Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin Bus Network Review

13567…107

Comments

  • #102
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    devnull wrote: »
    The 7 is a truly atrocious service, it's departure times seem not to be what is on it's timetable, but rather a few seconds after a 4 has pulled out in the mornings, which is highly annoying. Not all drivers do this, but it does happen a lot in the mornings which is highly frustrating when you see a 7 pull out 10 minutes before it's due because a 4 has gone past.

    Yeah, I've heard of that old trick from a driver who I think had been recently marked-in on the 128 (but I'm not sure about that bit). Anyway when he started out in DB on other routes, it would be a common trick by some of the more experienced bus drivers to stay back and let the newbie go on ahead to deal with the busiest stops. The experienced fella take off a couple of minutes later and have a nice run of it until he caught up with the other bus outside of the city centre where there would be fewer passengers to take on anyway.

    I really can't see drivers giving a ****e about real time bus information. Dublin Bus probably won't even be allowed assess staff performance with them! So I don't see how the rumoured proposals will benefit where I live in the slighest!


  • #103
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    devnull wrote: »
    Some areas only have one route and are not on a QBC and are about half an hour walk away from any other routes but despite this carry lots of passengers and full loads on most peak services.

    if these routes are viable then why would they be touched in fairness. I think they will see that where service like that exist there will be no need fro major changes to them


  • #104
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Details-on-Proposed-Changes/

    Details on Proposed Changes
    Phase One of the Network Direct project will involve the redesign of services in the Blanchardstown, Lucan and Stillorgan areas and is due to take place in the summer.

    Full details of these changes will be available here on Monday 26th April.


  • #105
    etchyed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 674 ✭✭✭etchyed


    murphaph wrote:
    Isn't a better network for the majority worth the inconvenience to the minority?
    angel01 wrote:
    No it isn't
    angel01, without reference to yourself could you explain this please?

    Then it would be nice if you could tell us exactly how Dublin Bus is biased towards the southside.


  • #106
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    KC61 wrote: »
    http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Details-on-Proposed-Changes/

    Details on Proposed Changes
    Phase One of the Network Direct project will involve the redesign of services in the Blanchardstown, Lucan and Stillorgan areas and is due to take place in the summer.

    Full details of these changes will be available here on Monday 26th April.
    They could have saved themselves a whole load of people calling up for details and bitching by releasing both the project and the first tranche at the same time.


  • #107
    angel01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭angel01


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    you could cycle ;)

    You never know, I may have to :eek:


  • #108
    popebenny16
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭popebenny16


    KC61 wrote: »
    That then is more a question for the DoT than Dublin Bus!

    Nope - where is this saving of 95 buses coming from, and 200 staff?
    murphaph wrote: »
    The report was commisioned back in the boomdays anyway, not as a cost cutting measure.

    it may have been commissioned back then, but it is being used in a skewered way now


  • #109
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    I really can't see drivers giving a ****e about real time bus information. Dublin Bus probably won't even be allowed assess staff performance with them! So I don't see how the rumoured proposals will benefit where I live in the slighest!

    you're totally wrong there, it will mark a sea-change in how bus drivers operate, there'll be no spoofing as to where they currently are or imaginary 'traffic jams' as the previous bus will have been tracked going through the same area a few minutes earlier, there'll be no hiding place for drivers - it's not the rtpi it's the automatic vehicle location that will provide this information.


  • #110
    murphaph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    angel01 wrote: »
    So I have to move house because I have no other option of getting a bus. Dublin Bus have their slogan.. serving the entire community. Well that should go in the bin, so you don't think the likes of the 7 or 46A need cutting? geez, I see more of those bloody 46A's around town..

    Oh yes, what do you suggest I do to get to my workplace? Walk??? Let me guess, you live on the southside :D

    yes people are entitled to the dole, that is what you pay your money for taxes for :)
    The 46A is a QBC route which has been succesful at attracting passengers from the private car, thereby reducing congestion. The 46A is one of the few good things about DB and you want to cut it. Unbelievable.

    I live in Berlin, but I used to live in Clonsilla for 10 years, but I don't go in for this northside southside BS to be honest. There's enough parochial sh!t in Ireland already.


  • #111
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    you're totally wrong there, it will mark a sea-change in how bus drivers operate, there'll be no spoofing as to where they currently are or imaginary 'traffic jams' as the previous bus will have been tracked going through the same area a few minutes earlier, there'll be no hiding place for drivers - it's not the rtpi it's the automatic vehicle location that will provide this information.

    do you honestly think the union will ok this
    Dublin Bus probably won't even be allowed assess staff performance with them

    without a massive fight and demands for compensation


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Sulmac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    One thing they could do, as well as real-time information and integrated ticketing (both of which are vital), is introduce bike racks at all stops along QBCs and also some park-and-ride areas along major QBCs (particularly the N11 one) as well.

