Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann & the Government

jdscrubs

I know there have been threads on this issue dealing with one or the other but I will merge all three. Isnt it a bit daft, that after the past few years when the Government has been pouring money into both Dublin Bus&Bus Eireann, the Government now supports both companies cost cutting measures which cut the number of drivers, busses, routes, etc. Surely that will mean less people will use the bus as a result as the busses will be less frequent.

Sure if both companies want to save money, they could cut down on the amount of administrative staff, which like in all the areas of the public service, there are way to many. Another way would be to install GPS systems on both busses & bus stops so the public would know exactly when a bus will be coming.

In Dublin especially, cut down on the number of stupid stops. If you go out the cunningham road to Chaplizod, before you get to the latter, there are, I think, 4 bus stops with no houses nearby, crazy. Going out and back from Clontarf, there seems to be a stop every 5 seconds which slows down the bus going into town. Cut out the number of stops, bus will be quicker & more people will use it.

It pains me to say this but I think I will be supporting the Unions if they go on strike over the cuts as I think the cuts are not a good way of saving money.

Cookie_Monster

All of what you say should be done but can you honestly see anything changing at this stage.

The union are no better however and are as inflexible and moneygrabbing as the government

Zoney

Yes Cookie Monster, but the union is only doing their job, the government is not.

godtabh

jdscrubs wrote: »

In Dublin especially, cut down on the number of stupid stops. If you go out the cunningham road to Chaplizod, before you get to the latter, there are, I think, 4 bus stops with no houses nearby, crazy. Going out and back from Clontarf, there seems to be a stop every 5 seconds which slows down the bus going into town. Cut out the number of stops, bus will be quicker & more people will use it.

You dont need houses to merit having a bus stop. There are alot of sports clubs along the Liffey before you get to Chaplizod plus the Park.

People need to get to other places other than their homes and work.

As for the unions. They have their own vested interests and I'd have no time from them at all

Ste.phen

Surely the bus doesn't stop at those stops unless there's someone waiting to get on or off?

Colm R

I would definitely be in favour of cutting bus stops or introducing a system were certain bus stops only come into play outside of rush hour.

A sign on a bus stop could say ‘Bus Stop operational between 10:00 – 16:00 & 19:00 to Last Bus’

KC61

Colm R wrote: »

I would definitely be in favour of cutting bus stops or introducing a system were certain bus stops only come into play outside of rush hour.

A sign on a bus stop could say ‘Bus Stop operational between 10:00 – 16:00 & 19:00 to Last Bus’

Surely that's where the services such as the Xpresso routes come in?

There is a need for a clear network of Xpresso routes that operate throughout the evening rush rather than beforehand on many of them!

I would think that both express and standard bus routes are needed - but a clear network of Xpresso routes along each QBC at a reasonable frequency is something that should work. Also simple direct routes along each QBC for one principal bus route (as with the 4/4A, 128, 140, 145, 151 etc.), backed up with routes serving local communities are the way forward.

shltter

KC61 wrote: »

Surely that's where the services such as the Xpresso routes come in?

There is a need for a clear network of Xpresso routes that operate throughout the evening rush rather than beforehand on many of them!

I would think that both express and standard bus routes are needed - but a clear network of Xpresso routes along each QBC at a reasonable frequency is something that should work. Also simple direct routes along each QBC for one principal bus route (as with the 4/4A, 128, 140, 145, 151 etc.), backed up with routes serving local communities are the way forward.

Part of the problem is that they have added routes like the 4 and 128 etc and all they have done is split the same number of passengers between 2 routes.
So revenues have stayed the same but costs have doubled.

What is needed is a complete network review with a reduction in the number of stops and a realignment of meandering routes that go up and down estates taking 10 minutes to in reality advance a couple of hundred yards.

All these stops and loops around estates are creating journeys that could be done in 30 minutes to take over an hour at times.
Not only does it put people of travelling it is a waste of resources.


BTW the company plan on having GPS and central control of all buses in the city by later this year.

ronn

the government decided to charge the bus companys vat on their diesel,which in turn lines the pockets of the government and cripples the companies be it a small company or dublin bus,

The companys apply for a certain route in a certain area then go to the cops with the route and the cops decide where the bus stops are placed,

shltter

ronn wrote: »

the government decided to charge the bus companys vat on their diesel,which in turn lines the pockets of the government and cripples the companies be it a small company or dublin bus,

The companys apply for a certain route in a certain area then go to the cops with the route and the cops decide where the bus stops are placed,

