Overcrowding on busses

off.the.walls

Has anyone else noticed how packed drivers are letting busses get?

This morning on the bus you could barely stand in your own space and yet the driver was letting people get on with big suitcases and bags.

There was one lady who went flying nearly taking down two people with her because she was stuck standing away from handrails. I understand that people need to get to work but surely they can come up with some solution to this overcrowding of the bus every morning.

Don't know about anyone else but I don't really look forward to squeezing my way through a load of commuting people to get to a door every morning.

L1011

The only solution is more buses, which there will be this year.

off.the.walls

I'll believe that when I see it, this morning I saw a 9 minute wait (for my bus) and the next one after that being 23 minutes away, this was at 7:35 so just coming into rush hour.

thomasj

Happening quite often on the 39a. A few times recently I've been standing at either the ticket reader or even the front doors.

I'm going to be controversial and say that while the tri-axle bus are best for total capacity, I do think the new buses are the most comfortable buses for people standing. The single door buses are quite narrow and it gets quite awkward when these buses are full and people are trying to get off at the front.

I think for space and obviously accessibility the new buses do it better .

Billgirlylegs

Certainly not pleasant travelling on a packed bus - but you can choose to not get on a packed bus.
It may mean you are waiting a while for the next equally packed bus.

The driver is damned if he stops/lets people on, or damned if he passes the waiting crowd.

Other than additional buses, what is the solution?

Cookie_Monster

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

Other than additional buses, what is the solution?

The same as most things in Ireland, simply enforcing the law resolves the issue. Buses have maximum capacities that need to be enforced not ignored to prevent the sort of overcrowding you're seeing.
While it doesn't solve the overall lack of capacity issue it does solve it on an individual bus level. Drivers simply need to control numbers, they are responsible for passenger safety after all.

Similarly if AGS actually bothered their holes enforcing traffic rules around the city you'd speed buses up no end and create additional capacity through increased efficiency, but there no political of legal will to actually do it.

Stephen15

Why would the Gardai want to improve the flow of buses when they think it's perfectly acceptable to park right in the middle of a bus lane blocking a bus stop in order to use their speeding guns see it regularly. They block the bus lane in order to do checkpoints and pull cars over. Clearly one rule for some none for them.

Tickityboo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The same as most things in Ireland, simply enforcing the law resolves the issue. Buses have maximum capacities that need to be enforced not ignored to prevent the sort of overcrowding you're seeing.
While it doesn't solve the overall lack of capacity issue it does solve it on an individual bus level. Drivers simply need to control numbers, they are responsible for passenger safety after all.

Similarly if AGS actually bothered their holes enforcing traffic rules around the city you'd speed buses up no end and create additional capacity through increased efficiency, but there no political of legal will to actually do it.

Had a guy a few weeks ago take my photo and say that he was reporting me for refusing him entry even though you could clearly see that the bus was at capacity.
Needless to say I gave him a nice smile and two thumbs up for the photo.

So as someone else stated you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
I never heard anything from my manager so he obviously realised he was being a dick and his bullying didn't work.

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The same as most things in Ireland, simply enforcing the law resolves the issue. Buses have maximum capacities that need to be enforced not ignored to prevent the sort of overcrowding you're seeing.
While it doesn't solve the overall lack of capacity issue it does solve it on an individual bus level. Drivers simply need to control numbers, they are responsible for passenger safety after all.

Similarly if AGS actually bothered their holes enforcing traffic rules around the city you'd speed buses up no end and create additional capacity through increased efficiency, but there no political of legal will to actually do it.

Indeed,the Law is well worth considering......

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/190/made/en/print

80 Number of passengers.


80. (1) A person shall not, subject to the provisions of sub-articles (2) and (3) of this article, cause or permit the number of passengers carried on a vehicle to exceed the number of persons for which passenger accommodation is provided.


(2) If and so long as three or more children under the age of 15 years are being carried on the vehicle, the number of such children shall be deemed to be reduced by one-third for the purposes of calculating the number of passengers carried.


