Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

National Transport Authority Fares Determinations for 2014

24

Comments

  • #52
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    You are coming on here throwing personal insults at me when I say something you don't like.

    The truth is that Dublin Bus has extremely high costs to begin with. Keeping costs static or keeping increases small is not really good enough.

    It is true that transport input costs are going up. Everybody has costs outside their control. So they manage and cope with them. For example, transport companies take steps to improve fuel efficiency. Every other transport provider of any scale has already taken steps to moderate fuel use. According to the report on industrial relations, this has not been done at Dublin Bus because of some bizarre dispute.

    At the same time, taxi fares have remained the same since 2008



    ITS should have contributed to greater efficiency. It should have allowed cash operations and lodgement fees to be reduced and it should have reduced dwell time. It didn't. It has actually made dwell time worse.



    So you are saying that Dublin Bus received net income as a result third party/employer liability claims in 2010? Do you have any documentation to support this?



    Yes, costs fell a little bit, but the mileage fell by a full 5 percent. Passenger numbers also fell.

    That is the problem. Dublin Bus is delivering less than before.



    You say that there have been improvements, but you can't produce any numbers to back that up. All you have is a list of inadequately delivered initiatives.

    AVLC has been delivered really badly, using a massive amount of grant money. It is really not very accurate at all. There are phantom buses all over the place.

    Network Direct reduced the mileage and turned Dublin Bus into the sort of bus company that could be run as a commercial for-profit operation. It doesn't really serve any outlying areas. The frequencies are very low. 15 minute frequencies on routes like the 4, running through the densest areas of the city, are pathetic.

    There are 'clockface' schedules in the timetable, but they are not operated. I stood 35 minutes at the first stop of the No. 4 route on Wednesday waiting for the supposedly 15-minute schedule. Despite being flagged on the real time display, the buses didn't come. The system doesn't work.

    You didn't mention that millions of taxpayer money has been spent on new buses, but that it apparently hasn't led to any improvement in terms of fuel efficiency or operational efficiency.

    The unit costs at Dublin Bus are just far out of line with norms. They are more than twice as high as in Germany, Scotland or England, and when you take capital costs into account, are more expensive than London.

    If everyone wants to go around convincing themselves that everything is ok and a little adjustment here or there is all that's needed, things aren't going to get any better. The whole bus system has been in headlong decline since 2000 at least. No one seems to want to accept that there is a really big problem.



    When the costs are two-and-a-half times what other suppliers are charging in similar markets, and DB are delivering a lower quality of service, it is not 'somewhat off-mark' to say that there is poor management of costs.

    The personal insinuations you keep making (first that I am not being 'honest' , then that I am 'pushing things' and now that I am making 'simple sweeping statements' are laughable. The truth is that you can't come up with any objective evidence what Dublin Bus is up to. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. Dublin Bus's operating costs are twice as high as they should be and there is no getting away from it.

    For the record, my comment was not meant as a personal insult, and if anyone took it as such, then I apologise.

    My fundamental issue was with this post:
    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Well, Dublin Bus could cut costs and increase productivity. Costs at Dublin Bus, on a like-for-like basis have increased 14 percent since 2010.

    Everybody else providing services is doing more with less, except Dublin Bus.

    While on the face of it when you look at the two Profit & Loss Accounts that would appear to be the case, but when you read the full Financial Statements, including the notes, and the operations reviews contained in the annual reports, and then look at the underlying reasons, it becomes clear that costs across the board were not rising, and that the causal reasons were those outlined in my post above - namely, fuel costs, ITS costs associated with LEAP, and the abnormal gain in third party/employer liability claims in 2010.

    The net gain from the third party/employer liability claims in 2010 can be seen in the notes to the audited financial statements - that tends to be acceptable documentary evidence to most people.

    I can only judge the bus service from what I see on the basis of:
    1) Not driving - using the bus every day
    2) Travelling on a minimum of 4 buses every day along 4 possible corridors for over 3.5 years.

    Based on my experiences over that extended period, the service has definitely improved, through the RTPI enabling me to make decisions in real time as to where is best to change, through the implementation of regular interval services and corridor scheduling across certain routes. Yes there have been instances where buses haven't appeared on RTPI, but with nearly 900 buses on the road there are always going to be one or two where perhaps the GPS equipment isn't working. If I have seen that, I've dropped them a line to get it fixed.

    If someone else wishes to pass judgement on the entire service based on one negative experience last week, that is his prerogative - who knows what happened - maybe there was a traffic issue or a bus broke down? The controller should have removed the next bus from the system if that were the case - it would appear to be human error. In that situation - I'd ring up and find out where the bus is.

    As for the frequency on the 4, well when you put it into perspective, its 15 minute Monday/Friday service isn't that bad, considering:

    1) On the Northern half it shares the route with either the 9 or 13 (both also at 15 minute off-peak and higher at peak), and also with the 11, 83 and 140 for sections.

    2) For most of the southern half it shares the route with the 7 and the DART, both of which operate at 15 minute frequencies or higher.

    I am certainly not of the opinion that there is nothing left to do. There is a considerable amount of work to do to improve the service and the information available. This is not simply just down to Dublin Bus, it also requires active participation from the local authorities and the NTA too to deliver real improvements.

    For the record - I have been abundantly clear in my assessment of the current IR situation - the drivers do need to accept the realities that the company is facing and vote in favour of this deal.


  • #53
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The net gain from the third party/employer liability claims in 2010 can be seen in the notes to the audited financial statements - that tends to be acceptable documentary evidence to most people.

