Damastown outside of the current hours of bus operation. I'd imagine night shifts would start before midnight and finish after 06:00. Having said that, the 39N operates to Tyrellstown - nothing to stop it serving Ballycoolin en route.


I wouldn't see an extended 24 hour service as a separate brand at all - it would just be part of the general service. Having said that, in all the years that I've been taking the Nitelink, I have never seen any trouble on it, so I'm not sure where this reputation comes from.


I'm also not sure what you mean by poor levels of info about Network Direct - there were posters on every bus shelter, leaflets on buses and copious details online, in addition to consultation meetings. The only issue was with the first phase when they didn't have the revised timetables up on stops on the first day, something they rectified with subsequent phases.

thomasj

sorry levels of information was good but there were clarifications needed because of inaccuracies etc.

ongarboy

http://www.98fm.com/Dublin-Bus-Could-Launch-24-Hour-Routes-This-Year

Good news! I wonder what the 3 north, south and west routes proposed are?

Edit: this article gives more info. Delighted that Blanchardstown and airport are included!

Dublin Airport, Blanchardstown and the N11: These 3 Dublin bus routes are set to get a 24-hour service http://jrnl.ie/3879221

thomasj

This has been news for a while, hopefully it's coming soon .

A driver I know was telling me the routes in question are the 39, 41 and 145.

He said it could involve 2 routes ballywaltrim-ongar and city-swords.

Time will tell!

thomasj

sugarman wrote:

41 makes perfect sense, 145 not so much.. would have said the 46a ahead of it. Not sure about the 39.

39 carries large numbers of passengers in the evening, even up to 11pm so to me that makes sense. Plus passengers off the 37/38/70 do use it. So no argument there.

The question about the 145 is we know irrespective of 46a or 145 the n11 leg upto foxrock is covered. Next question is which will cover more passengers ? Dun laoghaire or bray? To me it's bray !

41 makes complete sense.

Stephen15

thomasj wrote: »

39 carries large numbers of passengers in the evening, even up to 11pm so to me that makes sense. Plus passengers off the 37/38/70 do use it. So no argument there.

The question about the 145 is we know irrespective of 46a or 145 the n11 leg upto foxrock is covered. Next question is which will cover more passengers ? Dun laoghaire or bray? To me it's bray !

41 makes complete sense.

But it's not just Dun Laoghaire the 46a serves after it also serves large residental areas around Deansgrange, Kill Lane, Bakers Corners, Honeypark and Monkstown. The 145 serves a less dense more spread out area around Cabinteely, Loughlinstown and Shankill.

You could make both the 46a and 145 hourly at night 24h and interwork the timetable giving the N11 a half hourly night time service.

But also you could also make the 7/a a 24h route to serve DL serving Blackrock, Monkstown, Glenageary, Sallynoggin, Ballybrack and Cherrywood/Loughlinstown. It would a good idea especially with the new town going in Cherrywood particularly handy during the night when the DART and Luas is not running in the evening.

thomasj

It's only a pilot dublin bus will be running initially so they will be picking 3 routes with potential initially

North - 41 , west - 39 and south - 145

Bigger range by covering the 145 route rather than the 46a initially

Stephen15

thomasj wrote: »

It's only a pilot dublin bus will be running initially so they will be picking 3 routes with potential initially

North - 41 , west - 39 and south - 145

I know that. I'm just making some more long term suggestions.

thomasj

Stephen15 wrote:

I know that. I'm just making some more long term suggestions.

Oh yeah I know and I don't doubt the 46a will be made 24 hours at some stage if this trial is successful, but it's about this trial being successful and in order to do that you have to aim for the maximum range .

cgcsb

Dead handy. So long as the fare is the same as the day time, or only slightly more. The present 'nitelink' service is a relic that encourages taxi usage. If you live inside the M50 the cost of the nitelink isn't competitive with taxis, especially if there are 2 of you travelling.

devnull

The idea is these services will be charged at standard daytime rates, not Nitelink

IE 222

Would an extended 16 to Swords Manor not be better than the 41.

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

Would an extended 16 to Swords Manor not be better than the 41.

I would of thought so, but it sounds like they don't want to have different routes at night from day time. In which case the 41 would make sense. A 16N would also need to be straightened out in places.

On the other hand a 41 avoids the 16 having to crawl along behind all the "parked" Taxi's on Georges Street at night! Complete madness there.

thomasj

Stephen15 wrote:

But it's not just Dun Laoghaire the 46a serves after it also serves large residental areas around Deansgrange, Kill Lane, Bakers Corners, Honeypark and Monkstown. The 145 serves a less dense more spread out area around Cabinteely, Loughlinstown and Shankill.

Look at it this way, which is easier to walk to from foxrock Church, dun laoghaire or bray?

dashcamdanny

thomasj wrote: »

This has been news for a while, hopefully it's coming soon .

A driver I know was telling me the routes in question are the 39, 41 and 145.

He said it could involve 2 routes ballywaltrim-ongar and city-swords.

Time will tell!

Rumour mill in full working order.

I am hearing the 15, 16 and 39.


I think the volume of the 16 and 39 may win over.

The only people that will know is the people upstairs who bean count. Which service is going to earn money?

devnull

The amount of people working in the airport living in Swords with absolutely no alternative to a taxi overnight means that I'd support a route to Swords calling at the airport from the City Centre or further south.

Stephen15

Surely DB would want to pursue a 24h Airlink to compete with Aircoach.

hmmm

devnull wrote: »

The amount of people working in the airport living in Swords with absolutely no alternative to a taxi overnight means that I'd support a route to Swords calling at the airport from the City Centre or further south.

The airport must be one of the biggest early morning/overnight employers in the city. It sounds like an obvious candidate for a 24 hour bus.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

I would of thought so, but it sounds like they don't want to have different routes at night from day time. In which case the 41 would make sense. A 16N would also need to be straightened out in places.

On the other hand a 41 avoids the 16 having to crawl along behind all the "parked" Taxi's on Georges Street at night! Complete madness there.

Only needs an extension between 12am and 6am most London night buses alter from the day time route.

Georges St aint as bad as Candem St. but upgrade bus lane to 24hrs and send traffic garda for first couple of weeks and lash out some fines and points and the vultures will move off quick enough.

I know its a trial period but only introducing 3 routes could be setting it to fail with so little of the city served.

devnull

hmmm wrote: »

The airport must be one of the biggest early morning/overnight employers in the city. It sounds like an obvious candidate for a 24 hour bus.

My point more was that in Swords for example there is a huge amount of people working at the airport who currently have no alternative public transport and are forced to use taxis, therefore serving Swords is very important. There would be a lot of demand here.

Surely DB would want to pursue a 24h Airlink to compete with Aircoach.

There was talk about the 747 going 24 hours. Aircoach has been running 24 hours on all of their city routes pretty much since they launched them.