(3) During hours of peak traffic, or in circumstances in which undue hardship would be caused to intending passengers if they were not carried, a greater number of passengers than that permissible under sub-article (1) of this article may be carried on an omnibus, subject to the following limitations:


(a) no additional passengers may be carried by virtue of this sub-article in the upper deck of a double deck omnibus, or in an omnibus having passenger accommodation for less than 15 persons;


(b) no additional passengers may be carried by virtue of this sub-article at any time while the omnibus is exceeding a speed of 40 miles per hour;


(c) the additional number of passengers carried in a single deck omnibus by virtue of this sub-article shall not exceed in number 8, or one-quarter of the passenger accommodation of such omnibus, whichever is the less;


(d) the additional number of passengers carried in the lower deck of a double deck omnibus by virtue of this sub-article shall not exceed in number 8, or one-quarter of the passenger accommodation of such lower deck, whichever is the less.

As Sesame Street used to sing......"Eight,is a magic number"

It's worth bearing in mind,that in Public Transport, Crush Loading at peaks is a long established practice Worldwide,with Dublin's examples well up the scale in terms of "Personal Space"

thomasj

Here since 8pm waiting on 39a. (8.40) one has passed full and next one seems to be due in 20 minutes . When I arrived at 8 bus was due in 1 minute and stayed there the whole time until 8.30

Standards on this route seems to have slipped, constant no-shows due to staff issues.

In the meantime 10 145s have passed the wood quay stop.

Cookie_Monster

AlekSmart wrote: »

Indeed,the Law is well worth considering......

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/190/made/en/print
During hours of peak traffic, or in circumstances in which undue hardship would be caused to intending passengers if they were not carried

Define undue hardship though, missing a bus or two hardly qualifies

TheQuietFella

L1011 wrote: »

The only solution is more buses, which there will be this year.

But what about the drivers to go with them?

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Define undue hardship though, missing a bus or two hardly qualifies

Earlier,in thread,you did mention that resolving the issue was a quite simple matter of enforcing the Law.

As you may now be appreciating,there is little simple about the Law,and even less so about it's enforcement.

You can be VERY certain that,the definitions of "Undue Hardship",will be many,varied and subject to limitless arguement,even at the Bus Stop....:(

dfx-

off.the.walls wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed how packed drivers are letting busses get?

This morning on the bus you could barely stand in your own space and yet the driver was letting people get on with big suitcases and bags.

There was one lady who went flying nearly taking down two people with her because she was stuck standing away from handrails. I understand that people need to get to work but surely they can come up with some solution to this overcrowding of the bus every morning.

Don't know about anyone else but I don't really look forward to squeezing my way through a load of commuting people to get to a door every morning.

The real world consequences of 'Efficiency'. Operating with the least possible resources and pushing what you have too far.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

The real world consequences of 'Efficiency'. Operating with the least possible resources and pushing what you have too far.

Indeed, why make the most of the assets and investment we've already got and use them in an efficient way when we can just throw vast pots of money at things to make them go away

I mean, it's not like the money has ever run out by doing this, is it?

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

Indeed, why make the most of the assets and investment we've already got and use them in an efficient way when we can just throw vast pots of money at things to make them go away

I mean, it's not like the money has ever run out by doing this, is it?

Indeed, yet 'making the most' of them is not crowded buses, late buses, missing buses, unreliable frequency and lower capacity.

It ends up in the OP's complaint and it always will because it's inherently biased towards what can be cut/saved, not what can be provided. The OP's experience is just collateral and deemed an acceptable byproduct of chasing efficiency.

I mean, there's obviously no middle ground between the current approach and running out of money, is there?

dashcamdanny

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The same as most things in Ireland, simply enforcing the law resolves the issue. Buses have maximum capacities that need to be enforced not ignored to prevent the sort of overcrowding you're seeing.
While it doesn't solve the overall lack of capacity issue it does solve it on an individual bus level. Drivers simply need to control numbers, they are responsible for passenger safety after all.

Similarly if AGS actually bothered their holes enforcing traffic rules around the city you'd speed buses up no end and create additional capacity through increased efficiency, but there no political of legal will to actually do it.

THe Newer SG buses that are mostly used on high capacity routes

They can take 30+ standing.

I challenge any driver to squeeze 30 standing on without physically pushing them in.

AlekSmart

dashcamdanny wrote: »

THe Newer SG buses that are mostly used on high capacity routes

They can take 30+ standing.

I challenge any driver to squeeze 30 standing on without physically pushing them in.

The statutory plates referring to capacities on PSV's are all based upon the Vehicles Plated Weight.

Currrently,E.U.regulations allocate a notional 65Kg as being the weight of an average passsenger.

With the B5 SG weighing 650Kg's less than a B9 GT that saving translates (to an Engineering Accountant who does NOT use the Bus regularly) into 10 additional passengers.