    According to Note 13, DB paid out 6.9 million on claims that year in relation to previous years. It looks like there was also a small payment in relation to that current year. This is a net loss, not a net gain. I think you are referring to a figure that appears in Note 3. But this is not a cash figure. It is notional and results from money being transferred from a 'provision' to the P+L. It has nothng at all to do with the costs the company actually incurred in 2010.

    I am strictly referring to cash figures for public service contract and fares, published recently by the NTA, not the P+L figures to which you are referring.

    It is great to hear that you are having a good experience on Dublin Bus and for sure, some parts of the network are better than others. But there is nothing objectively reported to justify DB's costs being 2.5 times higher than Germany and Scotland.


  • #54
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    According to Note 13, DB paid out 6.9 million on claims that year in relation to previous years. It looks like there was also a small payment in relation to that current year. This is a net loss, not a net gain. I think you are referring to a figure that appears in Note 3. But this is not a cash figure. It is notional and results from money being transferred from a 'provision' to the P+L. It has nothng at all to do with the costs the company actually incurred in 2010.

    I am strictly referring to cash figures for public service contract and fares, published recently by the NTA, not the P+L figures to which you are referring.

    It is great to hear that you are having a good experience on Dublin Bus and for sure, some parts of the network are better than others. But there is nothing objectively reported to justify DB's costs being 2.5 times higher than Germany and Scotland.

    Where exactly is the source for the basis for your statement that costs have increased by 14% since 2010?

    Are you saying that you are not using the annual report?


  • #55
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The figures are published here by NTA

    http://6311664e1a241bd4b58f-3999d26af054d711e4557be72bd8ff23.r3.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Bus-Statistics-for-Ireland.pdf

    My analysis of the increase in like-for-like costs is below. There is also a comparison with the UK.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86970369#post86970369


  • #56
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    You are coming on here throwing personal insults at me when I say something you don't like.

    The truth is that Dublin Bus has extremely high costs to begin with. Keeping costs static or keeping increases small is not really good enough.

    It is true that transport input costs are going up. Everybody has costs outside their control. So they manage and cope with them. For example, transport companies take steps to improve fuel efficiency. Every other transport provider of any scale has already taken steps to moderate fuel use. According to the report on industrial relations, this has not been done at Dublin Bus because of some bizarre dispute.

    At the same time, taxi fares have remained the same since 2008



    ITS should have contributed to greater efficiency. It should have allowed cash operations and lodgement fees to be reduced and it should have reduced dwell time. It didn't. It has actually made dwell time worse.



    So you are saying that Dublin Bus received net income as a result third party/employer liability claims in 2010? Do you have any documentation to support this?



    Yes, costs fell a little bit, but the mileage fell by a full 5 percent. Passenger numbers also fell.

    That is the problem. Dublin Bus is delivering less than before.



    You say that there have been improvements, but you can't produce any numbers to back that up. All you have is a list of inadequately delivered initiatives.

    AVLC has been delivered really badly, using a massive amount of grant money. It is really not very accurate at all. There are phantom buses all over the place.

    Network Direct reduced the mileage and turned Dublin Bus into the sort of bus company that could be run as a commercial for-profit operation. It doesn't really serve any outlying areas. The frequencies are very low. 15 minute frequencies on routes like the 4, running through the densest areas of the city, are pathetic.

    There are 'clockface' schedules in the timetable, but they are not operated. I stood 35 minutes at the first stop of the No. 4 route on Wednesday waiting for the supposedly 15-minute schedule. Despite being flagged on the real time display, the buses didn't come. The system doesn't work.

    You didn't mention that millions of taxpayer money has been spent on new buses, but that it apparently hasn't led to any improvement in terms of fuel efficiency or operational efficiency.

    The unit costs at Dublin Bus are just far out of line with norms. They are more than twice as high as in Germany, Scotland or England, and when you take capital costs into account, are more expensive than London.

    If everyone wants to go around convincing themselves that everything is ok and a little adjustment here or there is all that's needed, things aren't going to get any better. The whole bus system has been in headlong decline since 2000 at least. No one seems to want to accept that there is a really big problem.



    When the costs are two-and-a-half times what other suppliers are charging in similar markets, and DB are delivering a lower quality of service, it is not 'somewhat off-mark' to say that there is poor management of costs.

    The personal insinuations you keep making (first that I am not being 'honest' , then that I am 'pushing things' and now that I am making 'simple sweeping statements' are laughable. The truth is that you can't come up with any objective evidence what Dublin Bus is up to. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. Dublin Bus's operating costs are twice as high as they should be and there is no getting away from it.

    So how would you reduce DB costs to half the current rate?

    If 2.13 should be the cost per kilometre how would you achieve that whilst operating the same size fleet and providing the same or similar level of service.

    How many staff would you have, what would you pay them ? Where else would you make savings and how ?


  • #57
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    That is not really for me to say and without having the management accounts, I don't have the information to even speculate.

    What I am saying is that the outputs (quantity and quality of service delivered) are not in line with the amount being spent, when you look at the value that is being obtained in other countries.

    I am still trying to understand how or why the cost of 5 euro-odd per kilometre is justified. Maybe there is some good reason that I am not seeing.


  • #58
    ballooba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭ballooba


    cdebru wrote: »
    So how would you reduce DB costs to half the current rate?
    Tag-on, Tag-off combined with massively increased revenue protection checks would be a big start. If only there were a convenient local example of this.


  • #59
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    It'd be easier to introduce a flat fare or if that is too radical a two fare structure. This tag on tag off stuff is pure fantasy.


