Dublin Bus/Go Ahead SG type centre door location.

Joegriffin2019

Ive been looking at this now a while. People getting off bus from upstairs still going to the front doors even though the rear doors are open. The location of the centre doors on the SG type buses is too far back to the rear of the bus. If they were located directly opposite the stairwell, this would speed up journey times. The older RH/RA/RV type buses had the centre doors located there, why dont the SGs? Is there an option to have them opposite the Stairwell?

devnull

Joegriffin2019 wrote: »

Ive been looking at this now a while. People getting off bus from upstairs still going to the front doors even though the rear doors are open.

There's only so many times that a passenger will accept missing their stop because they're waiting at middle doors that do not open before they decide to just go to the front doors all the time because they can then be confident of not missing their stop through no fault of their own.

The location of the centre doors on the SG type buses is too far back to the rear of the bus. If they were located directly opposite the stairwell, this would speed up journey times. The older RH/RA/RV type buses had the centre doors located there, why dont the SGs? Is there an option to have them opposite the Stairwell?

The pre 2000 vehicles are not wheelchair accessible and therefore this gives a bit more freedom with lower saloon design as they were not required to carry a wheelchair. The newer vehicles have to have a Wheelchair space and as such this means that the doors are not going to be able to be opposite the stairs unless you do something odd like move the stairs to the middle of the bus or move the wheelchair space to somewhere that is less easy to get to when entering the bus.

Joegriffin2019

Even with the centre doors opened ive witnessed countless times people from upstairs getting off at front doors.

john boye

The stairs on previous generations of buses were further back and had seats between them and the driver. That's not possible with modern bus designs.

Joegriffin2019

They managed it with certain types of low floor ALX400 models in the uk, im sure with a bit of design change it could be possible with the SG type.

devnull

Joegriffin2019 wrote: »

Even with the centre doors opened ive witnessed countless times people from upstairs getting off at front doors.

Indeed but humans are creatures of habit, if the doors don't open in the middle a few times when people are waiting they will automatically go to the other doors as they are used to doing it. Until doors are used at 95%+ of stops, this will not change.

bk

The best laid out bus is those three door, two stairs ones in Berlin.

The front stairs is in the opposite direction, so you go in the front door and the stairs up is directly in front of you, leading you up.

The rear, exit stairs, leads straight out the rear door.

The middle door is mostly used only for wheelchairs and buggies. Very smart design IMO.

They even have regular dual axle buses with two stairs with a similar design:

In the last picture you can see the front stairs right behind the driver going up.

bk

http://www.vdlbuscoach.com/News/News-Library/2015/VDL-Bus---Coach-levert-eerste-Citea-Low-Floor-dubb.aspx

On Tuesday 11 August the first VDL Citea Low Floor double-decker was delivered to the Berlin Transport Authority (BVG, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe). With this new 11.40-metre-long, 2-axle vehicle VDL has now entered the double-decker bus segment for public transport lines. The Citea DLF-114 has two staircases to the upper deck and can accommodate up to 97 passengers. As such, the DLF-114 fulfils both the economic and environmental requirements of modern-day city traffic, with a maximum number of seats and passengers for a 2-axled unit. This highly efficient alternative for the city meets all aspects of the requirements VDL sets in connection with its brand value “Profit of Ownership”. The Citea DLF-114 is expected to be deployed on the bus lines in the Spandau borough of Berlin starting in early October.

bk

The more I think of it, the more I love this above VDL bus, a right hand drive version could be perfect for us.

It is a dual axle, like most of our buses and is only 1 meter longer then most of ours. Despite the second stairs, it carries more passengers (97) then our SG's and has a great passenger flow.

It even has a system that counts how many seats are free upstairs and displays it at the entrance below.

A hybrid, right hand drive version of this would be a fantastic upgrade over the SG's

Also note the button on the door, these rear doors are operated by the passengers.

AlekSmart

Joegriffin2019 wrote: »

Even with the centre doors opened ive witnessed countless times people from upstairs getting off at front doors.

It is worth noting that currently,none of the Dublin Bus double-door fleet have doors specifically allocated to boarding or alighting.

This means that a passenger may freely alight by either of the doors.

The by-laws do not allow for any regulation of this,except when suitable notices are displayed.

(AFAIAA The GAI operation does not currently have any by-laws,but is operating to a set of draft by-laws drawn up by the NTA,which have not yet been implemented.)