In reality the Statutory Capacity Plates are entirely notional,and are overridden by the Construction & Use of Vehicles regulations anyway...which brings us back to 8 being a magic number.

The entire "debate" is moot anyway,as the concerns about additional,or Standing Passenger capacity is totally dependent upon whether one is outside attempting to get in,or inside attempting to make a journey.

The same intending passenger having a hissy-fit about there being plenty of room available,will do a 180 as soon as they are aboard,and berate the driver for having too many addditional passengers....it's the reality of peak-time public transport.

Del2005

dfx- wrote: »

The real world consequences of 'Efficiency'. Operating with the least possible resources and pushing what you have too far.

No public transport system runs efficiently. If they have enough capacity for peak time travel then they are totally inefficient when off peak arrives or they do what most other public transport companies and don't stock enough vehicles for peak and be efficient for the majority of the time, but not people

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

I mean, there's obviously no middle ground between the current approach and running out of money, is there?

Well the bus fleet is growing by approx 100 buses over the calendar year, so it seems quite a middle ground to me between not adding extra buses and going crazy and adding hundreds and eating up funding that could be used in other sectors.

The more money we use on one sector, the least money we have to spend on another sector and I think that it's not a bad thing to want our taxpayer funds to be spent wisely rather than one area being deprived of badly needed funding because another arm is eating up all the resources in an inefficient way?

I'm no massive fan of network direct since it destroyed certain routes like the 4 with savage cuts, but before it the taxpayer was not getting value for money and there was massive duplication and lack of proper timetabling and integration of timetables.

Certainly there is need for additional capacity, but that is already being planned and on order, but even then that capacity can only be deployed when new timetables are accepted by the unions even if the new timetable has been approved by DB and the NTA.

off.the.walls

Del2005 wrote: »

No public transport system runs efficiently. If they have enough capacity for peak time travel then they are totally inefficient when off peak arrives or they do what most other public transport companies and don't stock enough vehicles for peak and be efficient for the majority of the time, but not people

I don't know I lived in hamburg for a number of months and that was one of the best transport systems i've been on Trains ran every 3/5 minutes at rush hour. Had enough seating / standing space. Busses had doors at regular interval (they were long busses not double deckers) but during the day when people were in work they reduced frequency.

Bog Man 1

Public transport will only be to a high standard if the people in control were legally obliged to use it . If TD,S had to use public transport to get to the Dail and Ministers had to use it to get to their Ministries . . Likewise for Civil servants Teachers and nurses and all people in key areas in the economy .You might argue that the country could not function if they had to use public transport . The problem would miraculously be fixed for the rest of us if the powers that be had to share our space and discomfort .

Mongfinder General

Bog Man 1 wrote: »

Public transport will only be to a high standard if the people in control were legally obliged to use it . If TD,S had to use public transport to get to the Dail and Ministers had to use it to get to their Ministries . . Likewise for Civil servants Teachers and nurses and all people in key areas in the economy .You might argue that the country could not function if they had to use public transport . The problem would miraculously be fixed for the rest of us if the powers that be had to share our space and discomfort .

Too right. I empathize with the drivers. The general public are bastards to deal with. A driver can only drive his own bus, he/she has no control over traffic, weather, passenger volumes etc. I saw one gee bag stop a bus one day to ask a driver how long the next 77A would be. He told her the that it would be the same length as this one and promptly fcuked off.

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

Well the bus fleet is growing by approx 100 buses over the calendar year, so it seems quite a middle ground to me between not adding extra buses and going crazy and adding hundreds and eating up funding that could be used in other sectors.

The more money we use on one sector, the least money we have to spend on another sector and I think that it's not a bad thing to want our taxpayer funds to be spent wisely rather than one area being deprived of badly needed funding because another arm is eating up all the resources in an inefficient way?

I'm no massive fan of network direct since it destroyed certain routes like the 4 with savage cuts, but before it the taxpayer was not getting value for money and there was massive duplication and lack of proper timetabling and integration of timetables.

Certainly there is need for additional capacity, but that is already being planned and on order, but even then that capacity can only be deployed when new timetables are accepted by the unions even if the new timetable has been approved by DB and the NTA.

Network Direct was a survival plan,which worked,but it's results are now contributing greatly to restricting BAC's ability to meet todays challenges.

Your suggestion that Unions have a veto on new timetables is no longer the case.
The current methodology imposes a timeframe on new schedule introduction,during which Staff and Management are expected to agree a schedule.
Should this not prove the case however,the disputed schedule will be introduced,regardless of Drivers/Unions opinion.