  • #60
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    DB could move a lot more people with the same number of buses and operators if traffic bottlenecks were solved. Assuming that the people with the least incentive to travel by PT are those who would have to pay for their ticket, it's likely that speedier buses which won over extra custom would end up with more revenue per passenger carried. The problem is that DB operate on public mixed traffic roads - only DCC and the Guards can carry out the traffic planning and enforcement needed to get more utilisation even where priority is nominally given by the demarcation of bus lanes but which aren't physically segregated to stop people chancing their arm and driving/parking in them. It's one reason while DB should essentially be an agency of the combined metropolitan councils rather than of central government as at present.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    ballooba wrote: »
    Tag-on, Tag-off combined with massively increased revenue protection checks would be a big start. If only there were a convenient local example of this.

    No that might increase your revenue but it would also increase your costs. I'm asking how the costs can be more than halved as Antoin suggests.


  • #62
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    That is not really for me to say and without having the management accounts, I don't have the information to even speculate.

    What I am saying is that the outputs (quantity and quality of service delivered) are not in line with the amount being spent, when you look at the value that is being obtained in other countries.

    I am still trying to understand how or why the cost of 5 euro-odd per kilometre is justified. Maybe there is some good reason that I am not seeing.

    Sorry but that's a bit of a cop out, you have said the costs are over double what they should be, you know the fleet size the mileage, the current staffing levels, if Leo rings you tomorrow and puts you in charge how would you more than half the running costs?

    Have DB too much staff? How many do you think they should have, what would you suggest paying them? Are they using too much fuel or overpaying for that fuel?

    Let's start

    Materials and services cost DB €89 million about €50million is fuel and parts how much of that could you save for a fleet of 970 buses doing 57 million kilometres ?

    There are 3226 staff about 2200 are drivers 150 supervisors 200 clerical, probably 30 managers , and the rest would be mostly maintenance, is that too much staff how many could you do without?

    What would you suggest paying them ?


  • #63
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    That is a somewhat unlikely situation. I would really consider the facts, including reviewing the management accounts in great detail and working with the workers and their representatives. It's the reality that needs to be dealt with, not my speculation.

    I have no reason to doubt your numbers, so if it is in fact the case that 1026 staff are being employed to provide maintenance, support and administration to 970 relatively new buses then I would certainly be extremely concerned by that.

    Restructuring in whatever form would require capital and this would be a major barrier.


  • #64
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    That is a somewhat unlikely situation. I would really consider the facts, including reviewing the management accounts in great detail and working with the workers and their representatives. It's the reality that needs to be dealt with, not my speculation.

    I have no reason to doubt your numbers, so if it is in fact the case that 1026 staff are being employed to provide maintenance, support and administration to 970 relatively new buses then I would certainly be extremely concerned by that.

    Restructuring in whatever form would require capital and this would be a major barrier.

    Ok but 1026 when you break it out, that is over 9 locations, plus head office staff, the depots are staffed 24 hours a day between cleaning and maintenance of buses 7 days a week, so when you break it down over shifts I wouldn't think maintenance is over staffed, Supervisory I would say under utilised rather than over staffed , although chief inspectors and levels of management I would agree but we still wouldn't be anywhere near halving our cost by dumping 50 or 60 people.

    IMO what you would really need to look at would be reducing running times and increasing the output of the buses and staff you have. The average speed of a bus is less than 13 or 14 kilometres an hour this means an run from Clarehall to Tallaght takes upto 2 hours, this is were DB is falling down and it is not in the gift of DB to address this on their own.

    I agree with you that costs have to be addressed but I don't think halving the costs would be possible or anywhere near there.

    There is also the what I always thought was a nonsense and has become an even bigger nonsense with the roll out of rtpi, clock face timetables. I will give you an example a bus route is given 40 minutes running time during the day and at peak times but in the evening it is given 1 hour this means the drivers sit at a terminus for 20 to 25 minutes each journey so that the bus can leave on the hour and the half hour so that bus route has a bus every 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes. But this is what the experts recommended.
    It is a complete waste of resources both bus and driver, it would also contribute to your cost per kilometre metric.


  • #65
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You have more of an idea of individual routes than me. Your basic method is right, you'd chase down through the management accounts to find out where the resource was going astray, route by route.

    That's an awful lot of desk clerks, cleaners and supervisors. I do worry that the problem is getting worse, not better. As I understand it, the current proposals by the independent consultants include increasing the number of ticket inspectors by turning some drivers into part-time inspectors. I don't want to be the guy who shouts 'demarcation', but it seems kinda mad to expect the drivers to do this sort of work whenever there are already hundreds of people in the company who could be doing it without reducing the driving resource.

    Increases in efficiencies of 5 or 10 or 20 percent would help a great deal with the short-term picture, if everything else were in stasis. Of course in practice these sorts of efficiency improvements turn out to be very difficult to achieve.

    But there is a much bigger problem. At present, Dublin Bus is in a sheltered environment, but this stasis will change. Sooner or later, and later means 2019 or 2020, there will be a competitive marketplace for public service contracts, and if the company has not restructured by then to be able to compete at the level of the market, it will fail, dramatically.