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is worth noting that currently,none of the Dublin Bus double-door fleet have doors specifically allocated to boarding or alighting.

While there are understandably no by-laws saying which door to use, there are constant audio announcements saying "Please use the middle door to exit the bus...." so it is clear what DB and the NTA which door they want people to use.

BTW Even if there is ever a much bigger push to use the middle door, I don't think it would ever become a by-law against using the front door. Just because of the 1% situation where the middle door can't be used (e.g. door broken).

Also it would be a bit weird of a by-law, what would the driver do? Is the driver going to jump out of the seat and rugby tackle someone who has already left the bus!

bk

I was actually on the bus yesterday and I was thinking about how you could redesign it for a better passenger flow.

While I'd deeply love if they got those dual stairs buses above, here is a radical idea for even our current style of single stairs buses:

Move the stairs from behind the driver to the other side of the bus, between the front and middle door. Like the above picture, remove the wall at the end of the stairs so that instead it naturally flows into the middle door. I think that would encourage people to use the middle door far more to exit and wouldn't make much difference to those entering and going up the stairs (it is just on the other side).

Of course you'd also move the wheelchair bay to the other side of the bus, again similar to the picture above, where you have both the buggy bay and wheelchair bay side by side, which would also be an improvement I think.

devnull

bk wrote: »

While I'd deeply love if they got those dual stairs buses above, here is a radical idea for even our current style of single stairs buses:

Move the stairs from behind the driver to the other side of the bus, between the front and middle door. Like the above picture, remove the wall at the end of the stairs so that instead it naturally flows into the middle door. I think that would encourage people to use the middle door far more to exit and wouldn't make much difference to those entering and going up the stairs (it is just on the other side).

I think that version of the Citea is hideous with a low height top deck, two staircases and two sets of doors, a buggy space and a wheelchair space on a pretty short double decker means you're only going to get 14 seats downstairs at the most which is far too few. The layout works for a tri-axle but should never be used on a short double decker like that.

The design used in Germany wouldn't necessarily work in a single staircase design either though, since you still have to relocate the equipment, wiring and other things from behind the driver to somewhere close. In the German design, it's in the same place as it is on current vehicles here, underneath the staircase, behind the driver.

The whole vehicle looks like it's a tri-axle that has literally been shortened by a couple of metres without adapting the design to take account of the fact the vehicle is now shorter and is pretty claustrophobic. I support the vehicle layout in principle, but if you are using such a layout it HAS to be on a triaxle.

Also on a single stairs version for us having the bottom of the stairs literally right next to the doorway is just asking for trouble in the kind of compensation culture, as it's more risky than opposite for me, we have and will cause people to be queuing for the stairs whilst other people are trying to get through the doors, which is not a great situation.

You then have a situation when a wheelchair has to fight their way from the front to the middle of the bus to the relocated wheelchair bay, so until middle door boarding is allowed, it doesn't work for them either and we still have some problems unfortunately.

bk

devnull wrote: »

I think that version of the Citea is hideous with a low height top deck, two staircases and two sets of doors, a buggy space and a wheelchair space on a pretty short double decker means you're only going to get 14 seats downstairs at the most which is far too few. The layout works for a tri-axle but should never be used on a short double decker like that.

The design seems to be focused more on people standing then sitting. I think 14 seats downstairs is fine, enough for elderly, etc., while most able bodied people can go upstairs.

The focus on buses like this in Germany really seems to be elderly, mobility restricted and wheelchair users downstairs vie the middle door. Everyone else encouraged upstairs via the natural flow of the stairs.

Again this bus has more capacity then an SG.

devnull wrote: »

You then have a situation when a wheelchair has to fight their way from the front to the middle of the bus to the relocated wheelchair bay, so until middle door boarding is allowed, it doesn't work for them either and we still have some problems unfortunately.

Switch to them using the middle door, same as in Berlin.

AlekSmart

Some more details of the Singaporean 3 door/twin staircase models,which are now moving towards production,perhaps of greater importance here,is the availability of detailed information regarding the tendering process and the unit costs.

https://landtransportguru.net/three-door-double-decker-buses-procured-by-lta/?fbclid=IwAR0h5TTqaUfycWuh2f1N3AEg7CNS5rDVUwlx2TC6HYYBqpKU54drmUqOMkM

Tender Process.