Gardai approve stops or not they don't actually pick them out

antoinolachtnai

There was a complete network review done and published in 2006. It laid out a framework for providing a network of express routes, as suggested. I cannot say for certain whether it was good or bad, but it was certainly never implemented. (A lot of other services have been put in and resourced, but not the ones in the plan.)

http://www.dublinbus.ie/images/upload/news/DublinBusNetworkReview.pdf

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There was a complete network review done and published in 2006. It laid out a framework for providing a network of express routes, as suggested. I cannot say for certain whether it was good or bad, but it was certainly never implemented. (A lot of other services have been put in and resourced, but not the ones in the plan.)

http://www.dublinbus.ie/images/upload/news/DublinBusNetworkReview.pdf

Indeed this was carried out, but we know that DB attempted to introduce several of these routes only to be refused by the DoT.

These included the 141 direct service linking Swords and the city via the Old Airport Road and Drumcondra (bypassing the Airport), and the proposed improved services in Blanchardstown, for which new buses were funded by DoT. These were then put on hold by another arm of the DoT because of the perceived unfair competition that this would create against certain private operators. This despite the fact that people all along the respective corridors would have benefitted and not just those in the areas serviced by the private operators.

Similarly any changes to DB services to/from the Airport are unlikely to be approved by DoT for fear that it might be unfair to the private operators there.

It is nowhere near as cut and dried as some of the recent media coverage suggests. For all the ills of DB, and from a customer perspective there is an awful lot that could be improved, it has to be said that it has had to operate with ludicrous amounts of political interference (routes such as the 51A and 172 which travel around carrying thin air all day were saved from withdrawal by the intercession of a former taoiseach I believe).

The nonsense of the 37 extension to Blanchardstown S.C. (benefitting the entire population of Laurel Lodge and Carpenterstown) being refused because of a perceived competition with an hourly UrBus service for 1 mile on the other side of Castleknock Village is the tip of the iceberg.

It is all very well for these private operators to cry foul and to cherry pick their observations. But most are not providing accessible buses, something that Dublin Bus has been directed to do by the Government, thereby depriving any disabled passengers from using them!! Then they complain about DB replacing non-accessible buses!

Add to that the withdrawal of funding for the DB GPS system and real time passenger information system some years back, a project that is only now getting going, and the last minute withdrawal of approval for a 24 hour operation on route 746 from Dun Laoghaire to the Airport AFTER the buses had been delivered with special racking for luggage!!!!!

There has been some very selective reporting, and I would have to say that it is (from my viewpoint as a customer - and I am just that) very frustrating to see that the media are swallowing all of the guff without realising that there are two sides to this story and that passengers have been deprived improved bus services because of political interference and a nonsensically narrow interpretation of the law by the licensing section of DoT that is not benefitting anyone - DB, the private operators or MOST IMPORTANTLY the customer!!!!

antoinolachtnai

There was a complete network review done and published in 2006. It laid out a framework for providing a network of express routes, as suggested. I cannot say for certain whether it was good or bad, but it was certainly never implemented. (A lot of other services have been put in and resourced, but not the ones in the plan.)

http://www.dublinbus.ie/images/upload/news/DublinBusNetworkReview.pdf

antoinolachtnai

KC61 wrote: »

Indeed this was carried out, but we know that DB attempted to introduce several of these routes only to be refused by the DoT.

These included the 141 direct service linking Swords and the city via the Old Airport Road and Drumcondra (bypassing the Airport),

This is just not true. There is no mention of the 141 in the Network Review. The proposed new services for the Northeast quadrant are listed in figure 10.2. The 141 is just not there. Nor is there any route like it.

What happened to the 14X, which is in the network review? It was supposed to link Swords with the local hospital at Beaumont. As a result of this failure, there is now no way for the people of Swords to get to their local hospital for public health services by public transport.

It is all very well for these private operators to cry foul and to cherry pick their observations. But most are not providing accessible buses, something that Dublin Bus has been directed to do by the Government, thereby depriving any disabled passengers from using them!! Then they complain about DB replacing non-accessible buses!

Dublin Bus does not provide accessible buses. Accessible buses for DB and BE are paid for by the taxpayer through a capital grant. The taxpayer does not contribute to accessible buses for the private sector.

It is nowhere near as cut and dried as some of the recent media coverage suggests. For all the ills of DB, and from a customer perspective there is an awful lot that could be improved, it has to be said that it has had to operate with ludicrous amounts of political interference (routes such as the 51A and 172 which travel around carrying thin air all day were saved from withdrawal by the intercession of a former taoiseach I believe).