  • #66
    ballooba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭ballooba


    cdebru wrote: »
    IMO what you would really need to look at would be reducing running times and increasing the output of the buses and staff you have. The average speed of a bus is less than 13 or 14 kilometres an hour this means an run from Clarehall to Tallaght takes upto 2 hours, this is were DB is falling down and it is not in the gift of DB to address this on their own.
    The dwell times is where much of this is lost. The Leap card as introduced by Dublin Bus is a joke. There should be tag-on tag-off.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    First off, get rid of the farce that is change tickets, Increase income by €250,000, drop costs by X on routes and Y at head office.
    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    That's an awful lot of desk clerks, cleaners and supervisors.
    Actually, the cleaners are invariably contractors, as are lots of the mechanics.
    But there is a much bigger problem. At present, Dublin Bus is in a sheltered environment, but this stasis will change. Sooner or later, and later means 2019 or 2020, there will be a competitive marketplace for public service contracts, and if the company has not restructured by then to be able to compete at the level of the market, it will fail, dramatically.
    Actually, the first routes (about 10%) are to be tendered by the end of 2014. I strongly suspect that the incumbents (BÉ and DB) won't be allowed tender for the routes they already have (but may be allowed tender for routes the other one has), so as to create a competition base.
    ballooba wrote: »
    The dwell times is where much of this is lost. The Leap card as introduced by Dublin Bus is a joke. There should be tag-on tag-off.
    And increase the dwell time? "Here driver, it isn't tagging me off!"


  • #68
    ballooba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭ballooba


    Victor wrote: »
    And increase the dwell time? "Here driver, it isn't tagging me off!"
    How is that going to increase dwell time? I assume you are taking the p1ss.


  • #69
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    You have more of an idea of individual routes than me. Your basic method is right, you'd chase down through the management accounts to find out where the resource was going astray, route by route.

    That's an awful lot of desk clerks, cleaners and supervisors. I do worry that the problem is getting worse, not better. As I understand it, the current proposals by the independent consultants include increasing the number of ticket inspectors by turning some drivers into part-time inspectors. I don't want to be the guy who shouts 'demarcation', but it seems kinda mad to expect the drivers to do this sort of work whenever there are already hundreds of people in the company who could be doing it without reducing the driving resource.

    Increases in efficiencies of 5 or 10 or 20 percent would help a great deal with the short-term picture, if everything else were in stasis. Of course in practice these sorts of efficiency improvements turn out to be very difficult to achieve.

    But there is a much bigger problem. At present, Dublin Bus is in a sheltered environment, but this stasis will change. Sooner or later, and later means 2019 or 2020, there will be a competitive marketplace for public service contracts, and if the company has not restructured by then to be able to compete at the level of the market, it will fail, dramatically.



    To give some idea of what Antoin says the figures should be, at €2.13 per kilometre, DB does 57+ million kilometres a year so that means going by Antoins figure that DB total costs should be €122 million.

    Materials and services and costing €89million, about €50 million of that is fuel, oils, and parts, hard to see how you could half that, DB buses get about 2.2km per litre of fuel, so they need to buy about 26 million litres of fuel, they actually seem to be doing really well given that Antoin said his company was paying about 5cent less than retail DB seem to be paying about 30 cent less than retail. So if you were really aggressive maybe you could shave your fuel bill by 10% that still only would save you about €3 million.
    I don't think DB are paying massively over the odds for spare parts and tyres, so hard to see how you could cut that expense.
    Road tax and licenses are out of their control the only way to cut those would be to reduce the fleet size.
    Claims, well statistically DB claim their drivers are among the safest in the world so hard to see how they could improve on the average of €7 million a year in claims.
    Other services are €23 million, don't know exactly what's involved in that so hard to say how much if any of it could be saved.

    So for arguments sake lets say you manage to cut 10% of the services and materials bill so it is down to €80 million. That leaves you with around €42 million euro for total wage costs.
    So roughly you have 2200 drivers, if you paid them minimum wage 8.65 an hour for a 40 hour week including employers prsi, it would cost you €44,616,000. That means already we have gone through the €2.13 per kilometre, and we are only paying minimum wage, no overtime, no Sunday premium( which is law) no bank holiday (law), no shift allowance, no sick pay, no pension, etc etc. ( Not that I believe you could get 2200 drivers for minimum wage and retain them or hope to keep your claims level at anywhere near €7 million a year)
    We still have no mechanics, no cleaners, no revenue protection, no traffic control, no supervisors, no managers.



    So can Antoin explain how this can be done, if you are saying and he has said that DB costs should be €2.13 per kilometre, how is it possible to fit that square peg into this round hole ?


    Claims that you could double the capacity and cut 20% of fares are nonsensical I have asked you, how you would set about this, and you have refused to answer because you know it is nonsense.

    I am not saying there is no money to be saved, just that your claim that costs are over double what they should be just doesn't stack up.

    In fact you have been selective in the statistic you chose to use, a cost per kilometre would not be a fair comparison when Dublin is a highly congested city and you are comparing it to the cost per kilometre for the whole of Scotland which obviously includes some very rural local bus services where they traffic would not be an issue.
    There is also the issue that, the UK pound is at an abnormally low exchange rate which also skews your figures.

    There are other metrics you could have used but they don't give you the over double the costs you were looking for, lets take cost per passenger journey in Scotland it is 1.65 DB is about 2.33, still a significant difference but not double and if you allow for the value of sterling being low, and that DB passenger journeys are underestimated because of the use of flash social welfare passes that are not recorded then the difference shrinks. If we moved to Wales instead of Scotland then the current cost per passenger journey is 2.02, allowing for the devaluation of sterling and again the under recording on DB they would be around the same ( well actually DB would be lower).


    So it is the old tale of lies, damn lies and statistics.


  • #70
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Anyone hear if the determination for the remaining fares is coming out today?


  • #71
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cdebru wrote: »
    Ok but 1026 when you break it out, that is over 9 locations, plus head office staff, the depots are staffed 24 hours a day between cleaning and maintenance of buses 7 days a week, so when you break it down over shifts I wouldn't think maintenance is over staffed, Supervisory I would say under utilised rather than over staffed , although chief inspectors and levels of management I would agree but we still wouldn't be anywhere near halving our cost by dumping 50 or 60 people.