Unfortunately,the currrent crisis within Dublin City's Traffic & Transport sector is making any attempt to devise and impliment effective schedules largely impossible.

This will also make the Busconnects Programme a very challenging one,something which is NOT desireable at all. :mad:

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

Your suggestion that Unions have a veto on new timetables is no longer the case.

The current methodology imposes a timeframe on new schedule introduction,during which Staff and Management are expected to agree a schedule.

Should this not prove the case however,the disputed schedule will be introduced,regardless of Drivers/Unions opinion.

From what I was told in the past and have understood from union documents that I have seen, the union have the right to veto schedules and bills on a number of occasions, but there is a limit to how many times these schedules can be vetoed for each route. If the bills are rejected the maximum number of times then the company can implement the bills without agreement.

However both me and you know that it's not like the company propose a bill one day and the staff reject it and a new one is proposed the next day and so on, the whole process is very drawn out and from the first bill being proposed and the last possible bill being forced on the members does not happen in a short time frame so it can be many months for a timetable to be agreed with the NTA and the union process being exhausted.

But lets be honest, can you see DB forcing their staff to implement a schedule rejected by their staff on a number of occasions and the staff are just going to take that - you can bet your life that the likes of Dermot O'Leary will be crying that the company are implementing schedules without agreement and a possible ballot for strike action.

Do schedule tribunals still exist?

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

From what I was told in the past and have understood from union documents that I have seen, the union have the right to veto schedules and bills on a number of occasions, but there is a limit to how many times these schedules can be vetoed for each route. If the bills are rejected the maximum number of times then the company can implement the bills without agreement.

However both me and you know that it's not like the company propose a bill one day and the staff reject it and a new one is proposed the next day and so on, the whole process is very drawn out and from the first bill being proposed and the last possible bill being forced on the members does not happen in a short time frame so it can be many months for a timetable to be agreed with the NTA and the union process being exhausted.

But lets be honest, can you see DB forcing their staff to implement a schedule rejected by their staff on a number of occasions and the staff are just going to take that - you can bet your life that the likes of Dermot O'Leary will be crying that the company are implementing schedules without agreement and a possible ballot for strike action.

Do schedule tribunals still exist?

Part of the problem may be an unwillingness to accept that the situation you describe has altered significantly.

I'm afraid that I have no ability to adddress this.

The agreement reached between the Company and Staff,following the 2015 dispute,contained specific changes to the previous scheduling arrangements,which are now operational.

I can only restate the present situation,whereby the former arrangement,which could (and did) see new bills (schedules) delayed for months on end no longer exists.

You may not be directly aware of it,but the Company has already implimented schedules over the continuing protests of drivers and Unions.

The schedule change process is now completed in six weeks,start to finish,even with the input from what was formerly known as the "Tribunal".

The new reality is that whilst Mr O 'Leary,and other Representatives,(You must also accept that,Mr O'Leary is a Full Time,Trades Union Official,and therefore represents his members interests,his "crying" does not represent some personal crusade) have raised objections to elements of these new schedules,they were implimented nonetheless after the six week period elapsed.

The change process is well underway,however,as is being noticed across the network,being a new schedule,does not necessarily mean it will work any better than the old one.

Public Transport scheduling is,of it's nature a dark and often devious act.
It must successfully provide a means for Drivers/Operators to achieve a reasonable balance between work and private life,whilst simultaneously affording the maximum availability of service to the travelling public.

Poorly devised schedules,whilst initially appearing of offer all manner of benefits to employers and passengers alike,often end up falling slowly apart over the mid-long term,particularly as staff decide that regular 12 to 14 hour days,coupled with statutory minimum break times do not represent a good "Career option" for people in a modern society.

Bad rotas,rosters and schedules regularly appear at the top of reasons why people decide to leave the industry altogether,something which results in Busdriving becoming a transitory occupation,which,in turn increases operators costs as they struggle to recruit and train new staff.

Apologies for waffling on a bit,but it is important that people develop an understanding of the process,particularly as it is NOT the same as it was 12 months ago.

punisher5112

You know something.... Passengers can go pee up a flag pole if they think everything from the bus been late, to the other one passing them full to the one that didn't arrive yesterday to the one that was early as the rtpi said it wasn't due for 2 minutes to anything else outside a single drivers control and of course the phone out videoing and taking photos while abusing the driver....

