Dublin bus price increase

paulm17781 wrote: »

How much extra revenue will the 100 new buses bring in?

The 8 million budgeted for included extra revenue routes like the 4A and the 128 have been well received and I am sure will make money but at the moment a lot of the customers using those services have moved from the 27 or the 13 they will not pay for themselves from day one.

The introduction of the 48 hour week will according to DB need 300 more drivers that would cost about 10 million on its own of course there will be a reduction in overtime payments but likely an increase in basic pay.

DB wage bill last year was i think nearly 150 million so add the National wage agreement onto that what is it 3% or 4% say 3% thats 4.5 million extra before you do anything never mind fuel costs.

sickle wrote: »

I also got stuck waiting for the 16's today, 2 in a row didnt show up on the 16a route, they all must have got lost in town somewhere (this was between 17.30 and 18.10). Sure my bus hasn't turned up all week (i am in the middle of writing them yet another letter, they must be getting sick of my complaints at this stage...), luckily the 17 also goes by my stop so i can get that to Terenure and get a decent bus from there. I am sooo going to get a bike, i am sick of giving them my money!

They are all over in Beaumont making sure Blackbelt gets home

These are the fare prices in 2002

1 - 3 stages - €0.75
4 - 7 stages - €1.05
8 - 13 stages - €1.30
Over 13 stages - €1.45


These are the fare prices in 2008

1 - 3 stages - €1.05
4 - 7 stages - €1.50
8 - 13 stages - €1.70
Over 13 stages - €2.00

In 6 years, some fares have increased by 43%. This is far above the inflation rate in the same period.

To be fair to Dublin Bus, the city has grown immensely in the last few years, with their services stretched to meet these new areas. The main problem is gridlock. If you look at the recent holiday period over Christmas and new year, it was amazing to get on a bus and actually have it flow freely through the city. Buses were on time and the timetable was perhaps even a bit too generous with some routes. This would prove that if more priority was given to buses, the company could cope rather well with their existing fleet, without throwing more buses into the rush hour traffic.

All this aside, you must question if an increase of 43% over 6 years is fair, when you consider so many people still find it hard to actually get a bus. A friend of mine lives on the Malahide Road and regularly has to let numerous buses pass by full before one stops. The 16/16A and the 39 has also got many complaints here recently.

The suggestion that Mortons is the answer for people in Celbridge and Maynooth is wrong. Regardless of which company owns the bus, it will still be stuck in the same traffic.

We've all experienced fare increases in the past, but this is the first year I have heard many people complain about the increase and the service provided. This applies to the Luas and rail increase also, where overcrowding and delays are common.

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

how can a company who DON'T COVER IT stop it?

The reason given is that part of the route is shared. I would think in this case, they mean The Lucan Road. There is a similar block from a private operator in Swords, where the new high frequency Route 141 has been delayed for months. There was also a block placed on some express Dublin Bus routes from using the Port Tunnel, even though there is no bus stops in there. When Dublin Bus put 2 unofficial extra buses onto the 25X a few months ago, they were told to remove them by the Dept. Of Transport.

It's a crazy situation where the passenger suffers every time.

mp3guy wrote: »

That's true, but there's a difference between two buses being delayed due to traffic, and two buses just plain not showing up at all due to bad drivers/management, which is more frequent that you'd think.

Dublin Bus have private consultants who monitor the service for them reporting

buses that did not operate, did not operate on time, rudeness etc etc

The consultants report to DB with details of fleet numbers etc etc and local management are dragged across the coals every quarter on standard levels who in turn drag drivers across the coals.

It is a common perception but your assertion is wrong all failures to operate have to be accounted for with the reason why it did not operate

shltter wrote: »

Public transport in this city is being held to ransom by private companies more interested in lining their pockets than the hardship of the travelling public

A private company trying to make money... How dare they.

That said, our Government really need to do something about this. If someone applies for a route they should get it unless it is over served, where oh where is the DTA we've heard about for years?

shltter wrote: »

There are performance targets it is called a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

Included are 96% of weekday Peak time services operate as per timetable

95% of all Saturday and Sunday services operate as per timetable

That's just providing the service they are expected to provide. I should have been clearer in my original post. I meant they should have targets like increased ridership by X% per year, if met then a fare increase for more investment etc. If they said "bus ridership was up by X% this year and we can do another X% next year if we get Y new buses and a fare increase, then they deserve it.

shltter wrote: »

I disagree if someone applies for a route they should be able to prove that they can provide a service not just a cherry picking service at peak times, not a service that prohibits the disabled from traveling etc etc

That's what I meant. I shouldn't get a route because I apply, if I apply and promise a good service I should get it and lose it if service isn't being provided, same goes for DB.

Even if there are private operators on a route DB should be allowed to compete, this would make our city easier to get around and I think the variances in the routes that would emerge would really benefit the public.

paulm17781 wrote: »

That's just providing the service they are expected to provide. I should have been clearer in my original post. I meant they should have targets like increased ridership by X% per year, if met then a fare increase for more investment etc. Giving them a rise because they ask for it and provide the service they are expected to do is like giving me a rise for going to work every day as opposed to earning a rise for contributing.