    IMO what you would really need to look at would be reducing running times and increasing the output of the buses and staff you have. The average speed of a bus is less than 13 or 14 kilometres an hour this means an run from Clarehall to Tallaght takes upto 2 hours, this is were DB is falling down and it is not in the gift of DB to address this on their own.

    I agree with you that costs have to be addressed but I don't think halving the costs would be possible or anywhere near there.

    There is also the what I always thought was a nonsense and has become an even bigger nonsense with the roll out of rtpi, clock face timetables. I will give you an example a bus route is given 40 minutes running time during the day and at peak times but in the evening it is given 1 hour this means the drivers sit at a terminus for 20 to 25 minutes each journey so that the bus can leave on the hour and the half hour so that bus route has a bus every 30 minutes instead of 20 minutes. But this is what the experts recommended.
    It is a complete waste of resources both bus and driver, it would also contribute to your cost per kilometre metric.

    From a driver's perspective this may indeed be inefficient, but from a customer's perspective at off-peak times regular interval clockface departures are the best way of delivering a public transport service.

    The experts did not necessarily recommend cutting frequency from 20 minutes to 30 minutes - they merely recommended a clockface regular interval service. The drop in frequency would have a been a decision for Dublin Bus themselves - perhaps the demand was not there for a 20 minute service. Bear in mind that you are saving on the cost of the additional buses that would be needed to operate the extra services.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    cdebru wrote: »
    To give some idea of what Antoin says the figures should be, at €2.13 per kilometre, DB does 57+ million kilometres a year so that means going by Antoins figure that DB total costs should be €122 million.

    The reality is that the costs at Dublin Bus are extremely high by European standards. Other cities (for example in Germany) are running operations at these much lower rates. It's not just the UK. This competition is going to come to Ireland, sooner or later.

    Maybe you are right and the structure of Dublin Bus just can't be changed to compete. If it can't then it will go out of business. I gave you very specific reasons why I can't give a prescription for how to save Dublin Bus.
    There are other metrics you could have used but they don't give you the over double the costs you were looking for, lets take cost per passenger journey in Scotland it is 1.65 DB is about 2.33, still a significant difference but not double and if you allow for the value of sterling being low, and that DB passenger journeys are underestimated because of the use of flash social welfare passes that are not recorded then the difference shrinks. If we moved to Wales instead of Scotland then the current cost per passenger journey is 2.02, allowing for the devaluation of sterling and again the under recording on DB they would be around the same ( well actually DB would be lower).

    So it is the old tale of lies, damn lies and statistics.

    The reason I didn't use those metrics is that they aren't really relevant to the discussion.

    Cost per passenger has very little relationship with the efficiency of the service. The cost per passenger is going to depend largely on the frequency of the service. If you increase the frequency, the cost per passenger is going to increase rapidly. That is why I am not dealing with the cost per passenger. But since you mention it, you could draw a graph of Dublin Bus's cost per passenger beginning in 2000 and leading up to the present day. It would not be a pretty sight. The cost per passenger has gone out of control too.


  • #73
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    The reality is that the costs at Dublin Bus are extremely high by European standards. Other cities (for example in Germany) are running operations at these much lower rates. It's not just the UK. This competition is going to come to Ireland, sooner or later.

    Maybe you are right and the structure of Dublin Bus just can't be changed to compete. If it can't then it will go out of business. I gave you very specific reasons why I can't give a prescription for how to save Dublin Bus.



    The reason I didn't use those metrics is that they aren't really relevant to the discussion.

    Cost per passenger has very little relationship with the efficiency of the service. The cost per passenger is going to depend largely on the frequency of the service. If you increase the frequency, the cost per passenger is going to increase rapidly. That is why I am not dealing with the cost per passenger. But since you mention it, you could draw a graph of Dublin Bus's cost per passenger beginning in 2000 and leading up to the present day. It would not be a pretty sight. The cost per passenger has gone out of control too.


    No I never said DB can't be changed or can't be more effiecent , I was specifically addressing your claim that DB costs are double what they should be, and on a cursory examination shown that claim to be false. It would be physically impossible for any company to operate the DB network at less than 50% of the current cost, it can not be done.
    That is not the same as saying it is not possible to cut some costs.

    The metric you used is like comparing apples and oranges, it is a statistic for the whole of Scotland, a reasonable comparison would be a similar sized company in a similar sized city then we could look at average speeds, congestion, cost of living, fuel prices, claims culture, etc etc and see how they compared, but the statistic you used is for an entire country with many different operators operating in completely different environments. It is as logical as adding DB costs to all the private and state operators across the country and working out a cost per Km and saying this is DB cost per km.
    The cost per passenger journey is no more or less valid than the one you chose to use. The cost per passenger has not gone out of control, passenger numbers fell through the floor, costs have fallen but as you know the cost of providing a service doesn't decrease because you have less passengers.


  • #74
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,493 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    cdebru wrote: »
    The cost per passenger journey is no more or less valid than the one you chose to use.
    I don't think it is. If we look at within-route costs, while a 0900 Sunday departure will operate quickly, it likely won't carry a full loading. The operating costs will be about the same, the passenger numbers much lower, so cost per km will be about the same, but costs per passenger much higher.


  • #75
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    lxflyer wrote: »
    From a driver's perspective this may indeed be inefficient, but from a customer's perspective at off-peak times regular interval clockface departures are the best way of delivering a public transport service.

    The experts did not necessarily recommend cutting frequency from 20 minutes to 30 minutes - they merely recommended a clockface regular interval service. The drop in frequency would have a been a decision for Dublin Bus themselves - perhaps the demand was not there for a 20 minute service. Bear in mind that you are saving on the cost of the additional buses that would be needed to operate the extra services.