Seriously stop been so childish and imature and actually think for a second how much a driver is responsible for and how much stress is involved.

Drivers also aren't tour guides or know 1000s of bus stop numbers and different road names every time the person gets on they change.

Make it easy and state something like a land mark or the actual road the bus is on and not the one a mile over there somewhere.

Back to overcrowding if all drivers kept people behind the white line there would have to be extra buses put on and the more the do it and complain to db and nta hopefully the sooner extra buses will be in.

Stephen15

Something regarding drivers is why do some refuse to open the middle doors altogether. I know that certain stops aŕe unsafe for middle door alighting and the drivers are held responsible if there is an injury that occurs due to them being used in a unsafe situation. I don't mind this at all I think it's an acceptable excuse not to use in certain scenarios I get it. It doesn't take from the fact the issue needs to sorted out bus stop design needs to be improved and passengers need to be a bit more responsible for their actions.

However what I don't get is why the differentiation between different drivers. Some drivers use at nearly every stop on certain routes whereas others rarely use them or never use them at all even when the stop is perfectly safe as I have witnessed other drivers using them and absolutely no issues. I don't get why this is.

I can't comment exactly as I have never worked for Dublin Bus but I certainly wouldn't rule it out in the future, but seems to me that a lot of the DB rulebook/guidebook for employees is based off employees discretion. In a lot of scenarios it seems to boil down to driver discretion in relation to bylaws and other issues such as the one I have mentioned.

Surely it would be better if there was a more in depth set in stone, set of rules rather than makey uppy laissez faire set of rules/guidelines which correct if I'm wrong seems to be the case at present.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Something regarding drivers is why do some refuse to open the middle doors altogether. I know that certain stops aŕe unsafe for middle door alighting and the drivers are held responsible if there is an injury that occurs due to them being used in a unsafe situation. I don't mind this at all I think it's an acceptable excuse not to use in certain scenarios I get it. It doesn't take from the fact the issue needs to sorted out bus stop design needs to be improved and passengers need to be a bit more responsible for their actions.

However what I don't get is why the differentiation between different drivers. Some drivers use at nearly every stop on certain routes whereas others rarely use them or never use them at all even when the stop is perfectly safe as I have witnessed other drivers using them and absolutely no issues. I don't get why this is.

I can't comment exactly as I have never worked for Dublin Bus but I certainly wouldn't rule it out in the future, but seems to me that a lot of the DB rulebook/guidebook for employees is based off employees discretion. In a lot of scenarios it seems to boil down to driver discretion in relation to bylaws and other issues such as the one I have mentioned.

Surely it would be better if there was a more in depth set in stone, set of rules rather than makey uppy laissez faire set of rules/guidelines which correct if I'm wrong seems to be the case at present.

Using the middle doors is officially discretionary on a stop by stop basis from what I have been told in the past. Therefore at every stop the driver needs to be allowed to use his/her discretion which is why different drivers will do different things and there is never going to be any solid or hard and fast rules about usage.

Personally I think in general there is far too much discretion used in this country as a whole, you will find that the Guards who never both to enforce traffic laws will always use the excuse that they are using their discretion and for me that is an even bigger issue for bus services in the capital.

EdgeCase

I have missed a bus stop three times in recent months because I was unable to get off the bus due to the stupid one-door only policy that Irish busses have.

I've never seen that anywhere else. It doesn't even seen safe.

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

Part of the problem may be an unwillingness to accept that the situation you describe has altered significantly.

The agreement reached between the Company and Staff,following the 2015 dispute,contained specific changes to the previous scheduling arrangements,which are now operational.

I can only restate the present situation,whereby the former arrangement,which could (and did) see new bills (schedules) delayed for months on end no longer exists.

You may not be directly aware of it,but the Company has already implimented schedules over the continuing protests of drivers and Unions.

The schedule change process is now completed in six weeks,start to finish,even with the input from what was formerly known as the "Tribunal".

Do you have a link to back this up that I can read?

What I was told in relation to the 145 bill recently suggests that it is going to end up taking far more than six weeks to sort out because it has been going backwards and forwards for over a month already and there is talk that it will now be June at the very earliest.

Is it six weeks per bill which can then be rejected and another bill is drawn up and another six weeks passes by until the maximum number of bills allowed is reached before it automatically goes into operation, or is it 6 weeks from the first bill date that the route goes into operation regardless of how many subsequent bills are drawn up?