Dublin Bus - can anyone be happy with the price and service?

stehyl15 · 10-03-2015 10:17PM

Why dont dublin bus use plastic seats ive noticed alot of european countries have these on buses theyre far cheaper to maintain bescause of less seats been slashed

end of the road · 10-03-2015 10:20PM

stehyl15 wrote: »

Why dont dublin bus use plastic seats ive noticed alot of european countries have these on buses theyre far cheaper to maintain bescause of less seats been slashed

i don't know

cdebru · 10-03-2015 10:22PM

mhge wrote: »

Another classic on the way to the airport: bus stopped for a changeover in Parnell Sq, long wait... and the driver did not arrive. Since then it's only Aircoach/car for me, and most likely for many other passengers who spilled out from the bus dragging their luggage and waving down taxis.

The whole driver changeover idea is only possible if you have your customer at the very bottom of the pile anyway.

Another lovely DB custom is to make all passengers leave their bus and move over to another one waiting in front. Loving the WTF stares from whoever is subject to it for the first time. Or when buses suddenly terminate in the city centre when they were not supposed to.

DB customer service at its best.

The driver changeover happens for one reason and one reason only and that is the legal requirement to obey the work time directive and maximum driving hours, again an example of people not understanding why something happens and presuming it is some dramatic effort just to piss them off.

The exact same people would be rightly jumping up and down with indignation if they were involved in an accident where a driver had exceeded their driving hours.

cdebru · 10-03-2015 10:22PM

bk wrote: »

Yes, I'm very serious, DB's dwell times are just that bad.

Take my earlier example of the bus from the airport in Krakow covering the 16km journey in just 35 minutes, versus the 16 taking at least 45 minutes to cover the 10km to Dublin Airport.

That is an average journey speed of 27km/h in Krakow, versus just 14 km/h for the 16!

And that is from both of their official timetables.

Last week I was sitting on the 16 from town to Drumcondra and I timed it. It took it 30 minutes to just get to Griffith Avenue! Almost 15 minutes of that time was being stopped for ages at bus stops!

This was a Sunday afternoon so little traffic congestion.

Honestly, go travel Europe, and try bus services abroad and you will see how ridiculously bad DB are in comparison.

Sunday afternoon traffic is bad in Dublin for numerous reasons the gaps between services are long it also happens to be the day that virtually none of the limited bus priority measures operate most being Monday to Saturday, as well as the rather large sports stadium that tends to operate mostly on Sundays.

Comparing 2 routes in different cities based on lenght is beyond pointless it is stupid drawing conclusions that dual door use accounts for differences in running times is idiotic, how do we explain say the 27 and the 66 both with similar distance around 27km the 27 takes 1:50 the 66 is 1:20 off peak is it double doors or congestion ?????

devnull · 10-03-2015 10:52PM

stehyl15 wrote: »

Why dont dublin bus use plastic seats ive noticed alot of european countries have these on buses theyre far cheaper to maintain bescause of less seats been slashed

They have these in Spain and they are as hard as a rock, the worst quality seat I've ever sat on.

strandroad · 10-03-2015 10:56PM

cdebru wrote: »

The driver changeover happens for one reason and one reason only and that is the legal requirement to obey the work time directive and maximum driving hours, again an example of people not understanding why something happens and presuming it is some dramatic effort just to piss them off.

Amazing how it's possible elsewhere but not here...

end of the road · 10-03-2015 11:15PM

mhge wrote: »

Amazing how it's possible elsewhere but not here...

maybe its not possible. maybe there are other ways they can get around it in other places that we are not able to do for various reasons

_Kaiser_ · 11-03-2015 12:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, because it couldn't be to do with the rotas or not having drivers go all the way to the depot if they happen to live near the change over point.

You must be joking, right?

There are people living all over this city/country who don't live close to work and commute (indeed DB depends on it), but you're suggesting that a bus-load of passengers should be held up so the driver can get home early?

Anywhere I've worked, the responsibility for getting myself to/from work on time has been mine not my employer's - but it does go to prove the point that DB is run for the benefit of the staff not the paying customer.. which is why the service has been so poor for decades despite free buses, depots, and subvention granted them at the taxpayer's expense.