    In the days before rtpi yes you would have a point but in the current situation with the proliferation of smart phones clock face is pointless.

    And no you would not need any extra bus or driver the only additional cost would be fuel and wear and tear. These buses are sitting for 20/25 minutes each terminus so for a round trip you could do another half journey with the same bus and driver.


  • #76
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    You're missing the point. It makes far more sense to operate a regular interval service than a haphazard one, RTPI or no RTPI.

    That means the load is spread out evenly, and passengers have a regular service.

    What I would suggest is best practice is:
    1) Deliver during the day a clockface regular interval service
    2) Augment this at peak times by extra services, including workings starting near the city centre on cross-city routes to maintain the regular interval through the city centre
    3) In the evenings (when shorter running times apply) operate a regular interval service - this doesn't necessarily need to be clock face. The key is that it is regular interval (every 40 minutes for example).
    4) Try to group routes on corridors together to maximise operational efficiency - at the moment this is restricted to two routes by the unions. Why shouldn't for example the 25, 26, 66/a/b and 67 be all grouped together (rather than the current set up)? That would give a mix of running times and make it easier to maximise driving time.

    There are ways and means of getting around the problems you quote - that's why we need a comprehensive review of all the boards once Network Direct is finished.


  • #77
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    Victor wrote: »
    I don't think it is. If we look at within-route costs, while a 0900 Sunday departure will operate quickly, it likely won't carry a full loading. The operating costs will be about the same, the passenger numbers much lower, so cost per km will be about the same, but costs per passenger much higher.

    Wrong, the operating costs will not be the same, they will vary by route and time of day. If an off peak journey takes an hour and a peak time an 1:30 there is a big difference in your fuel and labour cost for the same distance.
    All you are dealing with is averages thats why I suggested you compare like with like, comparing double deck congested city bus costs with rural minibus costs is a pointless exercise.


  • #78
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You haven't given me any reason to believe that DB's costs can't be reduced to be broadly in line with UK or German costs, other than pointing out how high DB's current costs are. By the way, we are still underestimating DB costs, because we aren't taking into account the capital grants.
    cdebru wrote: »
    The metric you used is like comparing apples and oranges, it is a statistic for the whole of Scotland, a reasonable comparison would be a similar sized company in a similar sized city then we could look at average speeds, congestion, cost of living, fuel prices, claims culture, etc etc and see how they compared, but the statistic you used is for an entire country with many different operators operating in completely different environments.

    Well, there is a figure there in the stats I referred to for England Metropolitan outside London. That sounds pretty comparable to me. If you want to make the case that Dublin is a special case, by all means, do, but make the case.
    The cost per passenger journey is no more or less valid than the one you chose to use. The cost per passenger has not gone out of control, passenger numbers fell through the floor, costs have fallen but as you know the cost of providing a service doesn't decrease because you have less passengers.

    Exactly. This is why no one uses cost per passenger to measure operational efficiency. I am just left wondering why you are proposing it as a more suitable metric than Cost per vehicle kilometre.


  • #79
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    lxflyer wrote: »
    You're missing the point. It makes far more sense to operate a regular interval service than a haphazard one, RTPI or no RTPI.

    That means the load is spread out evenly, and passengers have a regular service.

    What I would suggest is best practice is:
    1) Deliver during the day a clockface regular interval service
    2) Augment this at peak times by extra services, including workings starting near the city centre on cross-city routes to maintain the regular interval through the city centre
    3) In the evenings (when shorter running times apply) operate a regular interval service - this doesn't necessarily need to be clock face. The key is that it is regular interval (every 40 minutes for example).
    4) Try to group routes on corridors together to maximise operational efficiency - at the moment this is restricted to two routes by the unions. Why shouldn't for example the 25, 26, 66/a/b and 67 be all grouped together (rather than the current set up)? That would give a mix of running times and make it easier to maximise driving time.

    There are ways and means of getting around the problems you quote - that's why we need a comprehensive review of all the boards once Network Direct is finished.

    Not when you have buses sitting around at termini to facilitate it doesn't, end of the day if I'm standing in Fairview trying to get a bus to tallaght the fact that it has lovely looking timetable is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot, the fact buses leave the outer terminus clock face is no good to me what is useful is the frequency and the rtpi.


    Grouping buses is fine it is already the case for the 66,66a,66b and 26 but you can only mix them at the shared terminus without again wasting resources. And there is a tendency for the shorter route to suffer when it comes under pressure as the people in palmerstown would tell you.


  • #80
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    :o
    cdebru wrote: »
    Not when you have buses sitting around at termini to:o facilitate it doesn't, end of the day if I'm standing in Fairview trying to get a bus to tallaght the fact that it has lovely looking timetable is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot, the fact buses leave the outer terminus clock face is no good to me what is useful is the frequency and the rtpi.


    Grouping buses is fine it is already the case for the 66,66a,66b and 26 but you can only mix them at the shared terminus without again wasting resources. And there is a tendency for the shorter route to suffer when it comes under pressure as the people in palmerstown would tell you.

    I would fundamentally disagree with you as would virtually every transport specialist.

    Regular interval service is the key to drawing passengers to a public transport service - not a haphazard pattern. Are you seriously suggesting that a service that has say two buses within 20 minutes of one another and then a 30 minute gap and another say 15 minutes later is better than one every 25 minutes?

    During the day a clockface service is a regular frequency. That can usually be delivered easily enough because frequencies are higher. I said that in the evenings that regular interval services should be operated - not necessarily clockface - every 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 minutes depending upon what the running time is.