There has been some very selective reporting, and I would have to say that it is (from my viewpoint as a customer - and I am just that) very frustrating to see that the media are swallowing all of the guff without realising that there are two sides to this story and that passengers have been deprived improved bus services because of political interference and a nonsensically narrow interpretation of the law by the licensing section of DoT that is not benefitting anyone - DB, the private operators or MOST IMPORTANTLY the customer!!!!

The chief executive of Dublin Bus has been before the transport committee umpteen times. I don't think he ever said that there was any problem with political interference. The law is clear and unambiguous.

At Dublin Bus, when things go wrong, it is always someone else's fault.

KC61

If you are seriously suggesting that there has not been political interjections at various times when Dublin Bus tried to make changes then you are being very very naive.

I have been an observer and daily user of public transport in this city for over 25 years and I am all too aware of various DB proposals for route changes being stopped after politicians intervened.

The 48A was to be withdrawn two years ago, but after a local TD, Tom Kitt, made representations it magically was not cancelled.

The 51A and 172 were to be withdrawn but after political lobbying by a certain well known TD they were not.

And you can quote whatever law you want at me and whatever other Dail committee meetings took place - but I know that this is true.

The 37 issue is a matter of record, having been quoted in the Dail on several occasions. And the series of events with regard to the 746 is also true.

The point I was trying to make with regard to the 141 was that while the it was not necessarily in the review, DB tried to introduce something that YOU (quoted in the Independent online yesterday at http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/swords-express-offer-to-replace-cut-services-1608976.html) view as being something worth doing. However, DB were prevented from doing so by the Department because it might be detrimental to the Swords Express that operates via the Port Tunnel, while the 141 was to go via the Old Swords Road and Drumcondra bypassing the Airport.

Where is the logic in that?

As regards Swords and Beaumont Hospital - there is no direct link, but the 41/41C (every 10 minutes) do link with the 27B at Cloghran (every 15/20 minutes) and a through journey can be made using a Travel 90 ticket. Not ideal, but it can be done.

Public transport in Ireland has suffered from a lack of customer focus at operational level, but also from years of political interjections and if you are suggesting otherwise, then I really do think that you need to start learning a bit more about the history of transport operations in Ireland.

I have no connection with Dublin Bus whatsoever, other than being a customer, but I am increasingly frustrated by the complete lack of any thought by ANYONE of the consumer in this whole debate. I do object that improvements such as those in Blanchardstown, on the Swords corridor and elsewhere that would benefit huge numbers of people have being prevented from happening.

There is an awful lot that DB could do better and I think that over the years they have suffered from a lack of commercial expertise in senior management, relying mainly on people who have climbed the internal ladder. This is something that HAS to change and rapidly, but to try and simply blame everything that has gone wrong on DB is frankly not fair. The politicians have been inept and frankly have caused more problems over the years than solving them.

Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann have a duty to provide public transport in Ireland - that is their raison d'etre. Public policy is currently to provide accessible vehicles. Two years ago a proposed purchase of new coaches by Bus Eireann was vetoed by the Minister for Transport because they were not accessible.

Swords Express and Urbus do not operate accessible vehicles, which is their choice. However, if disabled people living in Carpenterstown or Laurel Lodge (as an example) are being deprived a decent link to/from Blanchardstown Centre with accessible vehicles (the vetoed 37 extension) because it *might* affect Urbus along 1 mile of road on the other side of Castleknock, then I think that there is a problem here. Similarly with the 41X using the Port Tunnel. Disabled residents of Swords were basically being told that "sorry, you'll have to take the slow route". They are as entitled to decent public transport as anyone else.

Sponge Bob

Dempsey had them all in last week and told them that there would not only be no supplementary funding this year but that they had to find a share of the €2bn savings too.

Therefore their budgets will decrease this year.

Cue panic and these announcements . IE will be next to start chopping .

antoinolachtnai

KC61 wrote: »

If you are seriously suggesting that there has not been political interjections at various times when Dublin Bus tried to make changes then you are being very very naive.

For sure. I have seen plenty of it myself. But the company never complained about this or made an issue of it. I have certainly complained about it.

The point I was trying to make with regard to the 141 was that while the it was not necessarily in the review, DB tried to introduce something that YOU (quoted in the Independent online yesterday at http://www.fingal-independent.ie/news/swords-express-offer-to-replace-cut-services-1608976.html) view as being something worth doing. However, DB were prevented from doing so by the Department because it might be detrimental to the Swords Express that operates via the Port Tunnel, while the 141 was to go via the Old Swords Road and Drumcondra bypassing the Airport.

Where is the logic in that?

My logic is pretty good, don't you think? Going via the airport onwards to Swords is senseless.

As for DB's logic, I don't know much about it. I asked the Department for the file on the 141 and they wouldn't give it to me.

Were they planning to cut some of the 41 and 41C services to make room for this? I am afraid we are only hearing one side of the story here.

As regards Swords and Beaumont Hospital - there is no direct link, but the 41/41C (every 10 minutes) do link with the 27B at Cloghran (every 15/20 minutes) and a through journey can be made using a Travel 90 ticket. Not ideal, but it can be done.

Why does Dublin Bus concentrate on providing services that it hadn't promised instead of concentrating on one that they had promised?

Public transport in Ireland has suffered from a lack of customer focus at operational level, but also from years of political interjections and if you are suggesting otherwise, then I really do think that you need to start learning a bit more about the history of transport operations in Ireland.

I am very aware of political interference in decisions. My only point is that Dublin Bus have never complained about this. Maybe they are still not complaining about it, i don't know. Whatever way, Dublin Bus failed to manage the situation. That is their problem.

There is an awful lot that DB could do better and I think that over the years they have suffered from a lack of commercial expertise in senior management, relying mainly on people who have climbed the internal ladder. This is something that HAS to change and rapidly, but to try and simply blame everything that has gone wrong on DB is frankly not fair. The politicians have been inept and frankly have caused more problems over the years than solving them.

Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann have a duty to provide public transport in Ireland - that is their raison d'etre. Public policy is currently to provide accessible vehicles. Two years ago a proposed purchase of new coaches by Bus Eireann was vetoed by the Minister for Transport because they were not accessible.

Swords Express and Urbus do not operate accessible vehicles, which is their choice. However, if disabled people living in Carpenterstown or Laurel Lodge (as an example) are being deprived a decent link to/from Blanchardstown Centre with accessible vehicles (the vetoed 37 extension) because it *might* affect Urbus along 1 mile of road on the other side of Castleknock, then I think that there is a problem here. Similarly with the 41X using the Port Tunnel. Disabled residents of Swords were basically being told that "sorry, you'll have to take the slow route". They are as entitled to decent public transport as anyone else.

As a matter of fact, Urbus is wheelchair accessible. The 41X is not wheelchair accessible, and never has been.

It is public policy that wheelchair accessibility is not required and is not a priority on some routes. This is the Department of Transport's decision. (I happen to disagree with it.) It is not the private company's decision.

Providing great public transport in Swords is Swords Express's raison d'etre. Unfortunately Dublin Bus, rather than focusing on developing the routes it has promised, focuses on trying to run Swords Express out of business. Draw your own conclusions from that.

If Dubllin Bus doesn't have the management it needs internally and doesn't recruit it, then that's DB's issue, not anyone else's.

For sure, there is a problem. The question is how to fix it.

More of the same, or something different?

Vic_08

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For sure, there is a problem. The question is how to fix it.

More of the same, or something different?

Fu*k it, ban buses altogether. Cars for everyone!

As long as you can afford one that is. If not you can always head up to ballymun and see if the scangers have any horses and traps left for sale. It worked well enough in the rare auld times and besides it would be sure to bring back the tourists.

jank

Whats this now?

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For sure. I have seen plenty of it myself. But the company never complained about this or made an issue of it. I have certainly complained about it.

It is somewhat more difficult for a semi-state company to criticise in public the hand that feeds and governs it, than for a private company, and I think that needs to be recognised here.

I am quite sure that behind the scenes there would have been fairly frank discussions, but I honestly cannot see any semi-state company taking the line that you suggest - it's suicidal.

There are unfortunately in these circumstances, restrictions in what DB can and cannot say in public - it's daft but it is the political reality. It is nowhere near as black and white as you have been suggesting and I think that you need to recognise this.

As I have said DB has many faults, but a large number of the problems that it has are not helped by political interference and ludicicrous licensing restrictions.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

My logic is pretty good, don't you think? Going via the airport onwards to Swords is senseless.

As for DB's logic, I don't know much about it. I asked the Department for the file on the 141 and they wouldn't give it to me.

Were they planning to cut some of the 41 and 41C services to make room for this? I am afraid we are only hearing one side of the story here.

It is sensible logic, but when one part of a government department overturns the decision of another - how does any business deal with that.

I would have expected that the there would have been some changes to the 41/C over time based on loadings, as there have been on other routes. The sensible solution (to me) would now be as I've suggested before here:

1) Extend all 16 and 16A buses to the Airport
2) Remove the 41 from the Airport and have a 10 minute direct frequency to/from Swords from the City Centre
3) Introduce a local 141 from Swords Manor to the Airport every 20 minutes
4) Split the 33 in two - have an hourly service to the City from Skerries and an hourly service to the Airport from Balbriggan
5) Extend the 33B to start at the Airport

That would deliver a major improvement in services, but again I think that the department are unlikely to sanction it because of the fear of a claim of unfair competition.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Why does Dublin Bus concentrate on providing services that it hadn't promised instead of concentrating on one that they had promised?

Eh it did not promise it - the outside consultants suggested it.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am very aware of political interference in decisions. My only point is that Dublin Bus have never complained about this. Maybe they are still not complaining about it, i don't know. Whatever way, Dublin Bus failed to manage the situation. That is their problem.



As a matter of fact, Urbus is wheelchair accessible. The 41X is not wheelchair accessible, and never has been.

It is public policy that wheelchair accessibility is not required and is not a priority on some routes. This is the Department of Transport's decision. (I happen to disagree with it.) It is not the private company's decision.

Fair enough - my mistake. But I do think that it is ludicrous that new licences are being issued that do not have this requirement.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Providing great public transport in Swords is Swords Express's raison d'etre. Unfortunately Dublin Bus, rather than focusing on developing the routes it has promised, focuses on trying to run Swords Express out of business. Draw your own conclusions from that.

If Dubllin Bus doesn't have the management it needs internally and doesn't recruit it, then that's DB's issue, not anyone else's.

For sure, there is a problem. The question is how to fix it.

More of the same, or something different?

Well I'd have to say that making a profit for the shareholders is Swords Express' raison d'etre, through the business of providing an express coach service. And I think that there is a sound business for that (and indeed other similar operators) in certain niche markets, but not right across the city.

Dublin Bus have on the other hand an obligation to provide public transport to the entire city and unfortunately that then moves into the realm of politics, which is were we end up with the drivel that comes from the DoT.

The fundamental point that I am making is that the operation of Dublin Bus is nowhere near as black and white as you have suggested, and while I appreciate you have your own agenda, it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Ste.phen

KC61 wrote: »

1) Extend all 16 and 16A buses to the Airport

That would cut off a large chunk of Santry (Shanowen, etc) from a regular bus service, unless you want the bus routed via Collins Ave / Ballymun road / Santry Ave / Swords Road

2) Remove the 41 from the Airport and have a 10 minute direct frequency to/from Swords from the City Centre

Why remove the 41 from the airport? It's useful for many people, not least of which Swords-dwellers. Swords frequency could probably use a bump at off peak times, but i've never found it to be especially difficult to get to swords by bus without a long wait

3) Introduce a local 141 from Swords Manor to the Airport every 20 minutes

Is there enough Swords - Airport traffic to justify it versus routing some of the 41s into the airport as they do now?

4) Split the 33 in two - have an hourly service to the City from Skerries and an hourly service to the Airport from Balbriggan

Again, would Balbriggan - Airport be justified?

5) Extend the 33B to start at the Airport

Possibly a good idea, actually, but would add to the journey time and then require either more buses or fewer services

KC61

Ste.phen wrote: »

That would cut off a large chunk of Santry (Shanowen, etc) from a regular bus service, unless you want the bus routed via Collins Ave / Ballymun road / Santry Ave / Swords Road

No - I would certainly replace the 16 service with something else in the Santry area. That might be the 3 perhaps.

Ste.phen wrote: »

Why remove the 41 from the airport? It's useful for many people, not least of which Swords-dwellers. Swords frequency could probably use a bump at off peak times, but i've never found it to be especially difficult to get to swords by bus without a long wait.

Is there enough Swords - Airport traffic to justify it versus routing some of the 41s into the airport as they do now?

The point that I was trying to make was why should the people in Swords have to go via the Airport on the 41 en route to/from town on every journey - it adds 10-15 minutes to the trip time and diminishes the quality of the product.

Ste.phen wrote: »

Again, would Balbriggan - Airport be justified?

I'm talking about splitting the existing 33 service into two routes - 1 from Skerries to the City and the second from Balbriggan to the Airport via Skerries.

It would maintain the existing service and deliver a far better product in the north Dublin area.

Ste.phen wrote: »

Possibly a good idea, actually, but would add to the journey time and then require either more buses or fewer services

I think with some imaginative thinking and integration with the other local services a satisfactory solution could be found.

AlekSmart

It is somewhat more difficult for a semi-state company to criticise in public the hand that feeds and governs it, than for a private company, and I think that needs to be recognised here.

As KC61 says and as Antoin may have an inkling of there is a dei facto "World of Difference" in how Bus Atha Cliath and the Swords Express management can approach any one topic.

