Dublin bus routes privatised.

[Firefly]

I am also not sure full stop about some of these orbital routes as currently routed\timetabled, whether run by Dublin Bus or another operator, 90% of the time when I see a 104 bus it has less than 5 people on it!

That's very interesting....it's an old argument held by those against the liberalising of transport routes that the unprofitable / quieter routes would lose out!!

 

[dereko1969]

Every fair is subsidised through the State subsidy of Dublin Bus. How do they subsidise those who use private cars? The road infrastructure is funded through general taxation and everyone benefit from it whether they use the road or not.


Are you sure about that? If our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then the emissions per passenger per Km travelled are 5 times higher for bus passengers than car passengers. Given the amount of road space given over to bus lanes I’m doubtful about how much busses reduce congestion. Again, I can’t find Dublin Bus data but in the linked article the average bus carried 2.3 passengers per Km travelled whereas the average car carried 1.2 passengers.


Where did you get that from?


Why not introduce a congestion charge in Dublin city centre? Motorists who use the M50 pay €2 each way to cross the Liffey. €5 to drive into the city centre would cause a bigger change in behaviour than an extra €0.50 subsidy on every bus journey.


Yea, but the bus has its own lane and if our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then on average during rush hour two cars = 1 bus.

Purple you're quoting research carried out by a pro-car lobby group that is based on reports from 2 councils in the UK. Emissions calculated on UK buses with EURO 3 vehicles, Dublin Bus have mostly EURO 5 vehicles with newer buses EURO 6 - these are the buses that will be used by Go Ahead. Essentially that report is rubbish.

No one here seems to have a problem with LUAS, this is the exact same model as used for LUAS. Go Ahead have stated what they can provide the service for, the fare box goes to the NTA, all fares are decided by the NTA. Go Ahead are providing the service for less money than Dublin Bus, that's a saving for the taxpayer.

As for your ludicrous statement that the full fare should be paid without subsidy, you really should think that through. How would our cities work without public transport? It has to be subsidised. Essentially only those that can afford cars would be able to get to work at any place distant to their homes and it would take forever to do so if there was no subsidy for fares. You usually talk some degree of sense but not on this occasion.

 

[odyssey06]

That's very interesting....it's an old argument held by those against the liberalising of transport routes that the unprofitable / quieter routes would lose out!!

I think outside of the times when you'd expect students to be coming to \ from DCU, you could replace it with a 'black cab'.
One of the quietest - if not the quietest - bus route in Dublin.
I don't think anyone would be running the route for profit with a bus - it would only be done as part of a tender \ subsidy \ package of routes.

 

[Firefly]

I don't think anyone would be running the route for profit with a bus - it would only be done as part of a tender \ subsidy \ package of routes.

Those who would like to see the market opened up usually make this argument, i.e. package the "good" and "bad" routes and put the lot out to tender with strict service level agreements. I think what's being proposed is about the best middle ground. I would however like to see the scheme expanded to routes going into the city centre. I would imagine the taxpayer could get a big windfall on the tenders for these.

 

[dereko1969]

Slowy slowy catchy monkey

 

[Purple]

Purple you're quoting research carried out by a pro-car lobby group that is based on reports from 2 councils in the UK. Emissions calculated on UK buses with EURO 3 vehicles, Dublin Bus have mostly EURO 5 vehicles with newer buses EURO 6 - these are the buses that will be used by Go Ahead. Essentially that report is rubbish.

Those are the same EURO standards that VW got such great results on? There's bugger all difference between EURO 3 and EURO 5 emissions levels and as Dublin Bus don't release statistics for passenger per Km traveled we just don't know what their CO2 and NOx levels are. The level to which engines are maintained has a huge impact on the amount they pollute so quoting emissions levels for new buses, which could well have be falsified anyway, tells us very little. I don't think behaviour patterns in a city in the UK and a city in Ireland will be greatly different.

No one here seems to have a problem with LUAS, this is the exact same model as used for LUAS.

The LUAS is electric and much of it's lines are not on public roads.

Go Ahead have stated what they can provide the service for, the fare box goes to the NTA, all fares are decided by the NTA. Go Ahead are providing the service for less money than Dublin Bus, that's a saving for the taxpayer.

Not if the old drivers are wondering around various depots around Dublin with nothing to do but drawing the same wage.

As for your ludicrous statement that the full fare should be paid without subsidy, you really should think that through. How would our cities work without public transport? It has to be subsidised. Essentially only those that can afford cars would be able to get to work at any place distant to their homes and it would take forever to do so if there was no subsidy for fares. You usually talk some degree of sense but not on this occasion.

Last year Dublin Bus carried 125 million passengers and received nearly €100 million in subsidies (€57 million to cover the Public Service Obligation and the rest in other payments to buy new buses etc. That means there is a subsidy of €0.80 per journey. For someone using the bus to get to work each day that's an extra €4.00 per week.
Do you really think that would cause society to break down or push people to buy cars when the average cost of running a car is over €200 a week?

Really?


Really?

 

[TheBigShort]

The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.

 

[TheBigShort]

According to the NTA:

"Under the provisions of the tender, not only will service levels on the routes in question be maintained, they will actually be increased by about 35pc. So passengers in areas served by these routes have absolutely no reason to worry about this change. Matters such as fares, frequency and scheduling for the service will all be set by the NTA, and not the operator."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ntract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html

Perhaps you should ask them?

Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty.
It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.

 

[odyssey06]

Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty. It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.

I should also point out that East Point business park has 5000+ staff and has no public bus route serving it.
(There is a free shuttle bus from Clontarf DART station to it but you have to get to the DART station first...)
East Point is 2.5 kms from the 104 route.

This is my roundabout way of saying I think the current routes we have are far from optimal.

I think it is a missed opportunity that in the tender process there doesn't seem to be any scope for Go Ahead to expand the routes (as long as they don't overlap with the stops of other routes).

 

[TheBigShort]

Can you please explain this? The NTA has stated that services will either stay the same or be increase and fares will remain unchanged. Where is the cost of the consumer?

If services and prices stay the same, then presumably Go Ahead will need a state subsidy to make any sort of profit? Either that, or they will have to cut costs. How will they cut costs?

 

[Protocol]

There is huge overstaffing in many CIE services.

I am friendly with a retired BE bus driver. He tells me of the waste / poor rostering / excessive driver numbers.

All this came out during strikes.

[I know of two porters in UCHG who do nothing but watch videos after manager leaves at 4:30.]

So costs need to be cut, yes, but wages don't.

Pay the same wage, but hire less staff.

Strikes have shown us how many excessive BE drivers there are.

 

[Protocol]

There are 62 payroll offices in the HSE, another example of massive overstaffing and inefficiency.

We overspend on health, and yet have massive waiting lists.

 

[Protocol]

The Go-Ahead fee may be more than the fare-box revenue, yes, so of course there may be a subsidy.

 

[Firefly]

If services and prices stay the same, then presumably Go Ahead will need a state subsidy to make any sort of profit? Either that, or they will have to cut costs. How will they cut costs?

They are probably more efficient and have less waste and so can offer the same services for a lower price.

 

[Firefly]

Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty.
It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.

Well that's up to the new company to determine. It has been stated that existing services will stay the same and so to will prices. If the new company were happy to bid for this business it just goes to show how they think they can make money on such quieter routes.

 

[Firefly]

The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.

I agree with all that, however I fail to see the relevance to this thread. The same services are being maintained with the same price to the customer.

 

[Purple]

The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.

That argument can be made to provide any public service or utility free at the point of consumption.
Every Irish water customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for water. Every ESB/Energy company customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for energy.

How about motorists; they are tax payers, should they get their petrol/diesel for free or heavily subsidised?
While we are giving people water for free why not give everyone food as well? Not just a set amount they need to live on but as much food as they want. Sure isn't food essential for life? It's a human right!
Same goes for houses; the government should just give everyone a house too, not just anywhere though, it will have to be where they want it to be or else they will move out, say they are living in their car with their kids and RTE and the tabloids will run sob-stories about them...

If you want to subsidise public transport then fine but please don't trot out the same old BS about everyone being tax payers as a justification.

 

[newirishman]

The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.

You are missing a couple of points here. First, the number of (income) taxpayers (excluding VAT for the moment) is shockingly low in Ireland. Second, the number of passengers actually paying for using public transport is probably leven lower.

"Minuscule amount" must clearly be a joke I am not getting. Monthly / annual tickets are insanely expensive for what you get, compared with similar sized European cities. I guess somebody must pay for all the free travel passes.

In Vienna, for example, the yearly ticket covering all available modes of public transport costs 365 euro.
Yes, 1 euro per day for unlimited travel on any public transport system in all of the city (into some suburbs). That is all tubes, trams, busses, trains.

Stuttgart, to use another example, has some zone based systems but has yearly tickets starting at around 650 euro. Again, *all vailable* public transport types.

Paris: 827 euro for the most expensive one.

In Dublin, if you want / need a ticket for bus / luas / dart it will set you back 2180 euro. 2.5 times more expensive than Paris. And that is for a service that is essentially really bad.

 

[MrEarl]

I couldn't disagree more. People who use public transport already pay their fares and subsidise those that choose to use private cars to transport to work.......

It would take a hell of a lot of bus journeys to cover the cost of my annual road tax for my car - so I don't think you are correct about anyone subsidising me. Actually, I would suggest that indirectly, I am subsidising them, when you consider the cost of running my car.

Bring in a public transport system that is reliable, efficient, takes me where I want to go and when and I'd be happy to use it more. As things stand, I use the bus when it suits, but it doesn't always suit. Unlike some of the good people in South Dublin, I don't have the option of a Luas and Dart within minutes of my house, so perhaps you might like to consider that myself (and others who don't have those services nearby) are actually subsidising those individuals. Then there's the cyclists, that pay nothing and yet benefit from the roads, cycle lanes, traffic control and safety measures (which half of them sadly ignore !) etc.

 

[Delboy]

In Dublin, if you want / need a ticket for bus / luas / dart it will set you back 2180 euro. 2.5 times more expensive than Paris. And that is for a service that is essentially really bad.

And if your paying tax at the higher rate, you'll save half the cost of that ticket. So €1,110 is the true cost.
That 2,180 also includes commuter rail which you forgot to mention!