    In the example that you quoted in post #64 above you would need 4 buses to deliver a 30 minute frequency. If it takes only 40 minutes to do the trip, you should be able to deliver a 20 minute frequency with the same resources.

    That boils down to a decision that Dublin Bus management have taken - they want a 30 minute frequency rather than every 20 minutes. That is not necessarily what the "experts" would recommend.

    The key is factor is to provide a consistent service - not a haphazard one. That can either be clockface or regular intervals. DB management have decided in that case to use clockface times in the evening rather than regular intervals - and that frankly is their decision. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.

    The reason I would suggest grouping additional routes (i.e. more than two) is that it gives the scheduler that additional flexibility in terms of managing to maximise driver hours given the different running times of each route. Restricting the company to two routes is really a restrictive practice that I can't see any rationale for.

    I am not aware of any particular pressure on the 26 - quite the opposite. The running times on the Lucan QBC are very generous.


  • #81
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    You haven't given me any reason to believe that DB's costs can't be reduced to be broadly in line with UK or German costs, other than pointing out how high DB's current costs are. By the way, we are still underestimating DB costs, because we aren't taking into account the capital grants.



    Well, there is a figure there in the stats I referred to for England Metropolitan outside London. That sounds pretty comparable to me. If you want to make the case that Dublin is a special case, by all means, do, but make the case.



    Exactly. This is why no one uses cost per passenger to measure operational efficiency. I am just left wondering why you are proposing it as a more suitable metric than Cost per vehicle kilometre.

    Well first we would need to know what the costs were for a similar operation, we don't have that. It could well be that DB costs are in line, when you actually provide a comparable cost then we can look at it.
    In the meantime I have shown you that DB costs can not be halved as you suggested they could, the information is all there it is not rocket science if it is doable show how.

    Again no the metropolitan figure is not comparable, you would need far more detail in order to suggest that, bus types, bus speeds, bus priority measures, congestion, parking enforcement, population density, what is included in the metropolitan area, service types, then we would have to look at cost of living, social welfare rates, minimum wage, average wage rates etc etc.

    I didn't propose it as more suitable I said it is as valid or invalid as the cost per km measurement, unless you are measuring similar type services against each other they are pointless and there is much more you would need to look at.
    But it is interesting that you chose to use a per passenger statistic as in 50cent subvention per passenger but now claim the per passenger statistic is no good, seems you want your bread buttered on both sides.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    lxflyer wrote: »
    :o

    I would fundamentally disagree with you as would virtually every transport specialist.

    Regular interval service is the key to drawing passengers to a public transport service - not a haphazard pattern. Are you seriously suggesting that a service that has say two buses within 20 minutes of one another and then a 30 minute gap and another say 15 minutes later is better than one every 25 minutes?

    The reason I would suggest grouping additional routes (i.e. more than two) is that it gives the scheduler that additional flexibility in terms of managing to maximise driver hours given the different running times of each route. Restricting the company to two routes is really a restrictive practice that I can't see any rationale for.

    I am not aware of any particular pressure on the 26 - quite the opposite. The running times on the Lucan QBC are very generous.

    No I am suggesting you can keep them regularly spaced, without wasting resources by wanting the timetable to look pretty.

    That most bus users are using the rtpi not the timetable to tell them what time a bus is leaving some point 5 or 10 km away.

    When buses come under pressure the 26 is the first to go, on that route as it is seen as less important as so many other buses pass the road anyway.

    (BTW in case you missed it I answered your Sunday morning query)


  • #83
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cdebru wrote: »
    No I am suggesting you can keep them regularly spaced, without wasting resources by wanting the timetable to look pretty.

    That most bus users are using the rtpi not the timetable to tell them what time a bus is leaving some point 5 or 10 km away.

    When buses come under pressure the 26 is the first to go, on that route as it is seen as less important as so many other buses pass the road anyway.

    (BTW in case you missed it I answered your Sunday morning query)

    Read my post #76 again - I said use regular interval services in the evenings - I did not say use clock face.

    That's what was recommended.

    Clock face is more appropriate during the day when the frequency is there to operate it effectively.

    You can have all the RTPI you like, but a regular interval service has to be the starting point.

    Dublin Bus management made a choice to operate clock face off-peak - that's the difference here. That doesn't necessarily mean that it was right.


  • #84
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    As for Sunday mornings I understand all of that, but can you honestly say that it is cost effective to have a bus running out of service from a terminus to the garage and another one out of service from a garage to the same terminus to take up where the first duty ends (as does happen) due to the restrictions imposed by that requirement?

    There has to be a better way than that.


  • #85
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    cdebru wrote: »
    Again no the metropolitan figure is not comparable, you would need far more detail in order to suggest that, bus types, bus speeds, bus priority measures, congestion, parking enforcement, population density, what is included in the metropolitan area, service types, then we would have to look at cost of living, social welfare rates, minimum wage, average wage rates etc etc.

    So how come taxi fares, groceries, deliveries and so on aren't double the cost here compared to the UK and Germany? I can see there are differences, but I don't think the comparison can be dismissed out-of-hand.

    Even if that comparison can be dismissed completely, it doesn't explain why costs continue to increase when everybody else in the economy is having to cut costs.


  • #86
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    lxflyer wrote: »
    As for Sunday mornings I understand all of that, but can you honestly say that it is cost effective to have a bus running out of service from a terminus to the garage and another one out of service from a garage to the same terminus to take up where the first duty ends (as does happen) due to the restrictions imposed by that requirement?

    There has to be a better way than that.


    It rarely happens tbh, but even then it is a product of regulation of working time and doing away with it would actually make it more restrictive not less as you would then move to a 4.5 maximum work time without a break, and that would apply 7 days a week.
    There is a reason the company never raised this as it is because they know the current way is less restrictive for them when you look at schedules as a whole rather than selectively looking at Sunday early duties in isolation.