It is worth looking back at recent history of Chief Executives of BAC to help in drawing conclusions here.
Those CX`s who arrived from "outside the pale",and who incidentally were highly regarded within the wider Public Transport Industry,brought with them a sense of initiative and purpose backed up by EXPERIENCE.

However in the somewhat byzantine world of Irish Public Transport ownership,regulation and oversight this was akin to setting a ferret loose in the henhouse.

With a BAC senior managers day likely to be interrupted at any time by a phone call from Kildare St demanding an immediate answer to some arcane question concerning the shape of a BAC wheel it is little wonder that conflict was inevitable.

Network Reviews,Studies,Reports and the rest all became the preserve of the "Independent Consultant" who was in reality anything but that.

Take the latest flavour of the month,Deloitte.

The Minister for Transport in commissioning the Deloitte "study",muses aloud that he "suspects BAC is not getting full utilization from it`s existing resources and will not sanction any expansion until his suspicions are dealt with"

It`s hardly surprising then that Mr Deloitte paused before dunking his hob-nob into his skinny latte and took note of the thought patterns of his paymaster.

Therefore there can be no widened eyebrows at an accountancy driven "Service Adjustment" package thus being dropped onto a surprised Ministers desk...

"Ah begob,there ye are Mr Deloitte,what did I tell ye...I just KNEW they were acting the jinnet"...now don`t forget to drop that oul invoice into Julie`s office and we`ll sort it out".

I think perhaps in the present emergency climate a management swap for a period would do much to open eyes on both sides.

Me...I would just love to know if Bob Montgomery or Alan Westwell are following the latest developments in their old stomping ground !

PS: Has anybody any idea what the going rate for a Deloitte "study" is these days....a copy of the invoice placed in the public domain would be nice....even if it was "commercially sensitive"......I`ve been known to be a bit sensitive myself on occasion but that never stopped me getting a kick in the ass !!

jdscrubs

When I started this Thread I didnt think anyone would respond but I have been proven wrong. Also didnt realise how serious the coversation would become.

Stephen said "Surely the bus doesn't stop at those stops unless there's someone waiting to get on or off?". The problem is that there are way to many stops especially along the clontarf route, bus 130, into town. I get it from my workplace at Vernon Avenue, 5 seconds later another stop&so on until one gets to Fairview. This slows down the bus so much that you would be quicker walking. Cut out half the number of bus stops and it still would not be that much to walk to the next one.

Kenser said "You dont need houses to merit having a bus stop. There are alot of sports clubs along the Liffey before you get to Chaplizod plus the Park.People need to get to other places other than their homes and work". Again apply the above paragraph to Cunningham Road. There are way to many on this road.

As for the Trade Unions, usually, like 99% of the time I cant stand them as they are out for their own interests, this time, I'm going along with the arguments that its stupid to be cutting services.

I have more proposals that would make money for Dublin bus;
1)Why are there single decker busses being used at peak times?. When I see those busses, I like other people, refuse to get on them, meaning less custom as it requires standing for the whole journey. Eliminate them or just use them in quiet times.
2)During the day, the majority of folk that use the bus are old people who do not pay, which doesnt help Dublin bus money wise. This may be unpopular but scrap this and replace it with lower fees for older people.
3)Bring in a congestion charge from the M50 inwards.For those who live in the city centre, have a special pass to allow them to park the car at the house but they have to use the bus inside of the M50.Along the M50 itself build car parks with each park bringing people to certain areas of the city, like the IFSC, with regular busses.
4)In areas where the Luas is, get rid of buses from there cos they are losing money as people are using the Luas as its quicker.

If anyone else can think of other things, let me know

shltter

AlekSmart wrote: »

As KC61 says and as Antoin may have an inkling of there is a dei facto "World of Difference" in how Bus Atha Cliath and the Swords Express management can approach any one topic.

It is worth looking back at recent history of Chief Executives of BAC to help in drawing conclusions here.
Those CX`s who arrived from "outside the pale",and who incidentally were highly regarded within the wider Public Transport Industry,brought with them a sense of initiative and purpose backed up by EXPERIENCE.

However in the somewhat byzantine world of Irish Public Transport ownership,regulation and oversight this was akin to setting a ferret loose in the henhouse.

With a BAC senior managers day likely to be interrupted at any time by a phone call from Kildare St demanding an immediate answer to some arcane question concerning the shape of a BAC wheel it is little wonder that conflict was inevitable.

Network Reviews,Studies,Reports and the rest all became the preserve of the "Independent Consultant" who was in reality anything but that.

Take the latest flavour of the month,Deloitte.