That is not what you said and not what you meant here

paulm17781 wrote: »

As long as the government allow the operators to increase fares every year with no performance targets, they have no reason to improve their services, they could spit on you as you get on and they would still get their fare increases

You said performance targets and that is what they are the targets are renegotiated every year and the targets for 2008 are much higher than those in the link I provided.
What you said is clearly wrong and I have pointed that out so you are attempting to move the goalposts.


But as a matter of interest Dublin Bus has increased its ridership every year since 2001 except for 2005 when the LUAS started for obvious reasons. And the consultants that the Government hired to look at Public Transport reported that Dublin Bus gave the Government good value for the money spent by the government on DB.

And undoubtedly if the DOT untied the shackles and allowed DB to operate then it would provide even better value and carry even more people but at the moment DB is operating with both hands tied behind its back.

paulm17781 wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot you know more about what I meant to say than I do. :rolleyes:

Now, relax, you're getting tense. Deep breath, release, all better.

I said with no "targets" by targets I meant improvements. I phrased it wrong. I'm sorry if this upset you. I don't consider providing the service you are there to provide a target. A target should be an achievement. Yes they have increased ridership, the population of Dublin has also increased and more people are driving. They have not been set a target rider increase by the government and IMO don't deserve a fare increase.

I don't know why all the DB lads here get so aggressive when the service is challenged. The point I'm trying to make is that DB could and should provide a better service. FWIW, I wish they would, that's why I post here.

You said they could spit on you that does not indicate you meant improvements it indicates you meant performance.

You clearly did not know about the MOU and when pointed out you embarrassingly tried to wriggle out of it.

It is up to the Government to set the targets Dublin Bus has met all the targets that the Government has set but you think they should have an increase withheld because they have not met a target that has not been set.

That is some logic

shltter wrote: »

You said they could spit on you that does not indicate you meant improvements it indicates you meant performance.

You clearly did not know about the MOU and when pointed out you embarrassingly tried to wriggle out of it.

Shhh, you haven't been doing your breathing exercises, you're going to get high blood pressure. Relax, it's ok. Now, I didn't know about the MOU, however that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point is that they have done nothing to merit the increase. Please don't say about the MOU again, that isn't an achievement, that is what DB are there for. My point about spitting meant DB can spit on you, not the drivers. You're right though, I am so embarrassed, you know me too well. I'm actually getting facial plastic surgery as I am so mortified I don't want to be recognized by anyone here who knows me in person. I can't believe I did that. Imagine, saying something, on a message board, that was open to misinterpretation, having it misinterpreted then admitting you were wrong and trying to clarify your point. I'll cry myself to sleep tonight, what a fool I've been. No honestly, I'm mortified, really. I might even emigrate, just to be safe. I'll never try to correct a point i made badly made again, thanks for showing me the error of my ways. Man I'm embarrassed.

shltter wrote: »

It is up to the Government to set the targets Dublin Bus has met all the targets that the Government has set but you think they should have an increase withheld because they have not met a target that has not been set.

That is some logic

Oh look, what I wrote was misinterpreted again, I'm mortified, I don't think I'll ever get over today. What I meant to say was: They have done nothing to merit an increase so they shouldn't get one unless they can state expected service improvement that will come about directly as a result of this. Currently they get their increase for being on time, that's not worthy of a fare increase. If we, the public are to pay more for the service, we should be seeing improvements for our money. Prices have risen 43% since 2001, the service has not gotten 143% better. To justify and increase, there should be a reason. These should be set by the government and DB should have to meet these, being on time is not a target.

You're taking this very personally, maybe you should have a kit-kat. People here say the fare increases aren't merited and I said how I think the service should be run which gives a mechanism for justifying the increase but you're acting like you are being attacked.

shltter wrote: »

No I am pointing out the mistakes you are making and I am far from getting annoyed by your errors.

And I did not mean you were embarrassed I would not expect you to be rather it is embarrassing watching you wriggle and try to rile me by continually telling me to relax

Your tone has calmed, that's good, I was getting worried about you. No need to get so angry is there? Your tone was very aggressive, there is no need for that, you really should relax. Wriggle? you're right, I'm wriggling, I'm actually closer to vibrating. I freely admitted I phrased it wrong. Trying to wriggle out of it alright. I'm so happy you know me so well.

shltter wrote: »

Look you are missing the big picture here the increase is needed because the Government have decided to only give 1.5 million increase in the subsidy which nowhere near meets the increased costs the company has to meet to continue providing the same level of service.

I have always said that the whole CIE group should get higher subsidy and reduce fares. IIRC we have the lowest public transport subsidy in Europe.

shltter wrote: »

This is not a reward for DB being a good boy this is stealth charges by the government getting the public to pay for what the Government should be paying for.

This is to make up for the shortfall in the Public service obligation payment the government gives Dublin Bus for providing public services and even at that it will not meet half the increase in costs.

Without increased investment there will not be increased services and there is no increase in investment.