  • #87
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Looks like we will get the new fares tomorrow. Place holder categories are up on the NTA site. Stock up on your 5/30 day paper tickets if you want them (now that they are on the Leap).


  • #88
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 800 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Stevek101 wrote: »
    Looks like we will get the new fares tomorrow. Place holder categories are up on the NTA site. Stock up on your 5/30 day paper tickets if you want them (now that they are on the Leap).

    Report now up on NTA site

    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/public-transport-fares-increase-to-protect-service-delivery/


  • #89
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Ticket increases on 1st November followed by cash/Leap on the 1st December (some exceptions).

    Dublin Bus cash fares and prepaid tickets are being hit hard with around 10% increases across the board. Leap getting a much lower ~2% increase with capping rates thankfully set lower.


  • #90
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Details here
    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/fares/fares-determinations/

    In the Dublin Bus dtermination what hits me is that Dublin Bus wasnted originally to increase leap fares by more than cash fares#

    Also notice that the NTA have attached a clause that increases will be reverted if products and features are not avalaible on LEAP by certain dates.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    mydiscworld
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 800 ✭✭✭mydiscworld


    Is there a Student Leap Card Fare?


  • #92
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Is there a Student Leap Card Fare?

    Singles no. But the will be now student product tickets and daily caps which will be met through normal adult fares.


  • #93
    Barna77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,272 ✭✭✭Barna77


    devnull wrote: »
    Details here
    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/fares/fares-determinations/
    Got lost with all the information on the link to Irish Rail.... :confused: Are they scrapping the 7 day Dart ticket?


  • #94
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Barna77 wrote: »
    Got lost with all the information on the link to Irish Rail.... :confused: Are they scrapping the 7 day Dart ticket?

    Not as yet, but at some stage in 2014 yes it will be scrapped and it will be replaced by the capping on the epurse on the LEAP card.

    This is all part of the drive to move people onto the LEAP card.


  • #95
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    mydiscworld wrote: »
    Is there a Student Leap Card Fare?

    No - but what they are proposing is a lower cap for holders of the student travelcard and who are using the epurse facility.

    Any such holders who use the epurse will have a price cap of €5 for one day, which is a good discount on the adult fare.

    Obviously this really is of use where you are using the bus occasionally - the full range of prepaid tickets (e.g. 30 day rambler ticket) would offer greater discounts for regular users.


  • #96
    Frankie7
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Frankie7


    Absolute disgrace! The service, particularly on Dublin bus is shocking. Obviously there are some good routes and some bad but honestly cannot see how they can justify raising fares! City centre parking will cost a lot of people less . Was recently getting the 27 bus from the changeover stop on the quays, an elderly woman was first on the bus and asked where the bus was heading to which the drivers reply was, and I quote "don't know where the f*ck he's going but I'm finished". A simple " this is a driver changeover but the bus continues on up the malahide road" would have sufficed.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    I am a bit puzzled as to why the 30 day bus/luas adult and student tickets are listed for withdrawal at some stage in 2014 - perhaps that is a misprint? It would make no sense as caps are only going to be daily and weekly.


  • #98
    Stevek101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Presumably the weekly cap x4 is cheaper than 30 day?


  • #99
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Stevek101 wrote: »
    Presumably the weekly cap x4 is cheaper than 30 day?

    I don't know - all the other monthly tickets are remaining in place which would seem a bit odd.


  • #100
    Onthe3rdDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Onthe3rdDay


    Does this mean that everyone's ticket will be checked on the Luas? Any time I'm on the service the ticket checkers tend to ignore certain rough looking individuals. Prices might not have to go up if everyone paid their way.


  • #101
    Uriel.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,061 ✭✭✭Uriel.


    I am an annual tax saver ticket holder, despite the increase, I still think that bus commuting is cheaper for me than driving. Gap probably has narrowed but still cheaper, so I will most likely be renewing my ticket in January.


    However, apart from the inflexibilities and other cons of public transport generally (over private car), I am becoming more and more disillusioned with the DB service in recent times. I don't know whether it's a management issue, a driver issue, something else or a combination, but I have experienced a significant dip in the service.

    So much so that 5 weeks ago I began to keep a diary of the problems I have experienced.

    On my inward bound journey, I board the bus at the 4th stop on the route. Approx 1.1 km (Gmaps) from terminus to stop. One set of pedestrian only traffic lights, one turn, no roundabouts. In the last 5 weeks I have recorded
    1. 2 x 11mins Late
    2. 2x 7mins late
    3. 5 x 5mins late

    This is late as in, due time +, and/or allowing a 4min journey time from 1st stop to 4th stop.

    While I appreciate there is a delay in boarding times etc. I think the above delays are excessive - but the problem while frustrating is not diabolical.

    However, my biggest problem has been the outbound journey from the city center.
    I take the bus at the terminus (first stop).

    In the past 5 weeks there has been 6 instances of a scheduled bus not showing up (scheduled on timetable and showing on Real Time Board).
    And one instance of 2 buses in a row not showing up (plus the third being 5 mins late).

    While I didn't discuss with the driver themselves, other passengers queried the matter on some of the occasions, and the reply was that the driver didn't know as it wasn't his bus that went "missing".

    I leave my house before 7.30am and don't get home until after 10:30. My day is long enough without adding 15 - 30 mins extra, standing around wondering where a scheduled bus is.

    While, like any individual, I don't like paying increased fares, it is the lack of quality service that I fear will be the deciding factor for me moving away from Public transport.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement