ENDGAME CIE - The Worst Public Transport Provider in Europe Dies Here.

KC61 wrote: »

...Dublin Bus is now embarking on an eighteen month route network and timetable overhaul that will hopefully see a far more customer minded service develop. This has already started with the rollout of routes such as the 128, 140, 145 and 151 that are direct and high frequency. A new network spider map is in the pipeline and the rollout of new bus stops in the city centre with better information is continuing.

It's all for nothing if they don't get rid of this ridiculous, archaic, time consuming business of buses sitting at busy, congested bus stops for five or six minutes conducting endless revenue collection. Buses should pull in, all doors open, disgorge, load instantly, and pull out, in an average of 15 seconds, and a maximum of 30 seconds. That would do wonders for their efficiency, and the traffic flow of the whole city. I don't care how they collect their revenue, that is the kind of target they need to set themselves, and reorganise their revenue collection accordingly.

If they won't tackle that, then they are not getting the benefit of rescheduling buses and introducing new timetables. All they are doing is moving the deckchairs. This revenue collection FARCE is the single biggest anachronism in the company, contributing more to their inefficiency, to delays, to fleet size, to extra staff requirements, to costs, to loss of potential patronage, than anything else in the whole system. Why can't they seem to realise this? And before you mention the word, this should apply across the board to private operators too.

Most of these suggestions are either in last year's Dublin Transport Authority act or this year's Public Transport Regulation Bill which has passed all stages in the Oireachtas and is awaiting the president's signature.

Nostradamus wrote: »

1) Split it into 3 companies dealing with Railways, Dublin Bus, Urban Bus Services (all other cities and towns), Provicial Bus Services. All completely independent public service providers answering directly to the a new Public Transport Agency which will cordinate all services and intergration, performance targets between all public transport operators.

Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann and Irish Rail are already split and reporting to one authority - CIE. Obviously it's not working and the new system will have all organisations under the National Transport Authority which will be separate from the Department of Transport. All transport companies including the state dinosaurs will in future have to compete with private operators for licences to operate on all routes. The incumbents get 2 years grace but after that anybody can bid for and then run anything as far as I can see.

2) Have all bus operators in all towns share the same bus stop. The sitution here in Tubbercurry whereby the CIE bus serves the centre of the town and the independent bus companies banished to the margins and backroads is common in many towns and this has to end. There is one priviso; They all have their timetables posted at the bus stop - NOT JUST THE ex-CIE SERVICES. In many provincial towns the number of bus services would double and triple at the main bus stops if this simple measure was undertaken. It would be a simple form of intergration which would cost nothing except making a handful of CIE fruitcake fanatics huffy.

This makes sense and is in section 62 of the DTA Act 2008

3) Create a Statutory Public Transport Users group made up of commuters and not directors of companies, senators, bankers and TCD professors.

The Transport authority council provides for 4 representatives (out of 24). Those representatives are drawn from recommendations of transport user groups. It's not great - for example ICTU and business people get 4 reps between them - but it's a start and better than nothing.

IE and Dublin Bus and BE have not failed because they are evil organisations run by wasters. They have failed because they have been set up to as companies owned by the minister with a permanent licence to operate regardless of service level. They are rewarded for meeting the short terms aims of politicians rather than serving the public. The management get the same pay for running a good or a bad service. They are only really penalised for politically embarrassing their minister. SO naturally their efforts are focused on avoiding strikes and running disused services in amrginal constituencies.

This is how we end up with a 100 seater bus with one door for exit and entry and this is how we end up with rude staff and abysmal reliability.

I am optimistic that in the future, the DTA may hand over a lucrative route like the 46A to a company that makes a better bid promising for example to give change to customers or to provide buses with 3 doors or to improve on the reliability of the previous operator. I hope the old incumbents will then be sold off or allowed to wither away.

crocro wrote: »

Most of these suggestions are either in last year's Dublin Transport Authority act or this year's Public Transport Regulation Bill which has passed all stages in the Oireachtas and is awaiting the president's signature. Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann and Irish Rail are already split and reporting to one authority - CIE. Obviously it's not working and the new system will have all organisations under the National Transport Authority which will be separate from the Department of Transport. All transport companies including the state dinosaurs will in future have to compete with private operators for licences to operate on all routes. The incumbents get 2 years grace but after that anybody can bid for and then run anything as far as I can see.

This makes sense and is in section 62 of the DTA Act 2008

The Transport authority council provides for 4 representatives (out of 24). Those representatives are drawn from recommendations of transport user groups. It's not great - for example ICTU and business people get 4 reps between them - but it's a start and better than nothing.

IE and Dublin Bus and BE have not failed because they are evil organisations run by wasters. They have failed because they have been set up to as companies owned by the minister with a permanent licence to operate regardless of service level. They are rewarded for meeting the short terms aims of politicians rather than serving the public. The management get the same pay for running a good or a bad service. They are only really penalised for politically embarrassing their minister. SO naturally their efforts are focused on avoiding strikes and running disused services in amrginal constituencies.

This is how we end up with a 100 seater bus with one door for exit and entry and this is how we end up with rude staff and abysmal reliability.

I am optimistic that in the future, the DTA may hand over a lucrative route like the 46A to a company that makes a better bid promising for example to give change to customers or to provide buses with 3 doors or to improve on the reliability of the previous operator. I hope the old incumbents will then be sold off or allowed to wither away.

I don't share your optimism.

For a start, while DB, BE and IE are 3 seperate companies, they must receive approval from the CIE board, hence John Lynch popping up to discuss rail and bus issues. The DTA bill does not provide for the abolition of CIE. This was most recently announced by the late Seamus Brennan in 2003, The result? All out warfare from the CIE group. Since then, nothing. The questions that need to be asked are why are CIE companies and their unions so protective of CIE as an entity? What purpose does John Lynch and his board fulfill?