Why do the government have to do this for nothing? Why are DB (I think the same for RTE with the license fee increase) not forced to be better. DB does little to innovate, in other threads I have suggested ways they could increase ridership. As it is they are getting less money than they need. They should however be more intuitive and doing something to increase ridership and trying to generate additional revenue, this would be possible with better practices and smarter use of existing routes. I have seen little change in DB in my life (though they have improved a bit in the last year) yet they get continual fare raises and do nothing in turn unless it is handed to them (QBCs). If the company I work for had a bad year, the government wouldn't just give us money, we would have to improve our working practices. I guarantee if DB tried, they could make huge improvements and increase revenue but they don't bother as they government will always give them the fare increases, this is what the public find unacceptable.

paulm17781 wrote: »

Your tone has calmed, that's good, I was getting worried about you. No need to get so angry is there? Your tone was very aggressive, there is no need for that, you really should relax. Wriggle? you're right, I'm wriggling, I'm actually closer to vibrating. I freely admitted I phrased it wrong. Trying to wriggle out of it alright. I'm so happy you know me so well.

No my tone was always the same perhaps it is the drawback of text based media you can't hear the humour in my voice or maybe I should stick a smiley face at the end of each sentence.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I have always said that the whole CIE group should get higher subsidy and reduce fares. IIRC we have the lowest public transport subsidy in Europe.



Why do the government have to do this for nothing? Why are DB (I think the same for RTE with the license fee increase) not forced to be better. DB does little to innovate, in other threads I have suggested ways they could increase ridership. As it is they are getting less money than they need. They should however be more intuitive and doing something to increase ridership and trying to generate additional revenue, this would be possible with better practices and smarter use of existing routes. I have seen little change in DB in my life (though they have improved a bit in the last year) yet they get continual fare raises and do nothing in turn unless it is handed to them (QBCs). If the company I work for had a bad year, the government wouldn't just give us money, we would have to improve our working practices. I guarantee if DB tried, they could make huge improvements and increase revenue but they don't bother as they government will always give them the fare increases, this is what the public find unacceptable.

Seems oddly contradictory you support higher subsidies but don't think they deserve it.

Most of the things you would like to see DB is prevented from doing even if they wanted to.
As has already been discussed to death route changes are blocked new routes are blocked.
New buses are sitting idle. Tax relief on diesel is removed.

And I don't know how old you are but if you have not seen much change in Dublin Bus in your lifetime you are much younger than i thought.

shltter wrote: »

No my tone was always the same perhaps it is the drawback of text based media you can't hear the humour in my voice or maybe I should stick a smiley face at the end of each sentence.

Your writing style changed for a fair few posts there. It's back to to normal now though. Funny how things often don't come across as intended on a message board.

shltter wrote: »

Seems oddly contradictory you support higher subsidies but don't think they deserve it.

It probably does, however I said with lower fares - I'd settle with a better fare structure. Right now we are losing out both ways.

shltter wrote: »

Most of the things you would like to see DB is prevented from doing even if they wanted to.
As has already been discussed to death route changes are blocked new routes are blocked.

I don't believe this. I suspect the changes I would like to see implemented could be if they tried. A lack of will is the biggest problem and why should they try? I know the Euro flat fare (or was it two Euro?) was blocked but I've heard nothing of DB wanting to introduce a simpler or integrated fare structure. They sell 90 minute rambler tickets in shops, why not make this the default ticket?

shltter wrote: »

New buses are sitting idle. Tax relief on diesel is removed.

The idle buses is a disgrace, it really is. I wasn't aware of the Tax relief being removed until today, that is one where the government should really be doing something for DB.

shltter wrote: »

And I don't know how old you are but if you have not seen much change in Dublin Bus in your lifetime you are much younger than i thought.

I've seen new buses, I've seen termini get moved and a couple of new routes come on stream. Nothing major. Dublin has changed hugely in the last 11 years, DB has had a few cosmetic changes. Little service improvement.

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I don't use Dublin Bus much anymore. There's a new private operator that charges €3 to get into the city from Swords. The buses are packed at peak times with them turning away customers because the buses are full on the odd occasion.

The issue isn't the price of the fare (€2 is cheap if you compare it with a transport company in many other major citys). The issue is that people are willing to pay extra if we get a good service that is efficient and gets the job done.

Dublin Bus wanted to operate the 41X via the Tunnel the fare would be €2.30 the buses would be wheelchair accessible and they would be able to carry more people they were refused permission. Also the bus would have taken people across the city to UCD

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Before the private operator started I used to have to ignore the Dublin Bus stop 100m from my door and walk about a mile to make sure that I got on the bus (not to make sure I got a seat, for that I'd have to walk further). I don't know if it's the government or Dublin Bus that is the problem but whoever it is needs to get their act together if they really want to get people abandoning cars and using public transport. When I contacted Dublin Bus about that they said they couldn't put more buses on without DOT approval. When the private operator came on Dublin Bus obviously must have received DOT approval because they seemed to be able to get many more buses on.

No still no approval for extra buses for the swords area the buses for the new 141 route are sitting up in Broadstone