EC starts probe into bus subsidies

Traffic

From RTE.IE

The European Commission has begun a formal inquiry into the subsidies Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann receive from the Government.

The subsidies cover not only operating costs but also the replacement and expansion of the fleets of both companies, and grants for investment in infrastructure and training.

The inquiry follows a complaint from a representative body of private bus operators to the commission.

In a statement today the Commission's transport directorate said it had doubts about whether the annual subsidy respects state aid rules, especially those related to public service obligations.

It also doubted whether grants were compatible with the common market, especially as dedicated bus infrastructure such as bus stations, garages and maintenance facilities are not available on an equal basis to all potential bus operators.

Private bus operators also complained about training grants made available to Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus, but the commission said it lacked the information to take a position at this stage.

KC61

This, no matter what your take on the CIE group is a very serious development.

The effect of this could be to prevent any new additional buses (rather than replacement) to either Dublin Bus or Bus Eireann pending a review of the whole funding process. The result? Passengers could be forced to live without further improved services or to have a service at all pending the completion of this investigation.

Whatever about the whys and wherefores of the argument, it would appear that the years of political neglect/ignorance of the public transport licensing process is coming home to roost.

Mitch Connor

So, less buses, older buses and higher fares..... yep - all in the name of the consumer! Just like the EC screwed over the english football fans.

markpb

Can someone explain in simple terms what this means? What's the difference between the Irish government giving DB and BE money to operate a bus service and any other government doing the same? Does this mean it could be illegal for a country to operate a public bus service without tendering some or all of it out to private operators?

Dub13

The way the EU is going everything will have to be put out to tender,I was reading today that the EU are putting the Health boards under pressure to put a tender out for ambulance's/emergency services.

Its a joke if you ask me,public transport and ambulance's/emergency services among other things should not be run for profit IMO.

FlutterinBantam

Why not?

_Kaiser_

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Why not?

Umm.. Essential Services maybe?

I'm no fan of CIE (more accurately it's unionised workforce) but it does sound like the EU sticking it's nose in where it has no business doing so.

AlekSmart

Quote [Flutterin Bantam] : "Why not?"

Cos my little chickadee,when you are lying on the ground after being shot off your roosting perch the first thing your "Super New Look Tendered Ambulance Service" personnell will do is run their fingers through your feathers searchin for a Credit Card !!
One of the latest items now being fought over in the USA is the increase in Private Insurance Companies declining to pay for an Emergency Medical Transfer which is resulting in Ambulance Companies now pursuing their former customers for payment....
Mind you...It could be yet another business "Opportunity" for Denis O Brien...??? :eek:

Prof_V

markpb wrote:

Can someone explain in simple terms what this means? What's the difference between the Irish government giving DB and BE money to operate a bus service and any other government doing the same? Does this mean it could be illegal for a country to operate a public bus service without tendering some or all of it out to private operators?

The impression I got from some of the coverage was that it was at least as much about transparency as monopoly. Ireland probably doesn't have the most transparent subsidy system, though I can't believe we're the worst in this regard.
Capital grants also seem to be involved; these are more unusual than subsidies, at least for buses (as opposed to rail). However, I don't think we're the only country in the EU to offer government grants towards the cost of buses (certainly Translink in NI gets then, though I believe they're to be phased out) - grants for physical infrastructure might be more unusual, though.

Zoney

It's less an issue of taxpayers money being used for public transport, and more an issue of it not being done properly or competently here in Ireland. Muppetry again as usual.

As I understand it, the government is supposed to arrange things such that subsidisation of capital or current expenses for given public transport services are strictly tied to public service obligations. So the government *can* subsidise things that need subsidised. But it needs properly organised, other companies need to be able to run PSO routes, someone needs to figure out what the PSO routes should *be*, and non-PSO routes should be fully open to competition. Also physical infrastructure (e.g. railways, bus stations) can stay in government hands but has to be separated from the government-subsidised operator. In other words, everything above board and a level playing field; regardless of any government-support public transport routes/services.

