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

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:22PM

dfx- wrote: »

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.

One set of doors with a driver is grossly slow and it's ridicolous that in a capital city in 2015 we have that situation. I'm not saying that two doors with driver interaction is any vast improvement though, both of these setups are nowhere near as beneficent as the system needs to be.

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

Well at least they actually have some vision and are trying to change things rather than leaving the broken system broke and stuck in the past like DB did when they had a free reign. The NTA were needed because the companies unfortunately were incapable of working alongside each other or keeping up with the times in their service and developing it in line with the peoples and the cities need or providing a good standard of service.

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.

I don't think anyone disputes that the current fare and door system is working to a degree which anyone can be happy with.

However this fare system is something that Dublin Bus retained for many years even when it was obvious that the stage system needed replacing and should have ideally been done in the boom years, but lackadaisical Dublin Bus just ploughed on, whilst their downtown office headed by various ministers who made no attempt to improve things and only now are we seeing the NTA improve the fare system, but cannot do it all at once since the company just cannot take the hit that it may cause.

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 the number of VTs that you did of the GTs/SGs and keep the withdrawn AVs.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.

None of the AV's what went to the UK are operating in anything like the kind of duties or work cycles that they would be doing in Dublin Bus. None of them have gone to the big, all day operators and most have gone to smaller companies where they only see service for a few hours a day or 9-5 at the very most.

The VT's are actually almost a white elephant to a large degree, because the dwell time on them is even worse than it is on any other bus. No more should be ordered until they can be spec'd with dual doors and the fare system allows it and that is before you take into account they will be worth virtually nothing on the second hand market.

dfx- · 11-03-2015 06:27PM

devnull wrote: »

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.

I would suggest that if new or old VTs were operating on the 4 and 7 instead, they'd like it just as much or better. They're also much more likely to be on board a bus at rush hour. A VT can carry 35-40 more people afterall.

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:33PM

dfx- wrote: »

I would suggest that if new or old VTs were operating on the 4 and 7 instead, they'd like it just as much or better. They're also much more likely to be on board a bus at rush hour. A VT can carry 35-40 more people afterall.

But my point is this, dwell time has a serious impact on cost of running a service. Every minute of dwell time is another minute before the bus gets to the end of the route and a minute later that it can turn around again which in turn increases journey time.

On a route like the 46A for example that operates every 10 minutes for example, even if dwell time can be reduced by 10 minutes over the course of the journey, it means that you can run the service perhaps every 8 minutes, with the same amount of buses that you can run a services every 10 minutes with now.

Reduction of dwell time using double doors and a proper fare system can actually increase capacity by allowing you to run more laps per day with the same amount of vehicles at a higher frequency. All you do by adding longer and longer vehicles with longer dwell times is cancel out any gain you made on the capacity by needing an extra bus to run the timetable anyway and the costs associated with that.

It's not just about capacity and that's the end of the story, it's about efficiency and providing as many seats as you can, with as little idle/dead time along the way, bus lanes is part of a way of increasing efficiency, but also minimizing the time a vehicle spends being stopped at bus stops is another.

dfx- · 11-03-2015 06:44PM

but you can't reduce dwell time as is, so why are those buses being bought and put on the least suitable routes most likely to have the largest queues, highest demand and largest interaction with the driver. Being put on at the orders of the NTA that is.

That is only making it worse.

devnull · 11-03-2015 06:55PM

dfx- wrote: »

but you can't reduce dwell time as is, so why are those buses being bought and put on the least suitable routes most likely to have the largest queues, highest demand and largest interaction with the driver. Being put on at the orders of the NTA that is.

That is only making it worse.

The 4 and the 7 I actually see the point on, because honestly the kind of demographic you will encounter there in D4 for instace will be the upper end of the income range and they will be people who would value the on board environment the newer vehicles provide.

If you remember the famed story about the woman who wouldn't get on the 46A bus because it was an old bus, something similar applies here. I think the double doors when used have a marginal improvement on dwell times on the 4 and 7 but I agree it's marginal.

A VT isn't the answer, since with more capacity, any benefit is going to be eaten up by the already bad dwell time getting worse.The 7 is already struggling to keep any kind of service in the evenings and morning peak periods and often has to be bailed out by the more realistic running times of the 4. Putting VT's on the 7 is just going to make that problem worse.

The 4 and the 7 southbound in the mornings and northbound in the evenings are probably the worse routes in the city for dwell times

LXFlyer · 11-03-2015 06:56PM

dfx- wrote: »

[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]

The 84x is interworked with the 145 and the 69x is interworked with the 69 - in other words the buses are on the second route most of the time and then do single journeys on the Xpresso service.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 07:05PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

no . as they are dublin busses depots any attempt to steal their depots under the guise of "repossession" should be met with whatever responce necessary. let the NTA buy them or pay compensation to dublin bus, or build their own to allow the privates to use them. dublin bus should not be expected to survive on its own merrits, if were to subsidize public transport in dublin then to a public company the money should go.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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

no they shouldn't. any attempt to remove them as i said should be stopped by whatever means necessary.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 07:07PM

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.

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).

eastern europe and germany don't have the compensation culture ireland has. so making sure bus stops are set up for double door operation is a must before its used. clearly the NTA are happy with dublin bus not using the double doors for this reason otherwise they would be forced to do so. if you have an issue with it take it up with the NTA and ask their position on it.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 07:15PM

devnull wrote: »

The NTA were needed because the companies unfortunately were incapable of working alongside each other or keeping up with the times in their service and developing it in line with the peoples and the cities need or providing a good standard of service.

no, they were needed because a transport regulator is a must. even if the companies were perfect, we would need a regulator.

devnull · 11-03-2015 07:18PM

no . as they are dublin busses depots any attempt to steal their depots under the guise of "repossession" should be met with whatever responce necessary. let the NTA buy them or pay compensation to dublin bus, or build their own to allow the privates to use them. dublin bus should not be expected to survive on its own merrits, if were to subsidize public transport in dublin then to a public company the money should go.

So what you are saying is that Dublin Bus should put it's own interests above that of the traveling public?

I keep hearing unions saying that private companies should not be allowed since they will put their companies before the greater good but they have no problem with Dublin bus doing the same thing?

I couldn't care less who operates the service, I just care about the standard of it.

no they shouldn't. any attempt to remove them as i said should be stopped by whatever means necessary.

So the ideology of public verus private is:

Public Companies are services which should be run for the benefit of the public for the greater good rather than for any vested interests and have no interests in self profi.

Private companies are companies which are generally ran for the benefit of shareholders and for everyone in the company and the company itself ahead of the grater good.

The strange thing is, that Dublin Bus is supposed to be the former, but people on this board defend them acting like the later, then claim they want a public bus service and that private companies are bad.

What a odd state of affairs. .

devnull · 11-03-2015 07:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

eastern europe and germany don't have the compensation culture ireland has. so making sure bus stops are set up for double door operation is a must before its used. clearly the NTA are happy with dublin bus not using the double doors for this reason otherwise they would be forced to do so. if you have an issue with it take it up with the NTA and ask their position on it.

Both you and I know it's not as simple as telling someone to do it and they will do it overnight.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 07:19PM

devnull wrote: »

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.

as maybe, but i just went on what the poster said, taking it exactly as it was written

devnull · 11-03-2015 07:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, they were needed because a transport regulator is a must. even if the companies were perfect, we would need a regulator.

We had a toothless regulator before in the minsiter and department for transport. They were useless and little more than yes men for CIE. It's only witht he NTA that we have got some true cusomer focus.

The NTA have done more for Intergration in the last few years than CIE have done in their whole existence, but DB staff do not like them because for once the company is being pressured to run like a public company should be ruin, rather than one that tried to be many things that betrays the whole idea of a having a public bus company for the benefit of the people rather than the staff and company.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 07:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

eastern europe and germany don't have the compensation culture ireland has. so making sure bus stops are set up for double door operation is a must before its used. clearly the NTA are happy with dublin bus not using the double doors for this reason otherwise they would be forced to do so. if you have an issue with it take it up with the NTA and ask their position on it.

How are the middle doors any different to the front doors? I often see the front doors opened far off the kerb.

devnull · 11-03-2015 07:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

as maybe, but i just went on what the poster said, taking it exactly as it was written

There is no maybe about it, it is a constant myth that is put out there by certain groups and certain sections of the society and political spectrum to cause scaremongering.

I haven't seen anyone here even say de-regulation or full privatization like the UK outside London should happen, I'm dead against it since it can be abused and isn't good for consumers, but then again the current situation is either so that is why the original tendering proposals were a good compromise that takes away the power of any operator, public or private, to use vested interests above the greater good.

VG31 · 11-03-2015 07:26PM

One solution to the middle door problem is use the Berlin door control system.

The middle and rear doors are automatic and are released when the drivers puts on a switch called the bus stop brake switch. The front doors are controlled by the driver.
In some places instead of automatic doors, after the driver puts on the door release switch, alighting passengers press a button beside the doors to open them.

With this the driver doesn't have the added responsibility of opening the middle doors.

end of the road · 11-03-2015 07:26PM

devnull wrote: »

So what you are saying is that Dublin Bus should put it's own interests above that of the traveling public?

did i say that? i said if they are forcibly removed from the equation i would support them fighting back by whatever means necessary as i believe dublin bus should stay and the NTA can implement the changes they are doing.

devnull wrote: »

I couldn't care less who operates the service, I just care about the standard of it.

thats fine. i care about both, and i want dublin bus to stay and the NTA to implement the changes. they are a far cry from years ago. improvements are happening but things need to be given a chance and a while to happen. things don't happen over night.

devnull · 11-03-2015 07:30PM

A proper public city bus service should never be about one operator, or any element other than the quality of service delivered to the public, since that is what public services are for.

They are not for any individual or company to seek to pursue then own agenda for their own benefit, this is one of the fundamental arguments as to why such services should be publicly run int he first place, because private companies would try and pursue their own agenda for their own benefit.

If people want to pursue their own commercial, or personal or go into a company that is run for their benefit over the public, isn't that what the private sector is about? But it seems some people want the best of both worlds and the irony is the same people who spend so long moaning about private companies going ahead and only doing what suits then and this is why public is better, are wanting their own company to do the very same thing to further their own cause.

Mahogany · 11-03-2015 07:37PM

devnull wrote: »

A proper public city bus service should never be about one operator, or any element other than the quality of service delivered to the public, since that is what public services are for.

They are not for any individual or company to seek to pursue then own agenda for their own benefit, this is one of the fundamental arguments as to why such services should be publicly run int he first place, because private companies would try and pursue their own agenda for their own benefit.

If people want to pursue their own commercial, or personal or go into a company that is run for their benefit over the public, isn't that what the private sector is about? But it seems some people want the best of both worlds and the irony is the same people who spend so long moaning about private companies going ahead and only doing what suits then and this is why public is better, are wanting their own company to do the very same thing to further their own cause.

Sure someone on another thread said he tries to make the most money he can for his "company"

His company is the public, as it's a public service, NOT run for profit but to provide the best service possible for the public.

Teyla Emmagan · 11-03-2015 07:46PM

Got on the 15 to town today. Went upstairs and sat down amidst about 12 Italian students. In Rathgar they all stood up and proceeded to stand the whole way down the stairs, with about 3 left on the top deck. And the bus stops, but they don't get off. And again. And the whole stairs is blocked. Next I hear a voice going "if you're not getting off then sit back down because no one else can get on or off. There are people out there in the rain who want to get on this bus".

So all 12 traipse back upstairs. Only they don't all sit down. And the next minutes the bus driver on on the tannoy going "you can't stand upstairs on the bus. I appreciate there is a language barrier but you need to either sit down or come downstairs". So the man beside me asks where they were going. Portobello, it turns out. They are were standing up in Rathgar to get off the bus in Portobello! On a rainy morning that is a 20 minute journey!

So we eventually reach Portobello and the bus driver is back on going "On behalf of Dublin Bus I would like to welcome our new Italian visitors to Dublin. We hope you enjoy yourselves as you learn to get around our city". And everybody smiled.

Anyway I thought it was quite well handled considering what a pain they were being!!

stehyl15 · 11-03-2015 10:14PM

I wonder if we'll ever see those stt lads from the luas and the dart on rougher buses

cdebru · 12-03-2015 12:30AM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

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.

The point is that you are blaming DB for stuff that is/was out of their control and was foisted upon them, Dublin Bus never wanted bendi buses but some gob****e seen them somewhere and insisted we have them as well, of course much like the current NTA and their purchase dual door buses no one bothered to do anything to make them actually work and people presumed a bendi bus would magically fit into the space you allocated for a normal bus, just like the NTA assume that some magic fairy will fix all the stops they are responsible for and make them suitable for the brand new double door buses, and sure if the fairy fails to emerge people like yourself will just blame DB anyway.
Dublin Bus meets and exceeds all the SLA as set down by the NTA, they regularly do reports on it you can check it up on the NTA website, so it is not being funded regardless it is being funded because it is performing exactly how it is requested and agreed to perform.

What obligations are they failing on ?

cdebru · 12-03-2015 12:37AM

Mahogany wrote: »

Sure someone on another thread said he tries to make the most money he can for his "company"

His company is the public, as it's a public service, NOT run for profit but to provide the best service possible for the public.

Yeah in response to you complaining about drivers insisting passengers pay their correct fare, if you had your way everyone would pay what they felt like and presumably the magic money tree would pay the actual cost of providing the service.
Providing the best service also means trying to ensure that everyone pays what they are supposed to otherwise those willing to pay end up paying more to cover the cost for those unwilling to pay.

cdebru · 12-03-2015 12:50AM

devnull wrote: »

One set of doors with a driver is grossly slow and it's ridicolous that in a capital city in 2015 we have that situation. I'm not saying that two doors with driver interaction is any vast improvement though, both of these setups are nowhere near as beneficent as the system needs to be.

Well at least they actually have some vision and are trying to change things rather than leaving the broken system broke and stuck in the past like DB did when they had a free reign. The NTA were needed because the companies unfortunately were incapable of working alongside each other or keeping up with the times in their service and developing it in line with the peoples and the cities need or providing a good standard of service.

I don't think anyone disputes that the current fare and door system is working to a degree which anyone can be happy with.

However this fare system is something that Dublin Bus retained for many years even when it was obvious that the stage system needed replacing and should have ideally been done in the boom years, but lackadaisical Dublin Bus just ploughed on, whilst their downtown office headed by various ministers who made no attempt to improve things and only now are we seeing the NTA improve the fare system, but cannot do it all at once since the company just cannot take the hit that it may cause.

None of the AV's what went to the UK are operating in anything like the kind of duties or work cycles that they would be doing in Dublin Bus. None of them have gone to the big, all day operators and most have gone to smaller companies where they only see service for a few hours a day or 9-5 at the very most.

The VT's are actually almost a white elephant to a large degree, because the dwell time on them is even worse than it is on any other bus. No more should be ordered until they can be spec'd with dual doors and the fare system allows it and that is before you take into account they will be worth virtually nothing on the second hand market.

DB applied for a simplified fare structure years ago, before the NTA, or leap or any of that and the DOT said no, so yet again blaming DB for stuff that is/was out of their control.

And just buying buses with 2, 3 or any multiple number of doors doesn't magically make the bus stops up to scratch nor does it magically stop people parking in bus stops, the NTA are paying lip service to dual door use but actually doing sweet FA in making it happen, they choose what routes the buses operate on but haven't made one alteration to one bus stop they haven't even developed bus stop design regulations. Seriously these people are the great hope for public transport ???????

dfx- · 12-03-2015 03:04PM

lxflyer wrote: »

The 84x is interworked with the 145 and the 69x is interworked with the 69 - in other words the buses are on the second route most of the time and then do single journeys on the Xpresso service.

I've been told by a very good source 84Xs are often just pullouts from the garage - whatever is left in the evening - and so anything can show up on them. I've certainly got old AVs, EVs, VTs regularly on them.

One of the early evening 68As (1600 I think) is a 69X, certainly operated by the same bus. 68/69 are interworked. If it's the Xpresso interworking...perhaps it shouldn't be a GT so. The last 68As in the evening are usually old AVs which go back to the garage, swap it around.

A GT would be ideal for a 68A.

cdebru · 12-03-2015 07:04PM

VG31 wrote: »

How are the middle doors any different to the front doors? I often see the front doors opened far off the kerb.

How many times does this have to be explained ? Can we make a sticky with the answer ?

The front door being close to the wheels is easier to maneuver close to the footpath to get the center doors that close you need a run in and then space to straighten off, a lot of stops don't have that run in space, when you can't get close the front doors are easier for the driver to control so that people don't step off into the path of a cyclist, motorcycle, or car, van truck that is moving on the inside of the bus.
There are stops that are generally suitable for dual door use, but they tend to be not where you really need them ( ie very few people use those stops). Even if you do use the dual doors at the stops where you can because it is so erratic literally no one uses them so a driver is wasting his time, and believe it or no it is actually slower to use both doors when no one is using them.
Now before you come back and say the driver should make them use the center door to exit, it is extremely difficult to give out to someone for not using the centre door then pull up to the next stop with people waiting to exit from the centre door and the driver can't safely open it.
That's why if and that's a big IF the NTA are really serious about center door use they need to ensure that the stops are suitable by auditing each stop to see which in the normal course could or could not be used safely then address the ones that can't, then sort out the massive amount of illegal parking then we could get somewhere.

VG31 · 12-03-2015 07:24PM

cdebru,

Fair enough but a lot of the time I find drivers don't bring the front door near the kerb either even though they could if they wanted. So not all drivers must be that safety conscious. I've seen drivers numerous times open the centre doors in the middle of the road away from the kerb.

Drivers in the rest of Europe don't seem to care if they can't get the centre door close to the kerb.

end of the road · 12-03-2015 08:29PM

VG31 wrote: »

cdebru,

Fair enough but a lot of the time I find drivers don't bring the front door near the kerb either even though they could if they wanted. So not all drivers must be that safety conscious. I've seen drivers numerous times open the centre doors in the middle of the road away from the kerb.

Drivers in the rest of Europe don't seem to care if they can't get the centre door close to the kerb.

just because drivers in eastern europe apparently don't care doesn't mean drivers here shouldn't

VG31 · 12-03-2015 08:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

just because drivers in eastern europe apparently don't care doesn't mean drivers here shouldn't

I didn't say only Eastern Europe. I know the bus stops are better in London and Germany but if the driver can't fit into a stop properly there due to parked cars or whatever, they still open the centre doors.

end of the road · 12-03-2015 08:49PM

VG31 wrote: »

I didn't say only Eastern Europe. I know the bus stops are better in London and Germany but if the driver can't fit into a stop properly there due to parked cars or whatever, they still open the centre doors.

thats up to them. we should not do the same here. the stops should be audited to ensure they are fully safe for multiple door operation. parked cars should not be allowed in a bus stop

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

Comments