An efficient properly-managed company would schedule these changeovers at the end of the route or if buses return to the depots during the day for fuel (I don't know if they do), but delaying or turfing out paying customers so as not to inconvenience a driver is nonsense!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-03-2015 12:43PM

I will never travel on Dublin bus or Air Coach because of how they treat me and other road users... disgusting people with disgusting attitudes.

dfx- · 11-03-2015 01:12PM

bk wrote: »

Oh, so now you are saying that Poland and other European countries don't have elderly people, disabled people and buggies!!! :rolleyes:

Of course they do, just as many as Ireland.

But the point is these people don't slow European buses down because these European buses have multiple doors, so even these elderly, disabled and buggy users can quickly embark on the bus with minimum delay.

It is the whole reason for using multidoor buses and it is the reason for far faster journey times in the rest of Europe.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand or why CIE staff are so defensive about it? You can see the reality of this every day on the Luas which has far faster dwell times then DB, while carrying far more passengers per vehicle.

BTW in Krakow, beyond the use of multidoor buses and off bus ticketing, there really didn't seem to be any extra "public transport" infrastructure compared to Dublin on the route. In fact there seemed to be far less in the way of bus lanes, with the Krakow airport bus mostly using a standard two lane street most of the way.

Again CIE staff looking for excuses for why they deliver such a poor service, why Dublin is some reason a unique little flower where normal European standard public transport can't be applied!

Ah the doors are back.

Could you care to explain my observations yesterday as follows:

GT50 operated the 33X. I watched it load on Custom House Quay. 45 people boarded and 0 alighted. The double doors played no part at all and it took seven minutes to board. The extra doors made no difference to decreasing dwell time.

Secondly, GT85 operated a 14 at 9pm. I saw it turn onto D'olier St from O'Connell Bridge and hoped to get it. I was able to cross O'Connell Bridge, wait at the lights, leisurely walk down D'Olier St and join the still formed queue to board GT85. Nobody alighted. The double doors had absolutely no effect on dwell time.

Can you explain the value of this standard in public transport infrastructure which had no impact on either journey time or positive passenger experience.

PropJoe10 · 11-03-2015 01:14PM

Ricky Wet Nomad wrote: »

I will never travel on Dublin bus or Air Coach because of how they treat me and other road users... disgusting people with disgusting attitudes.

Precious.

devnull · 11-03-2015 01:38PM

dfx- wrote: »

Ah the doors are back.

Could you care to explain my observations yesterday as follows:

GT50 operated the 33X. I watched it load on Custom House Quay. 45 people boarded and 0 alighted. The double doors played no part at all and it took seven minutes to board. The extra doors made no difference to decreasing dwell time.

Secondly, GT85 operated a 14 at 9pm. I saw it turn onto D'olier St from O'Connell Bridge and hoped to get it. I was able to cross O'Connell Bridge, wait at the lights, leisurely walk down D'Olier St and join the still formed queue to board GT85. Nobody alighted. The double doors had absolutely no effect on dwell time.

Can you explain the value of this standard in public transport infrastructure which had no impact on either journey time or positive passenger experience.

The doors do not reach their potnetial right now because of the fare system and the fct people cannot board through the centre doors therefore meaning they do not make a big difference to dwell times.

At peak time especially they would make a huge difference, but obviously at off-peak time that will be less.

Aard · 11-03-2015 02:32PM

Studies in Dublin show that ~25% of the time a bus takes from A to B is spent on boarding/alighting pax. A further ~10% is at traffic lights.

Various bus priority measures combined with speedier boarding alighting and fewer stops could easily reduce journey times by a quarter.

wahesh32 · 11-03-2015 02:57PM

That sounds interesting. Do you know where I could read the actual studies?

devnull · 11-03-2015 03:01PM

Aard wrote: »

Studies in Dublin show that ~25% of the time a bus takes from A to B is spent on boarding/alighting pax. A further ~10% is at traffic lights.

Various bus priority measures combined with speedier boarding alighting and fewer stops could easily reduce journey times by a quarter.

I quite believe it.

I used to get the 4/7 from the icty centre to Ballsbridge a few years back and I'd say that on some occasions approaching 50% of the journey was involving boarding and alighting.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 03:17PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You must be joking, right?

There are people living all over this city/country who don't live close to work and commute (indeed DB depends on it), but you're suggesting that a bus-load of passengers should be held up so the driver can get home early?

Anywhere I've worked, the responsibility for getting myself to/from work on time has been mine not my employer's - but it does go to prove the point that DB is run for the benefit of the staff not the paying customer.. which is why the service has been so poor for decades despite free buses, depots, and subvention granted them at the taxpayer's expense.

An efficient properly-managed company would schedule these changeovers at the end of the route or if buses return to the depots during the day for fuel (I don't know if they do), but delaying or turfing out paying customers so as not to inconvenience a driver is nonsense!

i'm not suggesting anything should happen. a public service is entitled to have its busses bought for it, free depots, and to be funded properly. would you rather extreme fares and little service. dublin bus is not perfect but guess what, its improving, and no public transport service is or will ever be perfect. there is no evidence that a so called "An efficient properly-managed company" would do anything different, if that was the reason for the change over, which as has been corrected above, isn't the reason. nobody is turfing out anyone. people choose to get off the bus. but if you want to continue to think dublin bus is out to get you, then you do that. but really, its just a bunch of rabel rabel.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 03:27PM

devnull wrote: »

I quite believe it.

I used to get the 4/7 from the icty centre to Ballsbridge a few years back and I'd say that on some occasions approaching 50% of the journey was involving boarding and alighting.

I was on the 46A during the morning rush hour recently.
I estimated that 40-50% of that journey was spend at the bus stops, with the other half being in slow moving traffic.
The bus was completely full (it was a tri-axle bus, a VT). Only one door on such a big bus is madness.

devnull · 11-03-2015 03:28PM

The alternative that is being proposed does not include extreme fares or little serivce, since such things would still be under the control of the same people tha they have been foir the last few years, the NTA.

The fact that the NTA has been formed in the olast few years and had more and more of a say in transport and more involvement just happens to have happened at the same time as an upturn in DB Performance. That is no co-incidence

dfx- · 11-03-2015 03:41PM

devnull wrote: »

The doors do not reach their potnetial right now because of the fare system and the fct people cannot board through the centre doors therefore meaning they do not make a big difference to dwell times.

At peak time especially they would make a huge difference, but obviously at off-peak time that will be less.

[Aside]33X operated at 1730. Also why are GTs on the Xpressos. GT1 was on the 1750 84X, GT24 was on the 1745 69X. GT141 was on the 33D. Whereas a proper, capable, single door VT47 operated the 1800 33X. The extra doors were irrelevant to Xpressos as there is never anyone getting off and on at the same stop, it's either one or the other. It's not isolated either as I can give you a lot more examples of this.[/Aside]

However, the presence of extra doors had no impact at all on the dwell time experienced by DB. The dwell time is having to interact with the driver, not exiting the bus. Until there is no interaction with the driver (and I don't mean newer machines), and improved frequency, there will be no improvement in dwell time. Is a flat fare on Leap on the NTA horizon?

devnull wrote: »

I quite believe it.

I used to get the 4/7 from the icty centre to Ballsbridge a few years back and I'd say that on some occasions approaching 50% of the journey was involving boarding and alighting.

Isn't that the nature of a bus service, i.e. that it stops from time to time? Poorer frequency and lower capacity buses means longer queues which means longer boarding times. The 4 and 7 have had lowest capacity buses for three years. Are you happy with that?

45 people boarding a bus at one stop is going to cause dwell time even on a bus made entirely of doors. This is more prevalent at rush hour, the speed with which you exit the bus is dwarfed by the 45 people needing to interact with the driver.

But no doubt the doors will be constantly rehashed because the company in _[insert city here]_ uses them.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 04:19PM

dfx- wrote: »

But no doubt the doors will be constantly rehashed because the company in _[insert city here]_ uses them.

The vast majority of countries use buses with at least two doors. Ireland and the UK are exceptions in Europe.

dfx- · 11-03-2015 04:28PM

Yes, but are we not allowed to be exceptions?

Can we operate a bus service for ourselves without being carbon copies of somewhere else?

_Kaiser_ · 11-03-2015 05:12PM

dfx- wrote: »

Yes, but are we not allowed to be exceptions?

Can we operate a bus service for ourselves without being carbon copies of somewhere else?

Not if "our" way is more inefficient or expensive, no.

As I've said before on this thread.. it's a bloody city bus service - it's not rocket science. No-one is asking DB to develop the service from scratch or reinvent the wheel.. just learn from what's been done successfully elsewhere and adapt as necessary for Dublin - but without the "typically Irish twist" that leaves us with tri-axle buses with single doors for example, or bendi-buses that don't use the other doors they had as another one, or missing buses, delayed passengers and poor customer service being consistent.

The point as well is that DB had decades to get this right on their own without virtually any interference, but instead they used it as a job scheme for their employees (which continues to this day). As someone else said above, the fact that service improvements are slowly starting to filter down to the street has very little to do with DB, and everything to do with the NTA who were put there BECAUSE DB were incapable of doing it themselves!

And despite EOTR's insistence that we should fully fund a public bus service regardless of its performance, or (even more absurdly) allow a competing private service but only if it runs alongside the incumbent, we should in fact support the NTA in setting SLA's, PSOs, timetables and penalties for not adhering to same, repossess the depots the taxpayer has paid for (and then allow them to be shared by whatever operators serve that area) and force DB to compete with other providers on their own merit.

If they succeed well and good.. if not then they should be removed from the obligations they're already failing to deliver upon.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 05:25PM

I've noticed a huge improvement in DB's service in the last 4 to 5 years. It's not a coincidence that the NTA came into existence at this time.

Journey Planner / RPTI apps: NTA
Leap Card for all transport services: NTA
Next stop displays/announcements: NTA
Street Displays: NTA
Middle Doors: NTA
Lack of usage of middle doors: DB (And bus stop design is not an issue, they seem to get by fine in Poland, Eastern Europe and parts Germany as well with similar quality bus stops to here).

byrneg28 · 11-03-2015 05:31PM

Every morning on the bus, I see a line of traffic that literally crawls a long outside of the bus lane from the malahide road right into the city centre!

I once took the car to work out of curiosity and it took me 45 minutes longer than if I was to take the bus.

Can anyone explain why on earth people drive in the morning????

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:05PM

VG31 wrote: »

I've noticed a huge improvement in DB's service in the last 4 to 5 years. It's not a coincidence that the NTA came into existence at this time.

Next stop displays/announcements: NTA
Street Displays: NTA
Middle Doors: NTA
Lack of usage of middle doors: DB (And bus stop design is not an issue, they seem to get by fine in Poland, Eastern Europe and parts Germany as well with similar quality bus stops to here).

The most important ones involve proper integrated ticketing as you are now seeing with discounting across multiple modes and other leap developments, along with a properly integrated real time app and a journey planner app that includes all transport operators, onboard Wifi, route maps etc.

The NTA has done a lot of work on integration because the companies even when they had their own free will did nothing over man years since they were too busy squabbling among themselves whilst forgetting that they were supposed to be serving the public who funds them. They couldn't even integrate with sister companies of each other, let alone public transport as a whole.

The fact that Dublin Bus shortly after the launch of the NTA route maps, started doing their own after many years gap, save for missing out any companies who did not suit them, followed swiftly by mass handouts of same maps in the city centre, and the NTA Real time app marketing campaign followed by a big Dublin Bus marketing campaign for their own app and the fact that Dublin Bus persist with their own very poor route planner rather than use the NTA one which is far superior, but again contains other companies timetables so that cannot be used by Dublin Bus so instead we have to have things that are separate.

The whole argument about having a publicly owned bus service is that it should be run for the benefit of the public instead of for the benefit of certain companies or certain groups or commercial interests and for the benefit of the traveling public. But what they also do, is they won't use the NTA Journey Planner, NTA Real Time App or the NTA Maps, since they are worried that it would harm their company even if it would make things better and more transparent and easier for the actual traveling public that it's claimed is the number one priority in a publicly owned bus service.

The above two paragraphs, basically show you exactly why the NTA is needed, because Dublin Bus, despite the fact it's a public company, supposed to be run for the benefit of the public, has shown that it will happily go in the opposite direction for the greater good, or public transport in general as long as it does what is in it's own interests.

Remember, this is the same Dublin Bus you know, that says all of those private operators should never be allowed in because they will just do what suits them rather than what is best for the public and of course, both you and me know, a public operator would NEVER EVER try and preserve it's own position in a market over the interests of the public?

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:07PM

dfx- wrote: »

Yes, but are we not allowed to be exceptions?

Can we operate a bus service for ourselves without being carbon copies of somewhere else?

Isn't that what we have already?

VG31 · 11-03-2015 06:08PM

devnull wrote: »

The most important ones involve proper integrated ticketing as you are now seeing with discounting across multiple modes and other leap developments, along with a properly integrated real time app and a journey planner app that includes all transport operators, onboard Wifi, route maps etc.

I forgot the journey planner. And the Leap Card!

I can't remember any improvement in DB in recent years that wasn't because of the NTA. Of course if there was any please correct me.
I know some people will attack the NTA and defend DB to the end, but I think the NTA has done a great job.

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:13PM

dfx- wrote: »

Isn't that the nature of a bus service, i.e. that it stops from time to time? Poorer frequency and lower capacity buses means longer queues which means longer boarding times. The 4 and 7 have had lowest capacity buses for three years. Are you happy with that?

Of course a bus stops from time to time, but stopping for almost 15 minutes of a 30 minute journey for instance is unacceptable and is a direct result of the current fare system and the fact extra doors are not being used to their potential. When used properly with the appropriate infrastructure, the loss in seats on said vehicles would easily be outweighed by efficiency savings.

If you had a good fare system with multiple doors being used at each stop, the dwell times would largely decrease, which would lead to a greater frequency being possible with the same number of buses. For busy routes like the 4 and the 7, that is certainly what is needed.

The 4 and 7 have also drummed up a fair few extra passengers due to these buses you talk about, and that is not just my opinion, I actually know people working in one of the biggest office blocks in D4 who have switched due to the improved on board experience. It won't for every area, but bear in mind some of the areas served.

5 people boarding a bus at one stop is going to cause dwell time even on a bus made entirely of doors. This is more prevalent at rush hour, the speed with which you exit the bus is dwarfed by the 45 people needing to interact with the driver.

And the different the middle doors have made so far has been small, of course it has because of the fare system, nobody is denying that.

But no doubt the doors will be constantly rehashed because the company in _[insert city here]_ uses them.

Because the current door and fare system combined is grossly inefficent, especially on a long vehicle like a trixaxle.

Abroad you will see 40 people get on and off a bus within 10 seconds with the right doors and fare system. Here it can take up to 5 minutes.

dfx- · 11-03-2015 06:15PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

1. As I've said before on this thread.. it's a bloody city bus service - it's not rocket science. No-one is asking DB to develop the service from scratch or reinvent the wheel.. just learn from what's been done successfully elsewhere and adapt as necessary for Dublin - but without the "typically Irish twist" that leaves us with tri-axle buses with single doors for example, or bendi-buses that don't use the other doors they had as another one, or missing buses, delayed passengers and poor customer service being consistent.

Back to the doors again - this could become a drinking game

. There is nothing wrong with one set of doors on a bus given that you have to interact with the driver. There's just been a conversation outlining the uselessness of middle doors at the moment.

I suspect what the NTA have done is got it the wrong way around. That does not bode well for their overall vision.

Yes, more doors could work, but it doesn't in Dublin now. You need a flat fare and no driver interaction. Until you have this, there is no point. No matter what is done elsewhere, it will not work in Dublin until that comes first.

It should be in this order:

--measure the dwell time
--flat fare on Leap, no cash.
--measure the difference in dwell time
--then buy the buses with capacity and dual doors

This might take a while to phase in, who knows.

Instead it has been in this order:

--buy the buses that everyone else gets and make up the difference in capacity with '30 standees':rolleyes:
--get better machines
--then have a flat fare (maybe)

They've got the wrong buses for the wrong city at the wrong time and are now demanding they are put on the least suitable routes.

What Dublin needs is maximum capacity given the poor frequency, buy half (?) the number of VTs that you did of the GTs/SGs and keep the withdrawn AVs. They're still going in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be here.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 06:19PM

I was on the 11 before and the bus was full. The driver did not open the middle doors and ignored people shouting at him to open them. That bus spent 5 mins at stops a lot of the time because boarding was heavily delayed by alighting passengers having to push their way to the front.

If all bus drivers used the middle doors at every stop people would eventually use them. People don't use them much now as they know they probably won't open.

I agree that a better ticket system would be more effective at reducing the time spent at bus stops but the middle doors do have an impact as well. It's daft that the drivers don't have to use them.

Dublin Bus - can anyone be happy with the price and service?

Comments