Of course rather than getting stuff sorted out, the reality is this nonsense will no doubt mean disaster for public transport in Ireland, or EC/government problems and possible fines. Partly cause politicians here can't agree - some of them would love to just privatise the whole kit and caboodle, sell off all the infrastructure, and not even bother coming up with PSO routes.

That's my take on it - feel free to disagree.

_Kaiser_

Well just watched the RTE News coverage, and they were talking to the rep from the Private Operators group. Can't say she put herself across very well - seemed (to me anyway) more concerned that her members are being squeezed out of a few quid by Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann, than how this action might ultimately affect the commuting public.

When the RTE presenter commented that a lot of people wait a lot longer than the 1.9 mins she claims Dublin Bus are running services on on a route competing with a Private operator, her reply said it all for me : "maybe they should move to where the Private Operator is" (or words to that effect). Said it all for me to be honest. All to do with the bottom line - nothing to do with the service itself.

gjim

AlekSmart wrote:

Cos my little chickadee,when you are lying on the ground after being shot off your roosting perch the first thing your "Super New Look Tendered Ambulance Service" personnell will do is run their fingers through your feathers searchin for a Credit Card !!

You'd imagine with the general experience in this country where most things run by the public sector (with a few notable exceptions) are disasters in terms of customer service that this sort of reaction to the suggestion that it may make sense to run a service privately would be less common.

That's not to say that non-public enterprises are never disfunctional when it comes to customer service. Just that experience in Ireland would hardly lead you to the same belief regarding publicly provided services.

This is especially surprising here in this forum. You must have been very lucky/unlucky, if you believe that the altruistic, "not driven by evil profits", "owned by the community", bastions of public sector that is CIE serves the public better than the evil, multi-national, corporate, profit driven, greedy, right-wing capitalist pigs that is Veolia. I mean, the last time I was on the Luas I was jumped by four Veolia staff who proceded to rob my wallet; "sorry bud - buh its de new policy to boost profits."

I can see the seductive nature of the reasoning but it's a dead end. For example, why not nationalise the supermarkets? Then people could buy food without being gouged by profit seeking multi-national corporations and greedy distributors and you wouldn't be facing some greedy checkout person who only cares about your credit card or wallet when you go shopping for food for your family. On top of that, any profits would go back into the community. Sounds reasonable?

markpb

gjim wrote:

You'd imagine with the general experience in this country where most things run by the public sector (with a few notable exceptions) are disasters in terms of customer service that this sort of reaction to the suggestion that it may make sense to run a service privately would be less common.

The main reason, from my point of view, is that Ireland's reputation at regulating privatised industries is pretty poor. Eircom's regulator Comreg is a joke. ESB's regulator is being taken on by ESB today for fixing prices higher than the company think should be charged. I'd have no problem privatising some of the bus services in Dublin if I thought we'd have a London TfL style competitive and well managed tendering process.

I can see the seductive nature of the reasoning but it's a dead end. For example, why not nationalise the supermarkets? Then people could buy food without being gouged by profit seeking multi-national corporations and greedy distributors and you wouldn't be facing some greedy checkout person who only cares about your credit card or wallet when you go shopping for food for your family. On top of that, any profits would go back into the community. Sounds reasonable?

The big difference is that there's a huge market for grocery shopping in Ireland. People can open shops relatively easily, competition is high (although they hasn't always resulted in lower prices). On the other hand, the more bus services you operate, the worse all those services get. There's a limit to the amount of bus routes you can add to drive down prices.

AlekSmart

I think there`s probably a whole mess of shimmy-shammying to be endured before this little piece of theatre subsides.
All that will happen in the medium term is a moratorium on ANY new Bus Services from whatever side of the fence.
Given that we are currently some 300 vehicles short of where we SHOULD be in fleet size terms all this means is that the mess gets worse and the Retail Motor Trade gets to capitalize on Mr McCreevy`s SSIA wheeze.....
And while we are on the topic of Charlie,it`s little surprise that it`s himself and the bould Mz Harney who have been the standard bearers for this little venture into the depths of byzantine EU Public Transport "Policy".
All politics is local sez the wise old owl...and nowhere is more local than Kildare......?
It`s a veritable grassy knoll stretching from Maynooth through Rathcoole to Rathfarnham (artistic licence)

gjim

The main reason, from my point of view, is that Ireland's reputation at regulating privatised industries is pretty poor.

Fair point and for the first few years, Etaine Doyle or whoever she was was an absolute disaster. Comreg have improved quite a bit since she left, so maybe it was the political meddling which put her in a position where she was clearly out of her depth which is most to blame.

And yes regulation is far trickier and more difficult than outsourcing or tendering. Having said that, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the public sector is any better at running customer oriented services than it is regulating private companies to do so. But at least with the latter, there is some potential for control, change and improvement. It seems that the former, in most cases, is a hopeless case and implementing change is virtually impossible.

The past Eircom and Comreg relationship doesn't fill me with confidence that quick improvements are possible but it's undeniable that Eircom have better public service now than they did pre-privatisation. Some parts of the public sector have improved also in this regard during the same period so it'd be blinkered to claim this as a victory for privatisation.

gjim

I read this not as a brake on public funding for public transport (which would be fairly weird coming from the EU) but as a demand that the subsidy be accounted for properly. If this is correct, then I'm all for it; for example, the cost of the free travel pass scheme would be made explicit. So much government spending is just treated like a big barrel of cash.

Zoney

gjim wrote:

Having said that, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the public sector is any better at running customer oriented services than it is regulating private companies to do so. But at least with the latter, there is some potential for control, change and improvement. It seems that the former, in most cases, is a hopeless case and implementing change is virtually impossible.

Free private enterprise should be facilitated and encouraged, but it's nonsense to think private companies are automatically a better choice for public service provision than a public company. If nothing else, it's still the government who's overall responsible for public services. They may be poor at ensuring efficiency with public companies - but how does anyone expect them to get value for money from private companies? If they're capable of acheiving the latter, they're capable of ensuring well-run public companies for service provision. If I'm not mistaken, rail in the UK post-privatisation involves higher tickets prices and higher subsidies to all the private operators than British Rail ever got; plus the network isn't/wasn't as safe except that there's some convoluted means of running it as more than a business now. As for the bureaucracy of organising it all? (Of course, that's exactly what we have to come up with here in Ireland for bus and rail to allow competition and subsidising/public operation of certain routes/services)

As for customer-oriented services - telecoms is the perfect example of how companies if not properly regulated just rip people off and provide rubbish service. We're not just talking about Eircom - the mobile phone market here is a joke as well. In terms of public vs. private - Eircom should have been split into retail/services and infrastructure before being sold off - and the government should have kept the physical infrastructure for use by any private operators (not just Eircom).

Dub13

Zoney wrote:

In terms of public vs. private - Eircom should have been split into retail/services and infrastructure before being sold off - and the government should have kept the physical infrastructure for use by any private operators (not just Eircom).

Very true,I hope the Government have learned a lesson from this and split the ESB holding onto the physical infrastructure before they sell it of.

markpb

ESB are already split into ESB Networks and ESB Supply

Dub13

markpb wrote:

ESB are already split into ESB Networks and ESB Supply

Well thats good to hear,lets hope they hang onto ESB Networks.

OTK

The investigation is meant to uncover whether Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann are using the money they receive for PSO routes to cross subsidise their commercial routes that compete with private operators. Is DB using money received for 'social routes' to offer below cost services on commercial routes and thus put their competition out of business?

If the government wants to subsidise all public transport including commercially viable routes then they are free to do this - so long as they offer a fair share of this money to private operators.

Put yourself in the position of a private company facing unfair competition from a state aided rival.

Some forms of competitive bus markets are not in the public interest as has being shown in the UK, but London seems to have found a good working model that combines a single compnay brand and fare structure and multiple operators who bid to operate each route.

The Bus system is underfunded compared to other European cities but I can understand DoT's reluctance to give any more money or equipment to a company that is so slow to improve and has such an anti-customer culture.

