New Dublin Transport Authority -CIE's days in control of transport in Dublin are over

dowlingm

isn't it the case that with VHI you only have to give your RSI/PPSN and they discount it? That's how they used to do it anyway.

shltter

dowlingm wrote:

The City of Toronto operates a single fare zone - it used to be more than one but they got rid of it. If you are on a City service and cross the city boundary to Mississauga or Vaughan you have to pay an additional fare.

GO (Greater Toronto) Transit uses a zone system but they don't display it on the system map - they do have an online fare calculator for singles and passes.

A single flat rate fare is completely different from the zonal solution advocated by some here

The issue with that would be to set it low enough that it does not deter short journey use however that has an obvious detrimental effect on overall income which has to be made up by subvention.

Our government is not that hot on subvention as it is at the moment its current subvention is around 25% which although a massive improvement on the Lowry days is still about half the normal EU subvention

snappieT

Madrid operates with one single zone for most of the city. One price, one trip. Cant see it happening here but any change from the stage system now that there are going to be more cross city lines would be a step in the right direction.

To me the stage system is outdated and confusing.

New York City similarially. As long as you are on the same train, it's the same price: $1.50. If you need to change trains (and thus transfer onto a different line), you pay the $1.50 again. Bus also: $1.50 for however long you need to travel on that particular bus.

They don't have "rambler" tickets, kids tickets, student tickets or any of that messing. You either get a one way ticket for your buck fifty, or you get a card that you top up, and you fare is deducted off it each time you travel. You get a 10% bonus when you top up your card. Two options, one fare. Simplicity. Only in the most complex city in the world.

*The $1.50 fare was a couple of years ago, but the system is the same.

shltter

John R wrote:

The other issue is lost revenue, bus routes in London are in general much shorter than Dublin, in particular the outer suburban routes would see a very big fare reduction however with the current pre-pay tickets there has already been a big discount available for those smart enough to look into the options.

With the farebox taken away from operators there should be far less pressure on them to use fares to maximise revenue, for years DB have been squeezed into taking bigger cuts from customers as the government pressured them to cut subsidys. Many of the pre-pay tickets which should have been heavily discounted have been increased to the point there is little incentive for many people to switch from cash payment.

.

The problem with your analysis is that it is based on a presumption that the DTA is going to mean that there will be more subvention

As far as I can see the government is not planning on increasing the subvention it only plans on redirecting the same ammount of money to a different state body to spend

If anything the likely outcome is less money actually spent on providing public transport as the money to run and staff the DTA will come out of the subvention money.


The TFL model needs to be examined as well as improvements in transport in London did not come about because of the TFL but because of a local government committed to public transport and a revenue stream and reduction in car numbers from congestion charging. following the TFL model without the latter two will likely lead to the same situation that existed in London prior to congestion charging where companies competed against each other for contracts by cutting the one cost they could Labour costs. This resulted in pay conditions so bad for London bus drivers that TFL eventually had to step in and offer a direct payment to drivers to encourage them to stay in the job.

dowlingm

Bad conditions for transit workers are not the preserve of quangos, but at least with an arms length agency it doesn't automatically become an election issue every time there's an industrial relations dispute.

paulm17781

snappieT wrote:

New York City similarially. As long as you are on the same train, it's the same price: $1.50. If you need to change trains (and thus transfer onto a different line), you pay the $1.50 again. Bus also: $1.50 for however long you need to travel on that particular bus.

They don't have "rambler" tickets, kids tickets, student tickets or any of that messing. You either get a one way ticket for your buck fifty, or you get a card that you top up, and you fare is deducted off it each time you travel. You get a 10% bonus when you top up your card. Two options, one fare. Simplicity. Only in the most complex city in the world.

*The $1.50 fare was a couple of years ago, but the system is the same.

Well last week it was $2.00 for any journey as long as you don't leave the system. You can also buy unlimited weekly tickets for $24.00. There are other unlimited options but I was only there for a week.

John R

shltter wrote:

The problem with your analysis is that it is based on a presumption that the DTA is going to mean that there will be more subvention

As far as I can see the government is not planning on increasing the subvention it only plans on redirecting the same ammount of money to a different state body to spend

I was trying to outline the best possible scenario.

If the money is transferred without any remit to the authority to increase funding then there will be trouble. Running the authority and any franchising is going to cost millions more on top of the current system so there will be far less funds to support the actual services. Service reductions and fare hikes would then be the only way forward.

shltter wrote:

If anything the likely outcome is less money actually spent on providing public transport as the money to run and staff the DTA will come out of the subvention money.

There is no doubt that it will be a more costly and less efficient operation than the current one, any small gains from competition to win franchises is more than offset by the cost of running the franchising authority.

The only way this will work is if there is proper support, both financial and political to allow the authority to push through the changes necessary and to considerably increase the state support for services.

You are correct, there has not been any commitment to do that as of yet. The actual information as regards the set up of this authority has been minimal, until a proper framework is announced we won't know what the situation is.

shltter wrote:

The TFL model needs to be examined as well as improvements in transport in London did not come about because of the TFL but because of a local government committed to public transport and a revenue stream and reduction in car numbers from congestion charging. following the TFL model without the latter two will likely lead to the same situation that existed in London prior to congestion charging where companies competed against each other for contracts by cutting the one cost they could Labour costs. This resulted in pay conditions so bad for London bus drivers that TFL eventually had to step in and offer a direct payment to drivers to encourage them to stay in the job.

That is right. The franchising had been set up many years before the local London government took control. Up until then the service had deteriorated considerably over that provided by the old London Buses state monopoly. The state company had been cut up into pieces and sold off, almost immediately standards dropped. Costs were slashed and the quality of the fleet, service and staff plummeted.

It was only with the formation of TfL and direct control from the Mayor's office with huge financial support was the bus service able to improve. They imposed strict service conditions, instigated a huge investement in new buses by making a modern fleet a condition of franchise renewals and started a bonus payment scheme for drivers because the pay was so poor there were constant driver shortages.