    The current route network should be completely scrapped and a new one made rather than just "tweaking" with the current one, in my opinion.


  • #113
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    murphaph wrote: »
    The 46A is a QBC route which has been succesful at attracting passengers from the private car, thereby reducing congestion. The 46A is one of the few good things about DB and you want to cut it. Unbelievable.

    I'd be in favour of cutting it too, but only to redeploy the buses along the same corridor to routes such as 7b, 7d and 145 (even revive 46) which badly need expansion.

    The 46a all but empties by Foxrock and is then way way over capacity to from there to DL, using other routes would benefit all and take away from no-one in this case.


  • #114
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    do you honestly think the union will ok this



    without a massive fight and demands for compensation

    It is already in place and agreed to.

    It is operating on route 123 and is being rolled out in Summerhill.


  • #115
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    KC61 wrote: »
    It is already in place and agreed to.

    It is operating on route 123 and is being rolled out in Summerhill.

    I didn't mean the system, I meant use of the system to monitor driver performance; punctuality, speeding and time wasting.

    So you are saying this will be used to measure driver performance then?


  • #116
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    It can be used I am quite sure if a driver were to leave the terminus ahead of his/her time without being authorised to do so.


  • #117
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    KC61 wrote: »
    It can be used I am quite sure if a driver were to leave the terminus ahead of his/her time without being authorised to do so.

    well thats a very good thing then :)


  • #118
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Did the report look at anything to do with stop rationalisation at all anyone?

    The situation as it exist currently is a bit silly, stops every 300m average.

    a large %age of stops could be removed speeding up routes with minimal passenger impact, a few hundred metres walk at most.

    That idea really wouldn't go anywhere. Most stops tend to be consistently either busy or not. I think leaving rarely used stops are fine precisely because they are rarely used and would not add marginally significant delays. The big delays really could be tackled by doing something about the large number of cash fares, and that would mean that Dublin Bus would need to have a pragmatic smart card fare system in place...


  • #119
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    you're totally wrong there, it will mark a sea-change in how bus drivers operate, there'll be no spoofing as to where they currently are or imaginary 'traffic jams' as the previous bus will have been tracked going through the same area a few minutes earlier, there'll be no hiding place for drivers - it's not the rtpi it's the automatic vehicle location that will provide this information.

    Isn't the RTPI based on the AVL, according to that Deloitte report?? I couldn't think of the term for the actual system technology being deployed. You're being rather pedantic there.

    My point was that staff may not be happy with being monitored continuously, in the same sense that cameras in the workplace (specifically employee-only) areas are controvertial.


  • #120
    Polar101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,896 ✭✭✭Polar101


    I'm on the 39 route - looking forward to any route changes as it won't be possible to make it any worse, only better.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    That idea really wouldn't go anywhere. Most stops tend to be consistently either busy or not. I think leaving rarely used stops are fine precisely because they are rarely used and would not add marginally significant delays.

    the issue is the slowing down, stopping and accelerating of buses unnecessarily due to the number of stops, not necessarily if the are busy or not. if you have a 1km road with 4 stops on it (such as where I used to live) and reduced it to 3 there'd be no appreciable impact to customers (30 second more walking) but the time saved by the bus, the reduction in fuel use and wear and tear on parts would be appreciable in the long run and reduce cost on a fleet wide basis considerably.


  • #122
    cson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,478 ✭✭✭✭cson


    One door for almost 100 people if full really puts the stupidity into perspective.


  • #123
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    the issue is the slowing down, stopping and accelerating of buses unnecessarily due to the number of stops, not necessarily if the are busy or not. if you have a 1km road with 4 stops on it (such as where I used to live) and reduced it to 3 there'd be no appreciable impact to customers (30 second more walking) but the time saved by the bus, the reduction in fuel use and wear and tear on parts would be appreciable in the long run and reduce cost on a fleet wide basis considerably.

    My whole point is that many stops in suburban areas don't have people arriving or departing at them in the first place. If there's a stop that attracts nothing except a periodic lick of paint and the odd passenger, I see the significant time saving for the few people who use it to outweigh the rare "inconvenience" of a bus to stop.