They've been working on a GPS bus location system with information at bus stops for the past 7 years and they're hoping to get it going by 2011. Ambitious or what?

www.nextbus.com

icdg

markpb wrote:

ESB are already split into ESB Networks and ESB Supply

Internally, and branding wise, yes - ESB Networks (the distribution side) and ESB Customer Supply have been seperated. But legally they are the one entity, the Electricity Supply Board. Ultimately they continue to report within the same management structure, with the same Chief Executive and senior management and the same Board of Directors. The same goes for Bord Gáis with its Energy Supply and Networks. Internal seperation was required in both cases and the are apparently "Chinese walls" to stop information being passed between supply and network operations, but ultimately they're the same company still.

ESB National Grid , a different entity from ESB Networks, which operated the high voltage network, has been split off and is now Eirgrid.

corktina

the bus monoploy wont last much longer....stagecoach and first have theri feet in the door already....

dermo88

Not them two. I'll take Arriva, I'll take Veolia, but Stagecoach and First are so good that you'll be begging Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann to come back.

In other words, both companies, in my experience are Sh1t

antoinolachtnai

What interests do stagecoach have in Ireland?

KC61

OTK wrote:

The investigation is meant to uncover whether Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann are using the money they receive for PSO routes to cross subsidise their commercial routes that compete with private operators. Is DB using money received for 'social routes' to offer below cost services on commercial routes and thus put their competition out of business?

If the government wants to subsidise all public transport including commercially viable routes then they are free to do this - so long as they offer a fair share of this money to private operators.

Put yourself in the position of a private company facing unfair competition from a state aided rival.

Some forms of competitive bus markets are not in the public interest as has being shown in the UK, but London seems to have found a good working model that combines a single compnay brand and fare structure and multiple operators who bid to operate each route.

The Bus system is underfunded compared to other European cities but I can understand DoT's reluctance to give any more money or equipment to a company that is so slow to improve and has such an anti-customer culture.

They've been working on a GPS bus location system with information at bus stops for the past 7 years and they're hoping to get it going by 2011. Ambitious or what?

www.nextbus.com

I think that you will find that the DoT actually did not advance the funding to Dublin Bus for full implementation of the GPS bus location system following the initial trial, and did not offer any further funding until the recent National Development Plan.

However, I think that it is virtually impossible to have a level playing pitch in Dublin until the legislation governing public transport (and licensing) in the city is completely overhauled and the DTA given real powers.

It is a fair comment that in the past Dublin Bus did try to push private operators off certain routes by adding extra buses in the areas concerned. However, now that the Department are rigourously enforcing the 1932 and 1958 legislation, Dublin Bus cannot do that and, to my knowledge have not done so in (at the very least) the last five years. This is probably the only aspect of said Acts that actually is constructive and helps the consumer!! Having seen the comments by Cora Collins on RTE News last night regarding the numbers of buses on the Lucan QBC, I think that she was somewhat disingenuous as all the services are operated as per licences issued by the Department and for that matter are all needed as the buses are all full!!!

Where there is a definite problem is the provision of new bus stations in provincial cities/towns for the "exclusive" use of Bus Eireann. I view this as anti-competitive and again reflects the complete lack of integrated thinking in any public transport planning in Ireland.

OTK

KC61 wrote:

I think that you will find that the DoT actually did not advance the funding to Dublin Bus for full implementation of the GPS bus location system following the initial trial, and did not offer any further funding until the recent National Development Plan.

This is a company with a yearly turnover of a quarter billion. I can't see how they can't afford to invest in such a fundamental part of their infrastructure. Is borrowing the cash forbidden? How can the network be managed when the managers don't know where the vehicles are or how long the journeys are taking? How many more passengers would they attract if the bus stops indicated waiting times?

Dublin Bus cannot do that and, to my knowledge have not done so in (at the very least) the last five years.

If this is true than Dublin bus have nothing to fear from that part of the enquiry.