As for public representation on the DTA, the council idea has already failed in the selection process. The guidelines for inclusion specifically called for a recognised qualification or experience in public transport. This means that it will be dominated by quango and agenda filled reps from organisations that have no direct link to everyday users. While in my submission to the DTA bill, I outlined the importance of having public representative bodies included in the decision making process, I believe the actual incarnation is far too diluted to deliver anything groundbreaking. Realistically the Dublin Cycling Campaign and Rail Users Ireland (formerly Platform 11), as two examples, should have a seat at the table. I doubt they will. I was invited to apply, but since I no longer work with RUI, I deemed it pointless, assuming they would nominate an existing committee member.

Add to the mix, the recently stated "national" aspect of this authority and its hard to be positive. My bottom line lies with CIE and its utterly pointless existance.

The town of Sligo has a population of approx 20,000 - hardly a city - and there is no earthly way that you could justify doubling the line on that basis. You're lucky to still have a railway to Sligo at all and you might not have had it had some of us not kicked up a fuss about it in the 1990s when closure looked possible. I still have fond memories of marching from Connolly to the Dail behind a pipe band to protest and, yes, we travelled up by train not car! A proper train of MkII carriages with decent seating, large tables and even a buffet car! If you want to improve the Sligo rail service you want to improve the rolling stock not double the track.

DWCommuter wrote: »

...All out warfare from the CIE group. Since then, nothing.

As we are now up the creek, the power of the unions is greatly weakened. There will be little public sympathy and the government will face them down.

The questions that need to be asked are why are CIE companies and their unions so protective of CIE as an entity? What purpose does John Lynch and his board fulfill?

Unions are naturally conservative and wouldn't want job losses or even changed working arrangements in any of the government owned transport companies. The unions are doing what they should do: maximising benefits for their members. They can't be expected to bat for the passenger - that's not their job.

CIE is caught between a rock and a hard place. They're meant to run the service efficiently for the customers, but they are under constant pressure from their sole shareholder, the minister, to run the service for politicial expediency. The solution is some form of separation of powers.

As for public representation on the DTA, the council idea has already failed in the selection process. The guidelines for inclusion specifically called for a recognised qualification or experience in public transport. This means that it will be dominated by quango and agenda filled reps from organisations that have no direct link to everyday users. While in my submission to the DTA bill, I outlined the importance of having public representative bodies included in the decision making process, I believe the actual incarnation is far too diluted to deliver anything groundbreaking. Realistically the Dublin Cycling Campaign and Rail Users Ireland (formerly Platform 11), as two examples, should have a seat at the table. I doubt they will. I was invited to apply, but since I no longer work with RUI, I deemed it pointless, assuming they would nominate an existing committee member.

I'm also disappointed by the make up of the council. Particularly there is no need for worker or employer side cartel made men from IBEC or ICTU. But is still better than what went before. RUI and DCC are tiny groups little known to most passengers or cyclists so I don't know that handing them all the representation is right. A better approach might be to randomly select a jury from the list of those with annual travel passes - the average guy or girl who uses public transport every day.

Add to the mix, the recently stated "national" aspect of this authority and its hard to be positive. My bottom line lies with CIE and its utterly pointless existance.

What's wrong with a national authority? Bus services in the towns outside Dublin are very poor and often forgotten. As for CIE, they will have to compete for their subsidies in future against private operators and will have to reform or die.

AlekSmart wrote: »

In some cases the UK models could only manage 12-16 seats for the many older,infirm but NOT disabled customers and this resulted in a very poor initial impression of the Low-Floor concept.

Is 12-16 seats for the infirm not plenty? A decent bus service would attract the general public rather than just the old, the sick, the infirm. Able-bodied people can go upstairs or stand. Lots of other cities have multi-door buses.

The single door also maximises Driver monitoring of fare tendering and ticket use.

Clearly asking the driver to issue tickets and change and catch fare dodgers slows the service up enormously. Imagine if every luas passenger had to squeeze through one door and have a chat with the driver on the way in. Yet often a bus carries more passengers than a luas. Put a ticket machine at every second stop, more doors, more inspectors, end of problem.

Yet again here we see the Department of Transport spending some €30 Million on an Integrated Ticketing Project which after some 4 years has yet to produce a single example of a functional product.

There are contactless cards in use on bus tram and soon on the train. So I think it's going somewhere. Other posters in this forum have outlined how a lot of the problem with integrated ticketing is getting separate transport companies to agree how to divvy up the fare revenue. I hope in future that agreeing to revenue sharing will be a prerequisite for getting your transport licence renewed.

Even then,the travelling public can be remarkably reluctant to adopt "New Fangled" stuff.....

I have often pointed out to customers who regularly queue to fumble and pay a €2.20 cash fare morning and evening that bthey can make that same journey for €1.80,IF they purchase a Travel90,which then can also be used several times within the 90 min window....but an incredible amount simply shrug their shoulders and say..."ah sure I`d keep losing it" or "ah sure them yokes never work..."

If there was an option to pay the luas driver double fair for cash rather than use the machine you can bet the tram would be delayed all day by lonely people who prefer to deal face to face. The answer is to take away the option.

Now,with the slide into a deep depression we see Public Transport now being focused on as an area in which cuts can be made...talk about short-sightedness....another strongpoint of Irish Public Administration !!

A recession may be the only chance to get reforms made to public transport. I see this time as a golden opportunity for change. Cutting expenditure on a public transport may improve the service to the general public. A lot of the money in the past has been spent on running disused empty buses and trains or on paying Dart drivers 60 grand to push a button or on allowing layers of staff to build up and slow everything down. This tends to happen in all organisations but in state owned companies it's usually politically impossible for reform.