    My experience with buses mainly revolves around the 128, the 41/c and to a certain degree the 13/a and 4/a and 7. On the 41 and 128 routes in peak time, what happened that busy bus stops became busier while maybe an extra handful of stops along the whole route are used than would be the case at say 3pm. I didn't see any delay at commuting times as a result of paying a visit to every stop except on very rare (1/50) peak trips where 9 stops in a row might take place. I will admit that other routes will likely differ though.


  • #124
    schemingbohemia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,606 ✭✭✭schemingbohemia


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    Isn't the RTPI based on the AVL, according to that Deloitte report?? I couldn't think of the term for the actual system technology being deployed. You're being rather pedantic there.

    My point was that staff may not be happy with being monitored continuously, in the same sense that cameras in the workplace (specifically employee-only) areas are controvertial.

    sorry wasn't trying to be pedantic just trying to explain which element actually does the tracking - the avls will be in before all the RTPI signs are. and as has been pointed out it's already been agreed to.

    but the main point i was making is true in the change it will make to fleet management for DB and the impact it will have on drivers, you won't (hopefully) be standing waiting at a bus stop seething with rage at the driver who's reading the paper when he/she should have left the terminus 10 minutes previously.


  • #125
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    My whole point is that many stops in suburban areas don't have people arriving or departing at them in the first place. If there's a stop that attracts nothing except a periodic lick of paint and the odd passenger, I see the significant time saving for the few people who use it to outweigh the rare "inconvenience" of a bus to stop.

    I would hugely disagree, there is never a stop that far away. There are far too many bus stops on each route, look at RTE, it has 3 stops along it!


  • #126
    Mimikyu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,945 ✭✭✭✭Mimikyu


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    paulm17781 wrote: »
    I would hugely disagree, there is never a stop that far away. There are far too many bus stops on each route, look at RTE, it has 3 stops along it!

    I mean the occasions where I've found myself walking down the road for a bus stop only for a bus that goes e.g. every 20 minutes to pass me before I get to the relevant stop. If you get rid of more stops, it's more likely that a bus will pass you while getting to one and those delays can be costly. This is naturally more prevalent in places which are not near the terminus of any routes and thereby makes timetabling irrelevant. like Rathmines before the 128, the 83 was and is a small proportion of buses. Or Ballsbridge.

    Also I have no knowledge of the area near UCD or anywhere along the stillorgan QBC. I'm not saying that every bus stop is valid or welcome, I'm saying that many of the "surplus" ones make little practical difference to dwell times on a route because they are rarely used. I can think of a couple of stops on the 128 route that had a person or two waiting at every 2nd or 3rd journey I made, even though they're 200 metres apart and a 5 minute walk towards a Luas stop. The likes of that could do with some pruning alright.


  • #128
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    i've highlighted the most important word there, you don't know what changes will definitely be made to your service, you haven't identified your service and you're going on and on about some northside-southside service deficit when nothing definitive has been published.

    personally i'm hoping there is some merging of the 4/4a/7/45 service with the 8 being cut and no detouring of those services into blackrock village, and I'm surprised that there has been no mention of those as the 4/4a was specifically mentioned in the deloitte report. but i'll hold my judgement until actual, you know, details emerge.

    Where did you here that the 8 is being cut? Does this mean that the 59 and 7D are also going to be removed?


  • #129
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    patrickbrophy18 wrote: »
    Where did you here that the 8 is being cut? Does this mean that the 59 and 7D are also going to be removed?

    NOTHING has been announced yet.

    "schemingbohemia" was expressing his/her own view! We won't know until Dublin Bus announce each phase.

    Hold your horses!!!


  • #130
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    KC61 wrote: »
    NOTHING has been announced yet.

    "To be confirmed" was expressing his/her own view! We won't know until Dublin Bus announce each phase.

    Hold your horses!!!

    removal of 95 buses and 150 staff has been announced.

    thats a pretty big deal in itself


  • #131
    patrickbrophy18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭patrickbrophy18


    KC61 wrote: »
    NOTHING has been announced yet.

    "To be confirmed" was expressing his/her own view! We won't know until Dublin Bus announce each phase.

    Hold your horses!!!

    Thanks KC61, for straightening that out for me. I thought he was giving out leaked information. '''Few''':D


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    patrickbrophy18 wrote: »
    Thanks KC61, for straightening that out for me. I thought he was giving out leaked information. '''Few''':D

    Monday will have the first phase details released seemingly


  • #133
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    KC61 wrote: »
    NOTHING has been announced yet.

    "To be confirmed" was expressing his/her own view! We won't know until Dublin Bus announce each phase.

    Hold your horses!!!