Stage 1 Tender

As of tender closing time on 23 July 2018 at 4:00PM, participants of the tender are as follows:

Alexander Dennis (Singapore) Services Pte Ltd
ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd
Volvo East Asia (Pte) Ltd
(Now Known As: Volvo Construction Equipment Singapore (Pte.) Ltd.)

In this first-stage tender, tenderers submit a base offer for 100 Buses.
Stage 2 Tender

After the Stage 1 Tender was closed on 23 July 2018, tenderers who submitted bids were invited again to submit their quotations for 100 & 50 Three-Door Buses separately.

The Stage 2 Tender closing time was extended once to 6 September 2018, 4:00pm.

Submitted Price Proposals for Stage 2 Tender are as follows:
No. Tenderer Price
Base Offer 1 – Provision of One Hundred (100) Units of 3-Door Euro 6 Double Deck Diesel Buses

1 Alexander Dennis (Singapore) Services Pte Ltd $62,502,000.00
2 ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd $56,222,000.00
3 Volvo Construction Equipment Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. $51,610,800.00

Base Offer 2 – Provision of Fifty (50) Units of 3-Door Euro 6 Double Deck Diesel Buses
1 Alexander Dennis (Singapore) Services Pte Ltd $33,256,000.00
2 ST Engineering Land Systems Ltd $28,391,000.00
3 Volvo Construction Equipment Singapore (Pte.) Ltd. $26,855,400.00

Note:
For Base Offer 2, Volvo submitted 6 Alternative Offers, while Alexander Dennis submitted an alternative offer for 200 buses.

bk

So roughly 400 to 450k Euro per bus. Probably add a bit more to that for hybrid versions.

BTW I know it failed to win and I can see why, but this MAN concept bus has loads or really interesting features:

https://landtransportguru.net/man-a95-3-door-concept-bus/

- Display counters downstairs that show how many people are upstairs.
- Arrows on the ground to help direct people up the front stairs and down the rear stairs.
- A one wing spring loaded barrier on the rear stairs to stop people from going up the rear stairs. Something I've mentioned before that we could use at the front of the bus to force use of the middle door.

In the buggy bay, they have a window in the wall at floor level, so that a child in a buggy can look out the window! Brilliant, something I've often have to deal with, the little one wanting to get out to look out the window. It really shows that they thought of the little things for this design.

I know the option they are going with is the less radical (but still radical for Ireland), 3 door/dual stairs design and rightfully so. But some of the above features like the seat counter, window and flappy barrier could be useful on any of our buses.

Actually what really impresses me about Singapore, is that they are actually willing to trial in use radical different designs to see if they can come up with improvements and better ways to do things. We could definitely do with a bit of that here. Trial three doors/dual stairs buses, trial three door single deckers, trial bendy buses on suitable routes, etc.

ongarboy

I agree if you're already on the ground floor of a double decker and you've indicated that you are getting off at the next stop, you will invariably gravitate towards the front door as you can't be sure the central doors will be opened.

I got off at Bachelors Walk last Sunday morning (I had been sitting in the upper deck) and yes the central doors were already open...but as I was turning right to go east outside of the bus, it was easier for me to exit from the front rather than the side. If there were passengers boarding or creating blockage, I'd have definitely exited from the central doors. As long as you are not unnecessarily delaying the dwell time in any way, I don't see it as an issue as to which door you exit from.

bk

ongarboy wrote: »

As long as you are not unnecessarily delaying the dwell time in any way, I don't see it as an issue as to which door you exit from.

There is no major issue if there is no one boarding. But the reality is at most stops there are both people entering and leaving the bus and if they are doing that through a single door, it usually means those entering have to stand outside and wait until everyone leaves until they can start boarding.

It adds greatly to the dwell time (time stopped at a bus stop) which ultimately means it takes everyone longer on the bus to get to where you are going.

If you ever travel on multidoor buses in places like Germany or Poland. You'll notice that everyone gets on/off very fast and buses spend WAY less time at each stop.

dfx-

bk wrote: »

There is no major issue if there is no one boarding. But the reality is at most stops there are both people entering and leaving the bus and if they are doing that through a single door, it usually means those entering have to stand outside and wait until everyone leaves until they can start boarding.

It adds greatly to the dwell time (time stopped at a bus stop) which ultimately means it takes everyone longer on the bus to get to where you are going.

If you ever travel on multidoor buses in places like Germany or Poland. You'll notice that everyone gets on/off very fast and buses spend WAY less time at each stop.

It doesn't affect dwell time over here in one door bus land. But they have a flat fare system, so it takes no time at all to board.

It takes time to board in Dublin anyway, so how quickly people get off is meaningless if takes 5 minutes to board a busy VT or SG. The bus is going to be standing at the stop there anyway. You could lose the ten seconds gained by an extra door waiting at a busy junction or roundabout.

devnull

I am currently on a VT.

There are ten people standing at the front whilst looking back there are over a dozen seats free downstairs. I've just gone upstairs and there must be at least 20 seats free. There are more seats free than taken in last few rows. We just skipped a stop.

This highlights the issues with a long double decker with everyone going through a single door on the bus. The extra length is just not often used to its potential. The dwell times are also worse than a two door bus when both are used which promotes bunching even more.

I know typically it's not so bad but people are lazy they don't walk the length of bus just like they don't walk to end of platform 6 and 7 at Connolly for northbound darts.

bk

dfx- wrote: »

It doesn't affect dwell time over here in one door bus land. But they have a flat fare system, so it takes no time at all to board.

Of course it effects dwell time!

While flat fare ticketing would certainly help greatly in reducing dwell time, the number of doors also has a separate impact.

Even in one door bus land, those flat fare passengers can't start boarding until everyone has first left. You see that every day in Dublin when only one door is used or in Cork on one door buses. It is very basic logic.

In two door buses, those passenger can start boarding and paying their flat fare straight away, as people are exiting out the middle door.

I would actually partly agree with you, that a well executed ticketing system (flat fare, no cash, zero driver interaction) + one door is probably faster then Dublin's terribly slow ticketing system + half arsed use of the middle door.

However unquestionably, London Bus with dual doors and great ticketing has faster dwell time again then what you experience.

And if you go to Poland, you would easily see that their great ticketing + 3 doors entry/exit through any door is even faster then London Buses model.

Dublin < flat fare + single door < flat fare + dual door < no driver interaction ticketing + 3/4 doors.

This is based on my own experience of having used all of these types of services around Europe.

The advantage of having the dual door, is if we can actually finally fix the ticketing with new faster machines + flat fare + get rid of cash + next gen ticketing and actually consistently use the second door (I know, all a big ask), we could reach close to London levels of performance at least.

If we ever revisit the BRT plan, we could even perhaps reach German/Polish levels of performance on those routes.

bk

devnull wrote: »

This highlights the issues with a long double decker with everyone going through a single door on the bus. The extra length is just not often used to its potential. The dwell times are also worse than a two door bus when both are used which promotes bunching even more.

I'd love to get my hands on the NTA's raw ticket machine data and do some modelling and analyses of it. Find out what the actual average number of people carried on each class of bus at peak time is.

It really wouldn't surprise me if in reality the VT's aren't carrying much more then the SG's.

Maybe DB/NTA have already done such an analysis, might explain why they don't seem to show much enthusiasm about replacing the VT's.

Though I would love to see them at least trial some of those new 3 door/2 stairs Singapore buses. See if there is an improvement over the VT's

devnull

bk wrote: »

devnull wrote: »

This highlights the issues with a long double decker with everyone going through a single door on the bus. The extra length is just not often used to its potential. The dwell times are also worse than a two door bus when both are used which promotes bunching even more.

I'd love to get my hands on the NTA's raw ticket machine data and do some modelling and analyses of it. Find out what the actual average number of people carried on each class of bus at peak time is.

It really wouldn't surprise me if in reality the VT's aren't carrying much more then the SG's.

Maybe DB/NTA have already done such an analysis, might explain why they don't seem to show much enthusiasm about replacing the VT's.

Though I would love to see them at least trial some of those new 3 door/2 stairs Singapore buses. See if there is an improvement over the VT's

Dwell time is for sure more per passenger on a VT than a SG Entries and exits per second is much higher from what I observed.

Be interesting if they also calculated the amount of time doors open and divide by number of entries and exits to get the true figures of dwell time effiency metrics. Combine those with the passenger number figures you talk about and we'll see then.

thomasj

in fairness its 2pm in the afternoon. Of course theres gonna be spaces, you can blame the driver for not taking action.

On bus i was on last week (earlier post) the driver told people who were trying to get on, he couldn't let them on as people wouldn't move down the bus. This guiltripped people to move down and thus more people got on.

This bus was full upstairs, the driver had to ask international students who were standing upstairs to come down, he had to ask people to get off the stairs.

But again though, this is after 7pm or 8pm at night, I haven't seen a VT full at 1pm in the day.

Stephen15

dfx- wrote: »

It doesn't affect dwell time over here in one door bus land. But they have a flat fare system, so it takes no time at all to board.

It takes time to board in Dublin anyway, so how quickly people get off is meaningless if takes 5 minutes to board a busy VT or SG. The bus is going to be standing at the stop there anyway. You could lose the ten seconds gained by an extra door waiting at a busy junction or roundabout.

It does effect dwell times look at the dwell times of a London bus versus elsewhere in the UK.

Everyone wants to see a flat fare being introduced and a complete removal of driver interaction it's looking like that will happen here in time.It's likely that the 2.25 and 2.50 leap fares will merged at the end of 2019 assuming the NTA follows the same steps as the last fare revisions with a 10 cent increase in the cheaper fare and a 10 cent reduction in the more expensive fare which would be a huge step towards a flat fare with only the 1.55 fare and cash fares being done through the driver.

Hopefully that fare will be removed and cash will be gotten rid of in the next few years making a Leap/contactless only system.

I'm confused about your argument are you suggesting that we introduce a flat fare and keep single door buses in service and stop ordering dual door buses? Having passengers board and disembark from the same door is only going to minimise the benefits of a flat fare driver interaction free situation surely reducing the benefits of a flat fare.

devnull

thomasj wrote: »

in fairness its 2pm in the afternoon. Of course theres gonna be spaces, you can blame the driver for not taking action.

The next bus after us was directly behind so there is a good chance there was quite a gap in service which probably led to it Somewhat. I agree the driver should move them but the bus design promotes the problem not the driver

However my experience is even at peak this problem exists. Obviously there are not quite as many spaces but the issue of heavy crowding at front downstairs with seats at back happens on most trips.

I can count on one hand the trips where the bus was really full when the bus started skipping stops but I would need a few hands to count times people walked up stairs when there was double figures or more seats free and walked back down and I would need more hands still to count times when a driver started skipping stops when double figures are free.

The moral of the story is never listen if a fellow passenger tells you there are no seats upstairs. Go up yourself and you will probably find some if you look carefully enough. The times said people are right tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.

thomasj

devnull wrote:

The moral of the story is never listen if a fellow passenger tells you there are no seats upstairs. Go up yourself and you will probably find some if you look carefully enough. The times said people are right tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.

That's a fair point and I do and if there are I tend to shout down that there's seats up here.

thomasj

I do still maintain though that BRT would resolve this issue more than an SG could.

Or indeed to some extent, a screen on the VT like the SGs do

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

The moral of the story is never listen if a fellow passenger tells you there are no seats upstairs. Go up yourself and you will probably find some if you look carefully enough. The times said people are right tend to be exceptions rather than the rule.

100% I would say the majority of times I've been on a bus that appears to be "standing room only" after battling past the hoards of people crowded on the aisle between the front door and the stairs/seating area there has been a seat available upstairs.

devnull

thomasj wrote: »

I do still maintain though that BRT would resolve this issue more than an SG could.

Oh I agree totally.

A BRT type system or a flat fare multi door system would beat both!

Stephen15

thomasj wrote: »

I do still maintain though that BRT would resolve this issue more than an SG could.

Or indeed to some extent, a screen on the VT like the SGs do

Of course BRT would resolve the issue more than standard twin axle dual door buses. But BRT would cost a lot more to implement than operating SGs at an efficient level if you take into consideration the money that would have to be spent on stop infrastructure.

Bus connects will bring wider benefits across the entire DB/GAI network and cost likely cost the same as building a number of BRTs around Dublin. I wouldn't write off the idea of BRTs but we have to look at what will bring the most amount of benefit across Dublin as a whole rather than just certain corridors.

john boye

devnull wrote: »

I can count on one hand the trips where the bus was really full when the bus started skipping stops but I would need a few hands to count times people walked up stairs when there was double figures or more seats free and walked back down and I would need more hands still to count times when a driver started skipping stops when double figures are free.

Conversely I couldn't tell you how many times I've been upstairs on a bus with free seats scattered all around and assumed it wasn't that busy and then gone downstairs to find absolute bedlam with people standing all the way down the back. Drivers are practically powerless tbf, I've seen them get on the mic to encourage people to go upstairs and even seen them lower the screen and stick their head out of the cab to ask pax directly and it's mostly ignored.

bk

Something I learned designing software systems over many years, is that you simply can't rely on people doing the right thing or following instructions. Some of course will do the right thing, but for every employee who does, there will be one who just can't be bothered.

I've no doubt there are great bus drivers who make people move down the bus, etc. But for as many of those there, there are lots that just can't be bothered. Or are just too busy driving the bus safely.

That is why I feel you should be designing the bus in such a way to encourage people to do the right thing, without driver interaction.

When you think about the BRT/Luas/Polish/German model, which has the best dwell times. You realise the model is actually a very simple one, that makes it hard for people to do the wrong thing and requires little or no interaction or instruction from the driver. The driver just drives the bus, like on the Luas.

Passengers operate the doors, passengers enter/exit through any doors, passengers take care of ticketing themselves, no interaction with the driver, no spaces hidden away in the corner or upstairs. It is a nice, simple model and it works well.

I of course realise that this model is radically different to what we have here for buses (though it is what we have with Luas/DART) and more is the pity.

I agree that the BusConnects plan for the entire city and moving to the London Bus model for all our buses will be a very good step in the right direction and a big improvement over our current model. No it isn't as good as BRT, but it will have a wider impact then just three BRT routes would have had.

Having said that, once BRT and the London Bus model is complete, I hope they might look at BRT model for those three routes again and use them as a spring board to roll that model out further.

Stephen15

Bk sums it up really

thomasj

The problem is , is this model future proof enough. We are a country that make rash costproof decisions and when it comes to the time that we need it we regret taking the cheapest option (or no money - axing projects) and then replan the process again.

So does it get to the stage that if we get to a time where there are huge passenger numbers and we realise we need another 100 or 200 sg-style buses do we just shrug our shoulders and do it?

I maintain BRT is the best option we have along with bus connects .

Stephen15

thomasj wrote: »

The problem is , is this model future proof enough. We are a country that make rash costproof decisions and when it comes to the time that we need it we regret taking the cheapest option (or no money - axing projects) and then replan the process again.

So does it get to the stage that if we get to a time where there are huge passenger numbers and we realise we need another 100 or 200 sg-style buses do we just shrug our shoulders and do it?

I maintain BRT is the best option we have along with bus connects .

At the time BRT in the form of Swiftway was first muted it was seen by many as a low cost solution to building a metro especially the Swords/Airport route.

At the end of the day these things have to be looked at on a cost benefit analysis basis BRT while highly beneficial will only serve 3 or 4 corridors while bus connects will Improve bus transport throughout the city also BRT could prove to be a disaster too if not done properly see FTR as an example of a disastrous BRT style system.

Of course BRT shouldn't be written off but I think we should be looking at getting our entire bus system up to scratch before we start looking at it again.

_Kaiser_

Some of the UK ALX400's had the door where you suggest OP:



That just looks WRONG to me though Much prefer the standard placement:



That's just me though. Of course I'd have said every AV/AX we bought should have been dual door.

Stephen15

Some of the buses in London have the staircase set back further down the bus to be in line with the middle door with seating up the front under the staircase and beside the driver.

dfx-

Stephen15 wrote: »

I'm confused about your argument are you suggesting that we introduce a flat fare and keep single door buses in service and stop ordering dual door buses? Having passengers board and disembark from the same door is only going to minimise the benefits of a flat fare driver interaction free situation surely reducing the benefits of a flat fare.

A flat fare diminishes the number of driver interactions where you may have multiple trips a day, you only need to interact with the driver once, walk straight on afterwards showing your ticket or pass.

Why can't you buy a day or 3 day ticket or a group ticket in Dublin from the driver? Why is there no app? Why have we not invested in new Wayfarers or contactless payment instead of a bus with an extra door and slow boarding?

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

A flat fare diminishes the number of driver interactions where you may have multiple trips a day, you only need to interact with the driver once, walk straight on afterwards showing your ticket or pass.

When we have a flat fare there should be no driver interaction required whatsoever, instead just have two card readers, one by the right hand side of the door and another by the driver. Driver interaction is something that most countries with a developed transport system have all but eradicated.

Why can't you buy a day or 3 day ticket or a group ticket in Dublin from the driver?

Because driver interaction slows things down and promoting more people go to the driver will massively increase dwell times. We need to cut down on people going to the driver, not sending more people do it. The dwell times on buses in Ireland and the UK outside London are shocking in comparison to pretty much every other major European country.

Why is there no app? Why have we not invested in new Wayfarers or contactless payment instead of a bus with an extra door and slow boarding?

As you may have seen there are plans to move to account based ticketing as part of BusConnects, but it will not be a cheap or overnight process to replace over 1000 machines, get all of the companies to put public transport first and before their own interests, get all the staff trained and the back-end systems in place. We should however see some more progress with this in the next year.

Ticketer would have been an excellent system if it would support off machine validation like the Parkeon equipment does, but sadly the former doesn't and the NTA sensibly want to reduce driver interaction because that is something that really slows things up.

Hopefully in the future we move to a multi-door, flat fare system and eliminate cash as much as possible and make going to the driver the absolute exception and we can then have bus transport that really gets people out of their cars, rather than being closer to being associated with something like Thatcher said.

dfx-

There's a step between what we have now and no driver interaction at all, but still with a flat fare and vastly reduced driver interaction. It also would have a greater impact on boarding times now overnight than any number of doors has.

A day ticket vastly reduces driver interaction after purchase. You buy it once, not going to the driver every time you board. Same for group tickets.

Hopefully in the future we move to a multi-door, flat fare system and eliminate cash as much as possible and make going to the driver the absolute exception and we can then have bus transport that really gets people out of their cars, rather than being closer to being associated with something like Thatcher said.

Doesn't need to be that ideological, forcing people to do one over the other. Cash can remain an option, off board and on board purchasing can be still an option with modern machines with multi-journey tickets.

We are spending plenty of money on a new fleet and such systems are in place already in the UK with single door operators..what are we waiting for?

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

There's a step between what we have now and no driver interaction at all, but still with a flat fare and vastly reduced driver interaction. It also would have a greater impact on boarding times now overnight than any number of doors has.

I don't want the 'That'll do' kind of solutions that Ireland is famous for though, I want a proper solution that countries with efficient public transport systems have where they can board large number of people in 10-15 seconds as is common in Poland and many other countries who have far better public transport systems than ours.

A day ticket vastly reduces driver interaction after purchase. You buy it once, not going to the driver every time you board. Same for group tickets.

Or you could simply buy it off bus together and leave nobody waiting whilst you fumble around for your change, wait for the driver to select the relevant product and count your cash and take your receipt. In a lot of operators in the UK you even have to wait for the driver to then seal the ticket in a plastic sleeve.

Doesn't need to be that ideological, forcing people to do one over the other. Cash can remain an option, off board and on board purchasing can be still an option with modern machines with multi-journey tickets.

Public transport has never been about ideology to me, I've never cared one bit about that. I just care about making public transport as fast an easy to use with as little time wasted as possible so public transport can be for everything like in cities like Vienna rather than something that supporters of conservatism can use as an example of people who have failed in life.

We are spending plenty of money on a new fleet and such systems are in place already in the UK with single door operators..what are we waiting for?

With all due respect, The UK system is also not a patch on the systems that are in operation in other European countries. The UK and Ireland are very much behind the curve and until they address that you won't get the modal share of other countries who are ahead of the curve because people won't get out of their car if the bus means 20% longer journey times.

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

I don't want the 'That'll do' kind of solutions that Ireland is famous for though, I want a proper solution that countries with efficient public transport systems have where they can board large number of people in 10-15 seconds as is common in Poland and many other countries who have far better public transport systems than ours.

Plodding along with no middle ground until your 'proper solution' comes about is an exhibition of "it'll do" mentality. The wayfarer and Leap 'will do' now for years.

Or you could simply buy it off bus together and leave nobody waiting whilst you fumble around for your change, wait for the driver to select the relevant product and count your cash and take your receipt. In a lot of operators in the UK you even have to wait for the driver to then seal the ticket in a plastic sleeve.

Or you could do both. With modern machines and flat fares, it takes no time for the driver to do so once a day for a day ticket.

No more fumbling for change after the first time.

Public transport has never been about ideology to me, I've never cared one bit about that. I just care about making public transport as fast an easy to use with as little time wasted as possible so public transport can be for everything like in cities like Vienna rather than something that supporters of conservatism can use as an example of people who have failed in life.

You're not ideological but you won't accept intermediate improvements that we could have been working on in recent years because it's not a 'proper solution' and will absolutely rule out accepting cash payment. How about we start making it work for those who use it now and not worry about supporters of conservatism.

Stephen15

dfx- wrote: »

There's a step between what we have now and no driver interaction at all, but still with a flat fare and vastly reduced driver interaction. It also would have a greater impact on boarding times now overnight than any number of doors has.

So you believe we should have a flat but not benefit from it as there would still be driver I traction.

A day ticket vastly reduces driver interaction after purchase. You buy it once, not going to the driver every time you board. Same for group tickets.

And how many people do you think would buy such a day if such a product is available to buy on a leap card or even a phone. Who exactly is going to buy a day or even a three day ticket likely costing €10-€15 and more for a 2 or 3 day option in exact change? No one carries that much change around.

We are spending plenty of money on a new fleet and such systems are in place already in the UK with single door operators..what are we waiting for?

Dwell times in most cities in the UK outside London are worse than Dublin most people are still paying cash even with ticketer the driver is still required to press buttons and print a ticket I would favour the London option anyday of the week over introducing rather than being a simple flat fare tap and go system like in London.

Even cash payments are also slower as most UK bus operators still give change and only a few operators have auto fare such as First Glasgow, Lothian and NE West Midlands. Unless the exact fare is paid then in most cases dwell times are slower you have idiots trying to pay with a £20 or £50 note and fare disputes are much more common with drivers are much more common.

VG31

Stephen15 wrote: »

Dwell times in most cities in the UK outside London are worse than Dublin most people are still paying cash even with ticketer the driver is still required to press buttons and print a ticket I would favour the London option anyday of the week over introducing rather than being a simple flat fare tap and go system like in London.

The only places I have been with worse bus dwell times then Dublin are all in the UK.

Buses in Jersey are flat fare and cashless. You pay by contactless but yet you still have to interact with the driver and dwell times are appalling.

bk

VG31 wrote: »

Buses in Jersey are flat fare and cashless. You pay by contactless but yet you still have to interact with the driver and dwell times are appalling.

Sounds like Cork. Cork is a flat fare, but there is no right hand validators, you have to interact with the driver and for some mad reason it takes twice as long to work as it does in Dublin and it looks like the driver has to press three buttons!

I don't understand how they so badly messed up the introduction of Leap in Cork.

It feels like they rolled out Leap to Cork just for the sake of Leap, with no thought to it actually improving dwell times. It is completely half arsed.

dfx- wrote: »

Plodding along with no middle ground until your 'proper solution' comes about is an exhibition of "it'll do" mentality. The wayfarer and Leap 'will do' now for years.

Non of us here are saying that!! I and the others commenting here have been complaining for years about Leap not being good enough and be complaining that we should be moving a zero driver interaction, flat fare (or tag-on/tag-off) model.

I'm blue in the face talking about it. You'll find years of posts about this topic from me.

What is different, is that it looks like their might finally be light at the end of the tunnel. It looks like that within the year we may have the ticketing finally largely sorted.

We should have the flat fare 90 minute ticket. BTW note that for under 19's we already have a flat fare ticket since last year, no need for driver interaction for them.

We should hopefully also have new, faster ticket machines and hopefully new account based ticketing.

If it all goes well, we should finally have a really good ticketing system and much better dwell times. A system similar to Oyster in London and far better then what you are describing elsewhere in the UK.

No, it isn't my ideal model, that would be the Luas/Polish model, but that isn't realistically going to happen in the short term, it is a bit too radical compared to our model. But at least the London Bus type model we are heading too is far superior to our current model and the one in the rest of the UK.

BTW the company who is doing the next gen ticketing for the NTA is very well regarded. They created Oyster in London and they are rolling the same system out in New York, etc. at the moment. It sounds like they have a very mature yet modern system, so it sounds like we are in saving hands with them.

d51984

It will be interesting to see what the interior layout on the new ADL type buses will be. I wonder will the stair case be opposite the center doors on these.

Has anyone got any interior photos of similar buses to the ones on order?

Sorry for dragging up an old thread.