I'd like to see the subsidy increased but I'd also like to see it legally and fairly allocated. I'd also like to see the future DTA putting bus routes out to tender as done in the UK so that the bus management and staff no longer saw their jobs as jobs for life. i don't see any other way that they might start to care about improving the service.

corktina

antoinolachtnai wrote:

What interests do stagecoach have in Ireland?

as I understand it from an article in Buses Magazine....First and Stagecoach have a finger in the pie of Citylink (same livery used in scotl;and even) and dat onethat goes from Dublin to Cork...(eirecoach is it?) not sure which is which though

antoinolachtnai

Don't think the Stagecoach deal covers Citylink in Ireland. Citylink is owned by ComfortDelgro, the Singaporeans. Aircoach is controlled by First for sure.

antoinolachtnai

OTK wrote:

This is a company with a yearly turnover of a quarter billion. I can't see how they can't afford to invest in such a fundamental part of their infrastructure. Is borrowing the cash forbidden? How can the network be managed when the managers don't know where the vehicles are or how long the journeys are taking? How many more passengers would they attract if the bus stops indicated waiting times?

First of all, if there is to be a strong transport authority, it makes more sense for the authority to fund and control the location system rather than the bus company.

Secondly on the problem of managing transport, the problem with investing so much in an IT system when you are being cash-starved is that you would arguably be better off investing the money in vehicles. Vehicles are what deliver the service and generate the cash.

Thirdly, the cost of the system, if it is to do all the things you suggest, will be high. The AVL system that is the first phase of the grand project will not do very many the things you are talking about. Implementing the software to do all this will cost realistically cost tens of millions. It is easy to see the all-singing system having a price tag of EUR 60-100m (which would arguably still worth doing).

Forthly, there is no correlation between having a big turnover and being able to afford to do things. This company loses money on every journey. The more buses it runs, the more money it loses.

KC61

OTK wrote:

This is a company with a yearly turnover of a quarter billion. I can't see how they can't afford to invest in such a fundamental part of their infrastructure. Is borrowing the cash forbidden? How can the network be managed when the managers don't know where the vehicles are or how long the journeys are taking? How many more passengers would they attract if the bus stops indicated waiting times?

Any surplus cash generated has been re-invested in replacement buses rather than the AVL system. Borrowing cash requires shareholder approval, i.e. the Government, who have not sanctioned same, and starved the company of the funds to invest in this project.

I agree, it is impossible to manage the network properly without knowing where buses are, other than being able to contact the bus driver via the radio. But when funding is promised for such a project and then withheld (similar to the city centre resignalling on the DART), what is the company to do? As antoinolachtnai states, it was faced with a choice - buses or investing in AVL, and I think buses must be the first choice. The company should not have been put in that position.

Believe me the real fault in this lies with the politicians.

OTK

antoinolachtnai wrote:

First of all, if there is to be a strong transport authority, it makes more sense for the authority to fund and control the location system rather than the bus company.

Yes, otherwise other operators would be locked out. If DB had any sense they would have seen this as a possible future competitive advantage. A DTA has been talked about for many years and may never materialise.

Secondly on the problem of managing transport, the problem with investing so much in an IT system when you are being cash-starved is that you would arguably be better off investing the money in vehicles. Vehicles are what deliver the service and generate the cash.

Yes the company is underfunded but it is fare-paying passengers that generate cash while buses are a cost. You can point to oversubscribed peak services as needing more vehicles but I think you know already that these are regarded as PSO services because additional service at peak are fallow off-peak. If management and customers knew where the buses were, they might get better load factors particularly off-peak and on low-frequency routes.

Thirdly, the cost of the system, if it is to do all the things you suggest, will be high. The AVL system that is the first phase of the grand project will not do very many the things you are talking about. Implementing the software to do all this will cost realistically cost tens of millions. It is easy to see the all-singing system having a price tag of EUR 60-100m (which would arguably still worth doing).

We are talking about a commoditised system available from multiple suppliers based on GPS and GPRS. I have both in my car already. London's all singing all dancing AVL system is costing £117m. But then they have 8 times as many buses as us and 12 times as many passengers.

Forthly, there is no correlation between having a big turnover and being able to afford to do things.

I think they could have found the money if they wanted to. They have been in surplus the last few years and they are credit worthy. Their large turnover and poor operational management suggests plenty of opportunity to make changes that would make a return on investment.

This company loses money on every journey. The more buses it runs, the more money it loses.

The company makes money for every additional passenger it carries on its existing fleet. There are low frequency buses running routes near my house that take me to places I need to go but I can't use them as I have no idea when or if each scheduled service will show up. On the better routes off peak it's the same story. Whenever I see these service from my car, they're mostly empty.

gjim

Zoney wrote:

Free private enterprise should be facilitated and encouraged, but it's nonsense to think private companies are automatically a better choice for public service provision than a public company.

Eh? I don't get your point? Your example, (I presume you're aguing for public ownership of the local loop and presumably the local exchanges?) concerns infrastructure not customer service provision.

There is a stronger argument for holding onto shared infrastructure particularly when it would be impossible to sell it without creating a private monopoly (Railtrack). And splitting the ownership of infrastructure on a simple geographical basis misses the point completely; yes you've avoided creating a large private monopoly but done so by creating many smaller monopolies. If I want to get a train to/from work, I cannot avail of the tracks in Dublin if I live in Cork. Monopolies whether public or private are bad for the consumer.

To steer back to the subject at hand, it's worth noting that most of the railways in the world were originally built by private capital and not government investment (in Ireland, the government was still spending money on canals when the railway companies started building lines). Having the government run public transport is a relatively recent phenomena not the natural state of things, in Ireland in particular. It's a 50 year experiment, which I think, while not a complete disaster, has hardly been a great success. I'm not arguing that we would still have one of the most extensive tram networks in Dublin in the world (as we had pre-nationalisation) or have railways linking nearly every town in the country (ditto) as the subsequent economic forces would still have had their effect. However I find it amusing that many people who believe generally "public sector good, private sector bad" still enthuse about "railways in the old days" when in fact back then, it was the evil capitalists who owned and ran the railways.

Selling Aer Lingus always made sense to me. Disposing of Bus Eireann and offerring public service subsidies for the unprofitable routes makes sense to me also. Dublin Bus is trickier just in terms of scale but whatever they've done in London, I'd love to see done here; the bus system is superb - I use it much more than the underground these days when I'm over there. None of these involve expensive shared infrastructure (bus stops?) and so I don't see how the local loop example supports the case for public ownership here.

antoinolachtnai

OTK wrote:

Yes, otherwise other operators would be locked out. If DB had any sense they would have seen this as a possible future competitive advantage. A DTA has been talked about for many years and may never materialise.

Dublin Bus know this. So does the Department. This is why development of a full scale information system has not been permitted.

Yes the company is underfunded but it is fare-paying passengers that generate cash while buses are a cost. You can point to oversubscribed peak services as needing more vehicles but I think you know already that these are regarded as PSO services because additional service at peak are fallow off-peak. If management and customers knew where the buses were, they might get better load factors particularly off-peak and on low-frequency routes.

There is no evidence from elsewhere that this would happen as a result of an information system alone, at least none that I know of (and I researched it extensively a few years ago).

We are talking about a commoditised system available from multiple suppliers based on GPS and GPRS. I have both in my car already. London's all singing all dancing AVL system is costing £117m. But then they have 8 times as many buses as us and 12 times as many passengers.

It's not all that commoditized. London't proposed system is not an AVL system; it is much more than that. The iBus system hasn't been built yet. It's a project in development. The £117m is an estimate of the cost, not the actual cost. There are a lot of information systems in place in TfL already which makes it easier.

I think they could have found the money if they wanted to. They have been in surplus the last few years and they are credit worthy. Their large turnover and poor operational management suggests plenty of opportunity to make changes that would make a return on investment. The company makes money for every additional passenger it carries on its existing fleet. There are low frequency buses running routes near my house that take me to places I need to go but I can't use them as I have no idea when or if each scheduled service will show up. On the better routes off peak it's the same story. Whenever I see these service from my car, they're mostly empty.

[/quote]

There is no evidence that there is poor operational management in Dublin Bus. There are a lot of empty bus seats, but that isn't necessarily because of operational issues. It may be the nature of the market, or it may be to do with the routes served or the frequencies. These are strategic issues which are not in the hands of Dublin Bus.

Dublin Bus can't make strategic decisions on its own. It is dependent on the Department. It cannot reapply its own paper profits. The profits do not belong to the company, they belong to the shareholder, and the shareholder has complete discretion over how they are invested. In practice, DB can't buy anything more than a replacement bus without permission from the Department.

I am definitely not here to defend Dublin Bus, and there are serious issues to be addressed here. But we have to be realistic about what they can and can't do.

On the other hand, the Department has good reasons for what it is doing as well, not least the fact that they have known for some time that the EC investigation is coming down the line.

Cork

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Don't think the Stagecoach deal covers Citylink in Ireland. Citylink is owned by ComfortDelgro, the Singaporeans. Aircoach is controlled by First for sure.

Citylink provide an excellant service. I use them alot since they launched their Galway to Cork service via Limerick. They seem very helpful and professional.

I get cheaper bus tickets and can avoid the Bus station in Cork on Friday evenings.

I think the opening up of bus stops will be significant.

I use bus eireann ocasionally but find citylink very impressive.

Can I make an unrelated comment?

Why 3rd level colleges don't have bus parks beggers belief. Bus companies drop students on Sunday nights off at city locations where they have to get other buses (Sunday schedule) to their accomadation.

AlekSmart

gjim wrote:

I read this not as a brake on public funding for public transport (which would be fairly weird coming from the EU) but as a demand that the subsidy be accounted for properly. If this is correct, then I'm all for it; for example, the cost of the free travel pass scheme would be made explicit. So much government spending is just treated like a big barrel of cash.

Now we get to the REAL meat,and believe me this particular one could burst the party open.....:D
One of the first casualities of this EU challenge will be the Free Travel Scheme as it currently operates.
Put bluntly the Private Operator will want,and will be expected to by the accountants to quantify it`s provision of "Free" journeys to an ever increasing number of qualifying individuals.
The current cosy situation whereby the CIE group just nodded through the many hundreds of thousands of Butter Voucher holders in return for an oul Lump Sum each year simply won`t cut it with the private sectors bankers.
The initial step in this has already been taken with the extension of Free Travel scheme into the other juristiction on a FAR more controlled and accountable basis than domestically.
Expect much more of this my friends !!

OTK

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Dublin Bus know this. So does the Department. This is why development of a full scale information system has not been permitted.

That would make sense but the DTA was proposed in 1986, so you have to wonder if it might take another 21 years to get it going. (Transport 21?)

There is no evidence from elsewhere that this would happen [that load factors would improve for off peak and low frequency services] as a result of an information system alone, at least none that I know of (and I researched it extensively a few years ago).

You may be right but I'd be amazed.
http://www.itsbenefits.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/00185704A74ACF4985256B6B0065ED32?OpenDocument&Query=BApp
(Study of AVL bus system in Finland that led to an increase of 10% in bus ridership.)

Why even consider waiting for an infrequent bus in Dublin when there is no information at the bus stop to tell you when it will arrive? You can't risk leaving the stop for a few minutes to do something else, you can't judge when to give up and change mode. You just have to arrive really early and fret. Information on when the next bus is arriving would mean a passenger could check the next arrival time from the bus stop or phone and choose to wait for a reasonable time. With no information, you run the risk of being let down and then giving up on the service all together. The recommended option in this forum is to ring the bus station, and ask management whether the bus is coming or not, hardly a solution that scales and unknown to most people.

There is no evidence that there is poor operational management in Dublin Bus. There are a lot of empty bus seats, but that isn't necessarily because of operational issues. It may be the nature of the market, or it may be to do with the routes served or the frequencies. These are strategic issues which are not in the hands of Dublin Bus.

DB runs a number of low frequency services that operate randomly. The odd bus shows up whenever and nobody gets on apart from the odd chap in the right place at the right time. At this point, the company is effectively paying a driver and paying for a bus and fuel that provides no benefit to anybody. Maybe the DoT forces them to run these services. Maybe it's politically difficult to cancel them. Maybe DB is cycnically running them to collect PSO for them from the state. Maybe DB just doesn't know how bad these serices are. I don't know.

Dublin Bus can't make strategic decisions on its own. It is dependent on the Department. It cannot reapply its own paper profits. The profits do not belong to the company, they belong to the shareholder, and the shareholder has complete discretion over how they are invested. In practice, DB can't buy anything more than a replacement bus without permission from the Department.

I'm sure you know more about this than me and I'm surprised that DoT has the manpower to do this.

In any case, I look forward to seeing the results of this enquiry.

Victor

OTK wrote:

Is borrowing the cash forbidden?

I think only CIE can borrow the cash and its all been borrowed for the railways.

How can the network be managed when the managers don't know where the vehicles are or how long the journeys are taking?

"<Hiss> <Crackle> Anto, where are you? <click>"

antoinolachtnai

The finnish situation also involved bus prioritization, which is another whole deal. Also, you would have to look to see whether there was also a general program of improving quality of service at the same time.

What you say about standing at bus stops is undoubtedly absolutely true. The question is what is the best way to resolve it - IT systems or extra vehicles.

I agree completely with you about the mystery buses that appear at odd times. But this is not Dublin Bus's idea to be fair. These routes are usually kept alive or revived because of some sort of political pressure.

MarkoP11

Victor wrote:

I think only CIE can borrow the cash and its all been borrowed for the railways.
"<Hiss> <Crackle> Anto, where are you? <click>"

In 1987 when CIE was split, the full borrowings of the CIE group where dumped on Iarnrod Eireann. It was recommended that this be cleared by the state in recent reports into CIE structure but nothing has been done.

The Minister sets the borrowing limit, the repayments come from the farebox, thus you get long term capital costs paid for by increased fares

Even if the companies had the cash the Minister controls the cheque book

Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann have developed a almost self financing rolling fleet replacement program to get around the lack of support from the DoT. Irish Rail came up with some clever accounting tricks by swaping scrap for scrap to get replacement coaches in the late 1980's

OTK

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The finnish situation also involved bus prioritization, which is another whole deal.

Does DB have signal priority on QBCs? I seem to remember some sort of fanfare about it and there are traffic lights with special bus lights. Maybe it was very limited or turned off at some point.

Also, you would have to look to see whether there was also a general program of improving quality of service at the same time.

It's always going to be hard to link cause and effect without a statistical study that could pin down each variable. But it's hardly a huge leap of faith to expect that if people knew when the bus was going to arrive, they just might be more likely to consider waiting for it.

What you say about standing at bus stops is undoubtedly absolutely true. The question is what is the best way to resolve it - IT systems or extra vehicles.

Extra vehicles would only work if you can push the frequency up to something so high that you can just show up at the stop and expect a bus in a few minutes. Off peak or on orbital routes this would be massively wasteful because the supply of bus seats would far exceed possible demand and the buses would mostly be empty.

If you just add a few more buses to a mystery service, the service won't improve sufficiently to attract passengers and yet you're spending more money. If my local service improves from 8 random buses a day to 16, I still cant risk standing at the bus stop for a bus that may or may not come during the next 90 minutes.

High frequency services don't really require next bus times. If you have 30-50 buses an hour you don't need a permanent "next bus:1 minute" sign. A sign that says 'next bus: 1hr20mins' tells you a lot. Somebody is sick or a bus has broken down and it's time to go home and get your bike or walk or catch a taxi.

Nobody relies on bus timetables. Dublin Bus says the unreliability is due to traffic but even on uncongested suburban routes, off-peak, the buses don't show up at times that bear any relation to the timetable. What chance do the management have of running buses on time, allocating resources where needed, or making improvements when they have no idea where their fleet is at any point, no idea how long their journeys take, no idea how punctual they are?