How to improve Dublin Bus Services in 2017

CIARAN_BOYLE · 26-01-2017 12:32pm

bigredone wrote: »

Problem sorted a extra bus running no one left behind.
The NTA banned this extra bus from running.

Well its not so much a ban. Rather the NTA takes the farebox for all routes. Dublin Bus get a set fee. Dublin bus could run extra services if they wanted but they wouldn't get the farebox so they would be paying for nothing. In the old days they got the farebox.

bigredone · 26-01-2017 1:18pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well its not so much a ban. Rather the NTA takes the farebox for all routes. Dublin Bus get a set fee. Dublin bus could run extra services if they wanted but they wouldn't get the farebox so they would be paying for nothing. In the old days they got the farebox.

So what you are saying is the NTA are leaving money on the table?
They could be making money but have decide not too?

bigredone · 26-01-2017 1:26pm

devnull wrote: »

Thanks for confirming it's a claim with nothing to back it up. By source I mean referencing a third party or a document or site in the public domain that backs it up. Anyone on here can say someone said something doesn't mean they did.

Anyone can post anything on boards doesn't mean it's true. We cannot verify anyone is who they say they are all we can do is ask them to reference their sources and like pretty much every NTA rant you ever came out with you are unable to back up.

Pot, kettle and black springs to mind.
You have a severe mental block, The NTA can do no wrong, DB,BE,IE,CIE are the bad guys.
Book mark this discussion, in about 2-3 years if you are lucky you will see documents to back this up posted on DublinBusDrivers.com, your only source of out of date info.

Slutmonkey57b · 26-01-2017 1:48pm

bigredone wrote: »

I see one who tanked devnull is Brayhead.
i guess you are from bray?
The 145 is one of several routes that is often full on last departure and has to leave people behind.
Many a night it is full by Nassau street and cant carry anymore.
So if you are standing in the cold rain and a bus passes you by full, know that this is the fault of the NTA.
Pre-NTA a driver would be on a busy route and on the last bus, the control inspector would call him. "let me know if it gets busy"
Driver would see the bus filling up and know he would be leaving people behind so call control. "the bus is full"
The inspector would then get on the radio. " little bit of OT, anyone finished in town, need a driver to do a journey on the ABC out of town"
A driver would call back. "yea i'll do it"
Problem sorted a extra bus running no one left behind.
The NTA banned this extra bus from running.

Why can't the problem be sorted without using overtime? Why does overtime rates dictate whether an extra bus can run? Did the nta explicitly ban schedule additions, or was the practice of announcing on-spec random overtime availability by individual drivers/controllers banned? Because the suspicion would be that when driver a is known to want a bit of handy overtime it will just so happen that overtime might magically appear at a time and on a route to suit them. Just like buses randomly stop and order passengers onto the bus behind when a driver happens to need to end a shift...

And I agree that the 145 is often full however I know that the reason for that is the large volume of passengers who get on that bus when they could easily take an alternative route, because their termination point is well before the stop at which the 145 is the only bus on the road. The same bus that's full at Nassau Street will have plenty of space after ucd.

That's not an issue with seating capacity or driver availability, it's route design where short hop customers aren't being kept off long distance routes.

hytrogen · 26-01-2017 5:29pm

bigredone wrote:

Here is something that will blow your mind. A bus running in service but will very few passengers is a bus that in loosing money.

See that's not necessarily true for the DB model. You have subsidies and you have paying customers fares to run said bus company, versus running costs of labour employment maintenance fuel insurance and purchasing of new units (buses).
The majority of these costs are to be covered by the subsidy and the passenger fare is to cover the rest. Now to say a bus that is full during rush hour peak usage is not covering the costs of running said bus brings in the questionability of the operator and labour force given that there are competing companies with quite similar if not more overheads and even less subsidies if not none at all making a turn over.
Granted a not-so-full bus won't be making as much money as a full bus on the same route but it is a far less loss-maker than a bus that sits on the yard or is "entering service" or "not in service" carrying noone.

Slutmonkey57b · 26-01-2017 6:50pm

And in addition to the point above, DB is not a solely profit focused entity, it's an infrastructure and public benefit entity.

Individual loss making routes with low footfall rates may exist to provide a public service, interconnect with busier routes, or be candidates to be redesigned as single decker or hopper bus services.

In the same way that individual routes leading to a motorway aren't chock full, doesn't mean the junction serves no purpose and should be eliminated. DB requires that base costs are met; like all such companies it's expected and desirable that highly profitable routes subsidise the less popular but necessary ones.

Stephen15 · 15-04-2017 9:27pm

Instead of introducing 24h services I would introduce separate night services with similar routes and the same fares as day routes. This is because for some routes it would be unesscary to serve say industrial estates or shopping centres at night, some residental may to be served at night as people espeically women may be afraid to walk alone in the middle of the night and bus services may be needed to replace Dart and Luas.

I would hire private security like on the Luas or Dart to make sure there is no anti social behavior on any of these new night buses also some day buses could do with it also without wanting to mention any particular routes.

boobycharlton · 15-04-2017 10:34pm

Would be a ridiculous money loser under that set up. Just have a few routes with normal fares serving core corridors and see how it goes from there. Cities like Edinburgh can manage it alright so no reason Dublin can't.

NikoTopps · 17-04-2017 2:46am

I am not a regular bus user(lucky enough live\work near Luas)but yesterday i was get the 14 bus at Conghaile,it said 22mins then out of nowhere one pulls right up . very confusing as someone who not use the bus a lot.

I hope they begin allow the use of Contactless debit\credit cards\android~apple pay soon like in London.Seems like a better system than having to remember top up the Leap Card!:pac:

Stephen15 · 29-04-2017 7:33pm

Heres a two changes I'd make

Route 4 - Extend to Honeypark and increase Sunday service

Route 33 - Increase freqency and run between Balbriggan/Skerries and the Airport or just it as far as Swords it seems kinda pointless sending this route into town as Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk are served by the train going into the cc also its the longest route on the DB network and the train or the BE service is far quicker from places like Balbriggan

Route 46a and 145 - Perhaps we could turn these routes as they are both high frequency and run mostly along QBC into a BRT style service

Route 84/a - Extend all services to St.Vicents Hospital and put a few buses going all the way into town this would provide extra capacity on the 4 and 7 along the Rock Road since the 8 was scrapped and scrap the cherrywood diversion

Route 184 - Extend to Brides Glen Luas and increase service at weekends to make up for a loss of the 84/a in Cherrywood

LXFlyer · 01-05-2017 4:53pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Heres a two changes I'd make

Route 4 - Extend to Honeypark and increase Sunday service

Route 33 - Increase freqency and run between Balbriggan/Skerries and the Airport or just it as far as Swords it seems kinda pointless sending this route into town as Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk are served by the train going into the cc also its the longest route on the DB network and the train or the BE service is far quicker from places like Balbriggan

Route 46a and 145 - Perhaps we could turn these routes as they are both high frequency and run mostly along QBC into a BRT style service

Route 84/a - Extend all services to St.Vicents Hospital and put a few buses going all the way into town this would provide extra capacity on the 4 and 7 along the Rock Road since the 8 was scrapped and scrap the cherrywood diversion

Route 184 - Extend to Brides Glen Luas and increase service at weekends to make up for a loss of the 84/a in Cherrywood

Cancelling the 33 service to the city? You clearly have zero knowledge of the route and how it is loaded.

The vast majority of people use it beyond Swords and the Airport towards the city. It is frequently full with standing loads before getting to Swords. Suggesting the rail service should be used ignores the fact that the Rush & Lusk rail station is not convenient for anyone living in Rush or Lusk who does not have a car, nor can anyone around between Rush & Skerries avail of it.

Stephen15 · 01-05-2017 5:31pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Cancelling the 33 service to the city? You clearly have zero knowledge of the route and how it is loaded.

The vast majority of people use it beyond Swords and the Airport towards the city. It is frequently full with standing loads before getting to Swords. Suggesting the rail service should be used ignores the fact that the Rush & Lusk rail station is not convenient for anyone living in Rush or Lusk who does not have a car, nor can anyone around between Rush & Skerries avail of it.

Then why dont they run it as Rush/Lusk to CC only. I dont have much knowledge of this route but it just looks ridiculously long. They could also increase service on the 33x.

LXFlyer · 01-05-2017 5:38pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Then why dont they run it as Rush/Lusk to CC only. I dont have much knowledge of this route but it just looks ridiculously long. They could also increase service on the 33x.

The 33 links North County Dublin with the entire Swords Road corridor. The rail service goes nowhere near that. That's why it is needed out to Skerries.

Terminate it at Rush or Lusk? So what about the Loughshinney area, and the housing estates along the route between Skerries and Rush? How would they get to points beyond Swords?

Just because you think it looks "ridiculously long" doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Making sweeping comments about particular bus routes with no knowledge of patterns of use is nonsensical.

The 33 as I have pointed out is frequently full and standing - that alone should tell you that it is not a candidate for cancellation.

What could happen is to re-route it along the Swords by-pass, diverting briefly to serve the stops near the Pavillions.

But cancelling it is ludicrous.

What could work would be an integrated 33/33a schedule, that delivers an hourly Balbriggan-Airport 33a, and an hourly Skerries-Dublin 33 service.

Stephen15 · 01-05-2017 5:45pm

lxflyer wrote: »

The 33 links North County Dublin with the entire Swords Road corridor. The rail service goes nowhere near that. That's why it is needed out to Skerries.

Terminate it at Rush or Lusk? So what about the Loughshinney area, and the housing estates along the route between Skerries and Rush? How would they get to points beyond Swords?

Just because you think it looks "ridiculously long" doesn't mean that it is a bad thing. Making sweeping comments about particular bus routes with no knowledge of patterns of use is nonsensical.

The 33 as I have pointed out is frequently full and standing - that alone should tell you that it is not a candidate for cancellation.

What could happen is to re-route it along the Swords by-pass, diverting briefly to serve the stops near the Pavillions.

But cancelling it is ludicrous.

What could work would be an integrated 33/33a schedule, that delivers an hourly Balbriggan-Airport 33a, and an hourly Skerries-Dublin 33 service.

Tell me so if its so well used why is it not that frequent

LXFlyer · 01-05-2017 5:53pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tell me so if its so well used why is it not that frequent

Go out and look at the loadings yourself and familiarise yourself with the service.

The demand exists for a direct service to points all along the R132 corridor to the city from Skerries. It doesn't need to be more than hourly off-peak, and a 30 minute frequency at peak (higher in the morning peak inbound), supplemented by the 33X at peak times to the City Centre via the Port Tunnel.

If you don't want to believe that, that's up to you. But I suspect there would be war if what you suggested were to happen.

Stephen15 · 01-05-2017 6:51pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Go out and look at the loadings yourself and familiarise yourself with the service.

The demand exists for a direct service to points all along the R132 corridor to the city from Skerries. It doesn't need to be more than hourly off-peak, and a 30 minute frequency at peak (higher in the morning peak inbound), supplemented by the 33X at peak times to the City Centre via the Port Tunnel.

If you don't want to believe that, that's up to you. But I suspect there would be war if what you suggested were to happen.

To be honest I dont know an awful lot about this route. I thought it was a kind of a similar service to the 84 as it has an outer suburban fare. The 84 used to go all the way into town but then it was deemed unnecessary so they beefed up the 84x so I was thinking it might similar story with the 33 and the 33x.

LXFlyer · 01-05-2017 7:05pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

To be honest I dont know an awful lot about this route. I thought it was a kind of a similar service to the 84 as it has an outer suburban fare. The 84 used to go all the way into town but then it was deemed unnecessary so they beefed up the 84x so I was thinking it might similar story with the 33 and the 33x.

There is no comparison frankly. The 84 was curtailed due to the 145 taking pretty much most of the demand away between Bray and the city centre.

There is active demand all day long for a direct service to/from the entire R132 corridor to the North County Dublin towns that the 33 serves. It also offers a direct route to Swords Village from the city without the diversions via the Airport and River Valley that the 41 and 41c respectively take.

As I posted above - the ideal situation would be:

1) Implement a core hourly 33 service from Dublin to Skerries
2) Implement a core hourly 33a service from the Airport to Balbriggan (integrated timetable with the 33)
3) Supplement the 33 with additional departures in morning and evening peak
4) Remove both from Swords Main Street and route via Swords by-pass, serving the stop on R106 close to the Paviiions Shopping Centre as traffic in Swords plays havoc with the schedule (especially on Saturdays)
5) Supplement both with the 33x (add some extra departures)

RobbingBandit · 01-05-2017 7:15pm

Sporadic assessment of routes by passengers and cie representatives to scrutinised poor service and rediculous timekeeping, 4-6 buses in a row at certain times of the day with no bus for up to 30 minutes after this is very poor service, looking at the number 40 for this type of situations but happens on many services I am sure.

Tigger99 · 01-05-2017 7:20pm

The 25a/b suggestion is a terrible one. At peak times those buses are full by the time they reach pearse st, having them coming from ucd with all those additional passengers would be a nightmare.

ddx05 · 08-05-2017 12:20am

In terms of improving actual bus routing, I think the following changes need to happen in my area (Dublin 14/16):

Get rid of the 75 routing around Ballinteer and send buses via Barton Road East to/from Nutgrove/Dundrum.

Introduce the 175 and route it along most of the R113 road, but route it via Ballinteer Avenue and Sandyford Ind. Estate to the N11, then follow the 75's original routing to Dun Laoghaire

Route certain peak 17's via Taney Road and Mount Anville Road whilst still serving UCD (The Dundrum Road and Roebuck Road are traffic nightmares during rush hour).

Withdraw the 161. Nothing more than a fresh air carrier.

DUBLINBUSGUY · 16-11-2019 4:26pm

ddx05 wrote: »

Withdraw the 161. Nothing more than a fresh air carrier.

As a regular passenger of this service I agree with you. However I think the following should also happen: Extend all 61's to Rockbrook.
Operate every half hour from first bus at 5am (6am outbound) and drop to every hour from 6pm (7pm outbound) till last bus at half 11 on weekdays. Run buses every hour from 5am till midnight on Saturdays and 6am to 11pm on Sundays.

monument · 17-11-2019 12:53am

Thread from 2017, so, thread closed.

How to improve Dublin Bus Services in 2017

Comments