    What?! I never spoke about the 8 bus service? But yes, I am expressing my own view, as always... Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by that, as the only thing I speculated on was that the plan would be a disaster?

    I think the bit I said about Dublin Bus enjoying the detriment of staff and users is probably more truth than speculation:p


  • #134
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    What?! I never spoke about the 8 bus service? But yes, I am expressing my own view, as always...

    schemingbohemia did here post 57
    personally i'm hoping there is some merging of the 4/4a/7/45 service with the 8 being cut

    opinion only though


  • #135
    angel01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭angel01


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    What?! I never spoke about the 8 bus service? But yes, I am expressing my own view, as always...

    Seems some folk here don't like us speculating but this is what a discussion board is for so keep on expressing your views :)


  • #136
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    removal of 95 buses and 150 staff has been announced.

    thats a pretty big deal in itself

    I meant the specific route changes.

    So far we've had wild speculation on this thread and the other about certain routes being cut. None of us know what the full plans are as yet that is what I was saying here.

    As for the vehicles, it is quite probable that by, for example, combining the 10, 39 and 46a as I mentioned before that some vehicles may be surplus. That may also carry through with other route mergers. Now whether they *should* be withdrawn is another thing. However, I am prepared to hold fire until I actually see the plans in full detail.


  • #137
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    We should run a pot on what'll be cancelled or not :D:D:D

    111 is my bet for the bin


  • #138
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    angel01 wrote: »
    Seems some folk here don't like us speculating but this is what a discussion board is for so keep on expressing your views :)

    I'm not against expressing views, but you made it out as if it was a done deal that the 40D was destined for the chop!

    I've not seen that said anywhere. In fact I cannot see any logic in that happening.

    Expressing a fear that something may happen is one thing, but making comments that imply it will happen are two totally different things!

    The problem with that sort of speculation is that people take it up (as patrickbrophy18 just did) as fact!!! That's why it is unhelpful.


  • #139
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    To_be_confirmed wrote: »
    What?! I never spoke about the 8 bus service? But yes, I am expressing my own view, as always... Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by that, as the only thing I speculated on was that the plan would be a disaster?

    I think the bit I said about Dublin Bus enjoying the detriment of staff and users is probably more truth than speculation:p

    Sorry - I picked up the wrong post - it was schemingbohemia that mentioned the 8! I've edited my post!


  • #140
    angel01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,030 ✭✭✭angel01


    KC61 wrote: »
    I'm not against expressing views, but you made it out as if it was a done deal that the 40D was destined for the chop!

    I've not seen that said anywhere. In fact I cannot see any logic in that happening.

    Expressing a fear that something may happen is one thing, but making comments that imply it will happen are two totally different things!

    The problem with that sort of speculation is that people take it up (as patrickbrophy18 just did) as fact!!! That's why it is unhelpful.

    I never mentioned what route was for the chop :confused:


  • #141
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    angel01 wrote: »
    I never mentioned what route was for the chop :confused:

    Sorry again - I am as guilty as eeveryone else - I surmised it was either the 38C or the 40D?

    From your posts it seemed to be the 40D you were referring to?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Threads merged.


  • #143
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Unfortunately DB bring it on themselves all the speculation, by the stages in which they release information which just asks for trouble they normally go like this for a regular timetable change, which I admit is different to the changes we are having now.

    Stage 1: (Day 1 of change process started)
    We're notifying you that a revised timetable will take effect shortly, more details will be posted on this website next week.

    Stage 2 (A week later)
    A revised timetable will take place on route <x> from <date>. you can access the timetable by clicking here.

    Stage 3 (2-3 days after timetable posted.)
    Timetable change takes place

    What it should be is:

    Stage 1:
    A change to the timetable of route <x> will be taking place from <date> click here to view the timetable.

    Stage 2: (At least a week later)
    New Timetable takes effect

    In this instance Dublin Bus is causing itself complaints and frustrating it's passengers by launching the project and then keeping people waiting 2-3 days before announcing the details - it would be far more sensible to announce the first batch the same day as the project, and far more customer friendly.

    But instead we feed crumbs of information at the first announcement, tell people to wait a few days for the details which creates the outrage we have seen on this board. The way they make service changes and give information out is awful. With these change announcements 9/10 there is not co-ordinated to suit the customer, it is pointless to say something will change but not give specifics until a few days later - why not delay the announcement until Monday and release them together? I think that's what causes the most speculation on this board.


  • #144
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Get cleveland browne back, he seemed to know what was going on... Have we got any solid insider info?

    Apparently the drivers were informed yesterday of the plans. So somebody has to know something ;)


  • #145
    KC61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    All that's happened so far is that the high level plans that Cleveland Browne posted were told to the unions.

    The detail will be revealed next Monday.


  • #146
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    etchyed wrote: »
    murphaph wrote:
    Isn't a better network for the majority worth the inconvenience to the minority?
    angel01 wrote:
    No it isn't

    angel01, without reference to yourself could you explain this please?

    Then it would be nice if you could tell us exactly how Dublin Bus is biased towards the southside.

    I am also curious of this.


  • #147
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Remember that the Luas extensions will create a shift in bus usage in their catchment areas.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Also greater frequency with less staff and less buses?
    A big problem at the moment is buses congested in traffic and / or making crazy detours. Remove them and if you buses can make 10% more trips per day, then you need 10% fewer buses, although personally I'd prefer service improvements.

    For example, Upper Rathmines Road can be congested, especially approaching Rathgar Road (indeed, so can Rathgar Road at this point). **If** route 128 (or some of them) did its inbound leg on Rathgar Road, it could do so in the bus lane. The most important part would be improving the junction though - it gets notoriously congested in the morning. Removing (nuisance) parking, improving boarding speeds and making Rathgar Road 4 lanes in front of the Garda station (bye-bye all day garda parking) would go a long way towards this.


  • #148
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    If the 128 were to start beside Trinity Halls as present and then go down Highfield Rd. and then the Rathgar road, I would be happy with that. I'm being a touch parochial however:o


  • #149
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    devnull wrote: »
    Unfortunately DB bring it on themselves all the speculation, by the stages in which they release information which just asks for trouble they normally go like this for a regular timetable change, which I admit is different to the changes we are having now.

    ...snip...


    In this instance Dublin Bus is causing itself complaints and frustrating it's passengers by launching the project and then keeping people waiting 2-3 days before announcing the details - it would be far more sensible to announce the first batch the same day as the project, and far more customer friendly.

    DB are doing exactly the right thing from a company point of view, announce late in the week about cuts and redundancies, I'm actually surprised they didn't wait till tomorrow.

    On Monday they'll release the great amendment and it will be greeted as predominantly good news and the between this and the weekend the bad news will be overshadowed and largely overlooked.

    (not that I agree with it)


  • #150
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    But that is my whole point, DB is not a private company it is a semi state company so it's priority should be towards it's customers more so than a private companies is, after all us taxpayers are the ones who pay for it's subsidy. It is providing a public service using public money and is backed by the government to run public services, therefore it's focus should first and foremost be on the customer.

    That is generally the whole problem with transport in this country - unfortunately the customer for the most part isn't as much of a priority as they should be which is why the transport minster needs to reshape it as the current system unfortunately is not working from a customers point of view.

    If they were not getting public money and were a private company I'd be more relaxed as they would be making their own money and earning their own money so should be free to do with it what they want. They don't owe anything to anyone. But I think as customers we have a right for our government funded and taxpayer supported bus company to actually put us first.

    The whole thing needs to be better regulated by the government to ensure that the customer is put first, as like others have said on this board in the past, at the moment the current way things works helps nobody, there needs to be guidelines set out on timetable changes, cut of routes, and minimum notice given and how companies go about doing this, that puts the customer, rather than the company first. But I can't blame DB totally for this, but better regulation would help.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    devnull wrote: »
    But that is my whole point, DB is not a private company it is a semi state company so it's priority should be towards it's customers more so than a private companies is, after all us taxpayers are the ones who pay for it's subsidy. It is providing a public service using public money and is backed by the government to run public services, therefore it's focus should first and foremost be on the customer.

    That is generally the whole problem with transport in this country - unfortunately the customer for the most part isn't as much of a priority as they should be which is why the transport minster needs to reshape it as the current system unfortunately is not working from a customers point of view.

    If they were not getting public money and were a private company I'd be more relaxed as they would be making their own money and earning their own money so should be free to do with it what they want. They don't owe anything to anyone. But I think as customers we have a right for our government funded and taxpayer supported bus company to actually put us first.

    This initiative is all about putting the customer first. The main problem with Dublin Bus is frequency, punctuality and journey times, and they are trying to address this. Improving and regularising bus services along the busiest corridors is clearly going to provide a better bus service for most bus users. Every time Dublin Bus tries to change a route for the better, some people are going to be worse off, but that doesn't mean they should have a veto. No built-up part of Dublin is out of walking distance of a bus stop now - why do you think that will change, when Dublin Bus have said it won't?

    Belfast did the exact same thing years ago, and it lead to a much better service there - look at their Metro corridors to see the idea.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement