The problem with public transport in Dublin.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Wasn't the Leap card supposed to provide this kind of integration across public transport operators?

I'd say supposed to is the key phrase there considering the massive thread of issues.

bk wrote: »

The major problem with public transport in Dublin is it's lack of integrated ticketing.

A friend of mine started a new job recently and it perfectly illustrates the issue.

By far the fastest way for him to get to his job is:

- Dublin Bus into town
- Luas to Heuston
- Train From Heuston to Park West

However instead he only takes Dublin Bus as it is much cheaper then taking three different modes of transport, but he ends up 30 to 60 minutes longer commuting by DB alone.

This just shouldn't happen in a modern big city public transport system.

There should be only one cost to get from A to B, no matter how many trains, trams or buses you take.

I think we desperately need to sort this ticketing mess and implement something like the per km ticketing system used in Amsterdam.

Until then, public transport in Dublin will remain a mess.

There is a monthly/annual Bus/LUAS/Rail combined taxsaver ticket that covers such a journey. Has your friend checked that out?

Such a model as you seek simply is not going to happen here due to the funding model decided upon by our elected government. I would love to see a zonal system with zonal multi-mode fares that are identical but no one has the political nerve to do it, because it would cost more.

if the buses arrived on time would be a start

bk wrote: »

And has been pointed out, single mode capping is almost useless on IE and Luas, they don't have a wide enough network.

What is badly needed, amongst other things is multmode capping.

And that will come in a later phase.

No you are not Monument.

The ticketing will happen over time - I would be far more concerned about the stalling of the big ticket projects.

bk wrote: »

The North side of the city.

And no DART Underground wouldn't radically change this. Yes if DU existed then he would only have to take two, DB into town and then Dart to park west.

But a more then 2 billion solution isn't needed for this problem. More then adequate public transport already exists for his journey, it is just that it ends up being too costly as he has to buy three separate tickets for the fastest journey time.

I would argue that Dublin would benefit far more from through A to B style integrated ticketing then DU. Even if it meant the government giving a ring fenced extra subsidy to pay for it, I'm sure it would cost a fraction of DU.

That simply isn't going to happen.

bk wrote: »

And it is exactly that sort of negative thinking that seems to be so prevalent at CIE, it's management and many of it's employees.

Don't introduce truly integrated ticketing, it might negatively effect the fare box.

Don't introduce flat fares, it might negatively effect the fare box.

No thought to the fact that making public transport simpler and more attractive to use might actually attract more people to public transport and thus increased revenue.

No, much better to stick to the same old ticketing system and just increase ticketing prices every year. That will certainly attract more people to public transport :rolleyes:

And it has worked so well for the CIE companies so far, just look at how profitable they are and how passenger numbers are increasing, NOT!

There are a couple of caveats,but I do have broad agreement with bk's pov here.

There is,I feel,currently an undue focus on the theory and practice of staff cutbacks,service reductions,service cuts and all the attendant negativity.

As an employee of over 30 years standing,I feel the present recessive atmosphere to be the worst I can recall.
It is all pervasive and,I suggest,far more damaging to the groups future than any other element.

For example,my own employer Dublin Bus,has serious issues regarding Revenue Loss,both from lack of business and from widespread abuse of both it's cash-fare system and it's Free Travel Scheme elements.

All through the long negotiation process with employee representatives,the issue of falling revenue arises continually,with the latest round seeing it now becoming a contributory factor in seeking wage and condition reductions across the group.

I would accept that in the real world,a significant drop in revenue has to impact upon the greater workforce eventually.

However what I find somewhat difficult to fathom is the current long-running absence of Revenue Control on BAC services.

The presence of Revenue Teams has far more significance than merely the monitoring of revenue,as it also sends out a very strong and clear message about the companies self-regard for it's own systems and infrastructure.

Currently,the message appears to be "we don't give a toss about our services" and you are free to treat the entire system with as much disdain and ill-will as you can muster.

Allied to this,is an equally remarkable lack of willingness to try and regain some of the lost business through targeted or system wide promotions.

For example,get the NTA/Leapcard on board for a €1.40 Flat-Fare Weekend.

Whilst leaving the cash-fares as normal,cap the Leapcard Fare at €1.40 per journey for the weekend.

With adequate pre-publicity,I contend this would have a two-pronged positive outcome of increasing total weekend ridership and,perhaps more importantly,give a very strong boost to Leapcard circulation..

OR,sticking with Weekend use,market a substantially reduced Weekend Family Rambler Ticket at c.€8.00 for BOTH Sat and Sun.

Similarly,weekend NiteLinks need to be relaunched,with perhaps a 2 for €8 Ticket Offer (2-4-8) or Half Price Prepaid Nitelink if a €2.80 cash ticket is exchanged at Point of Purchase ?

With the advent of Contactless Ticketing,these types of initiatives are now much easier to devise and impliment,but within our Group,BAC in particular appear loath to try new or unusual ticketing experiments.

It's not as if BAC has nobody to do the stuff,it's more a question of how the company percieves it's Marketing Department should be involving itself with the customer base,actual and intended.

For example,the company's sponsorship of Africa Day,although well intentioned and a positive "Good News" story,would not IMO,result in a widespread uptake of our core services.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Dublin-Bus-is-Proud-Sponsor-of-Africa-Day-Dublin/

The longer running involvement in the Niall Quinn DB Community Spirit Awards is also,perhaps,an area where resources whose use would be more beneficially targetted on front-line operations are used on a wide-focus social programme.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News/Niall-Quinn-and-DEBRA-Ireland-call-on-Dublins-Voluntary-Groups-to-apply-to-Dublin-Bus-Community-Spirit-Awards/

I would contend that if funding such initiatives is to be an integral part of the companys operations,then doing this,at arms length,through the major charities would be more effective in resource utilization terms.

I am not suggesting that DB become a cold and aloof entity,however under the present arrangements,there is now the reality of a radically altered operating environment,which regards revenue far more importantly than heretofore.

What concerns me most,however,is the strong and recurring message that service reductions and cutbacks are the only way forward.

I differ here,and instead suggest that we need to,at least attempt to get,some Pzazz into getting more Bums On Our Seats.

With a customer base of c.240,000 per day using our services,I think it's time to practice a bit of active yield management.

There's no guarantee of success,but I believe the CIE Group really needs to shake itself free from the Government Department steady pair of hands syndrome,which values inertia above so much else.