The Minister for Transport in commissioning the Deloitte "study",muses aloud that he "suspects BAC is not getting full utilization from it`s existing resources and will not sanction any expansion until his suspicions are dealt with"

It`s hardly surprising then that Mr Deloitte paused before dunking his hob-nob into his skinny latte and took note of the thought patterns of his paymaster.

Therefore there can be no widened eyebrows at an accountancy driven "Service Adjustment" package thus being dropped onto a surprised Ministers desk...

"Ah begob,there ye are Mr Deloitte,what did I tell ye...I just KNEW they were acting the jinnet"...now don`t forget to drop that oul invoice into Julie`s office and we`ll sort it out".

I think perhaps in the present emergency climate a management swap for a period would do much to open eyes on both sides.

Me...I would just love to know if Bob Montgomery or Alan Westwell are following the latest developments in their old stomping ground !

PS: Has anybody any idea what the going rate for a Deloitte "study" is these days....a copy of the invoice placed in the public domain would be nice....even if it was "commercially sensitive"......I`ve been known to be a bit sensitive myself on occasion but that never stopped me getting a kick in the ass !!

He who pays the piper picks the tune

meanmachine3

antoin just a quick question for you/
are you the M.D. for swords express by any chance?

markpb

jdscrubs wrote: »

1)Why are there single decker busses being used at peak times?. When I see those busses, I like other people, refuse to get on them, meaning less custom as it requires standing for the whole journey. Eliminate them or just use them in quiet times.

At peak times, almost every bus in the DB fleet is out working - that means single and double deckers. If they didn't send out the single deckers, there aren't any double deckers to replace them with. Over the last few years they have been gradually replacing older single decker buses with double decker but there are routes which must have a single (123 because St. James Hospital won't allow doubleDs) or which don't require doubleD (103/104).

jdscrubs wrote: »

2)During the day, the majority of folk that use the bus are old people who do not pay, which doesnt help Dublin bus money wise. This may be unpopular but scrap this and replace it with lower fees for older people.

This is a political game. Seamus Breannan introduced this in an effort to win more votes from old people. Removing it now would be political suicide. In any event, a random amount of money is given annually from the Dept for old people to the Dept of Transport to cover the loss.

jdscrubs

markpb wrote: »

At peak times, almost every bus in the DB fleet is out working - that means single and double deckers. If they didn't send out the single deckers, there aren't any double deckers to replace them with. Over the last few years they have been gradually replacing older single decker buses with double decker but there are routes which must have a single (123 because St. James Hospital won't allow doubleDs) or which don't require doubleD (103/104).Markpb, I still think that it is a bad idea that single decker busses are used at rush hour. From an economic point of view, less people can fit into such better compared to double decker, meaning less money for Dublin Bus. Use all the single decker busses it wants to but outside of peak time.



This is a political game. Seamus Breannan introduced this in an effort to win more votes from old people. Removing it now would be political suicide. In any event, a random amount of money is given annually from the Dept for old people to the Dept of Transport to cover the loss.

True it is a political game and removing it could be political suicide, but it needs to be done. The subsidy that the Dept uses could be used to speed up the building of the metro, etc. Not really fair that all old people, even if they are super wealthy, get to use the bus for free when the rest of us have to pay and pay increasing amounts each year due to this being on the reasons as to why Dublin bus is losing money

shltter

jdscrubs wrote: »

True it is a political game and removing it could be political suicide, but it needs to be done. The subsidy that the Dept uses could be used to speed up the building of the metro, etc. Not really fair that all old people, even if they are super wealthy, get to use the bus for free when the rest of us have to pay and pay increasing amounts each year due to this being on the reasons as to why Dublin bus is losing money

I think we have been down this road before except with medical cards and i can 100% guarantee that the last place this government will go is removing anything from pensioners.

bk

Well at this stage, FF will lose the next election anyway.

The least they could do is take this opportunity to fix this and many other unaffordable policies.

antoinolachtnai

The free bus pass is paid for out of the social welfare budget, not out of the transport budget.

I personally think the pass is a good idea, but there are certainly things about the scheme that need to be considered. It has to be said that the free bus pass sometimes works to the disadvantage of the elderly. Some services are more likely than others to get withdrawn if there is a shortage of buses for some reason. These services tend to be the ones disparagingly known as 'granny runs'. The reason for this is that there is simply no extra cash to be collected on these services since the company gets paid for transporting these people whether they actually travel or not and whether a full complement of services is running or not.

I am indeed the MD of Swords Express, and this interest was appropriately declared in accordance with the charter!

Best,

antoin.

crocro

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I am very aware of political interference in decisions. My only point is that Dublin Bus have never complained about this. Maybe they are still not complaining about it, i don't know. Whatever way, Dublin Bus failed to manage the situation. That is their problem.

The minister is the sole shareholder in Dublin Bus. At a whim he can remove any director of the company and dictate company policy. His constituents in Meath do not care a fig whether he runs a good or a bad bus service.
His sole aim is to maximise his political capital and his electibility.

If that means running infrequent empty buses around historical routes then so be it.
If that means siding with the unions against management and against the passengers then so be it.
The pay of DB mgmt is not linked to their efficiency or their service quality.
Up to now, criticising the government would be one of the few ways to injure their job security.

There is a systemic problem with the ownership and management structure of Public transport in Ireland that leads to it being run without regard for the people who pay for it. Politicians need to be separated from its management. Possibly through an outsourcing deal like Veolia or route subcontracting.

A bus user lobby group might help.

spareman

It seems alot of posters are happy enough to see the bus drivers and unions get shafted, Seen as how we wouldn't let you on/off at the traffic light or annoyed you in some other way, I think most posters are bus and union hating car driving private sector workers, but in a few years time when your cars die and your jobs are gone, bear in mind what your wishing for here.

Routes to be hit,
78A
210
1
2
3
56A
77/77A
201
202
19
121
122
172
42A
42B
103
13
13A
12B
40
40A
11
48A
14
14A
44
44B
44C
45
7
111
114
115

All above routes will will severly reduced or removed.

Plus 64 universal duties to be removed these would operate most of the expresso services. Each of these duties would usually involve 4/5 individual journeys.

plus 10 extra works which are overtime duties which operate at peak time mostly on the QBC'S. Each of these duties would usually involve 3/4 individual journeys.

180 Duties in total to be removed, each dutie would usually cover 4/5 individual journeys, Thats almost 1,000 journeys being removed from the network.

I know we have all had our diffrences on here, but in the best interest of public transport we need to stick together on this issue and resist attacks on the working class, while the Government are busy bailing out banks and paying back greedy developer's bank loans with our money.

spareman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The free bus pass is paid for out of the social welfare budget, not out of the transport budget.

I personally think the pass is a good idea, but there are certainly things about the scheme that need to be considered. It has to be said that the free bus pass sometimes works to the disadvantage of the elderly. Some services are more likely than others to get withdrawn if there is a shortage of buses for some reason. These services tend to be the ones disparagingly known as 'granny runs'. The reason for this is that there is simply no extra cash to be collected on these services since the company gets paid for transporting these people whether they actually travel or not and whether a full complement of services is running or not.

I am indeed the MD of Swords Express, and this interest was appropriately declared in accordance with the charter!

Best,

antoin.

Out of curiosity are any of your drivers members of any union's, and if they were would they have a job?

dub_commuter

Of course I back the drivers, and do not hate them all at all, there are unfortunately more idiots working for DB than average in bus companies I've experienced in Europe, but it's still a very low number, which is much higher in some garages than others.

These cuts are in no way a good thing, and will leave people stranded or increase their time taken to get to their destination which is never a good thing. In extreme cases it may make their commute no longer viable so it could make it very hard for people to make it to work on time, or in lesser cases increase their working day, as well as that of the DB staff.

However, there are routes where efficiencies need to be made, for instance, there is one route at the weekend in Phibsborough where a bus will operate 3 journeys on the 38C in a shift an hour long each the last one from the City Centre to Blanch. The next duty starts from Blanch to replace it. To do this, you have one bus run in service from the city centre to the terminus, and another one drives up from Phibs out of service normally around 5 mins behind for the whole journey, and operates the service back into the city centre. The bus which operated the outbound from the city centre, then returns back to Phibs, out of service. Thats two wasted journeys out of service, if the changed happened in the city centre you'd save fuel, wages etc. That kind of thing needs to be stamped out.

However, cutting 120 buses is not the answer as I don't believe there are 120 cases like the above have been posted. Also the irony that the government claim peak time will not be effected. Well how can it not be? Most buses are needed during the peak, if they think there is anywhere near 100 buses sitting around during the peak spare gathering dust they're misguided, let alone 120! Outside peak there are spare buses for sure that are high in numbers, but fleet withdrawals will always have an effect on peak, as there is when the number of buses needed is much higher.

Also I have noticed that none of the routes being pulled back are ones where there is other private operators running similar services which may explain why summer hill is not hit much. I would hope that is not deliberate as there is a bigger picture here.

meanmachine3

spareman wrote: »

It seems alot of posters are happy enough to see the bus drivers and unions get shafted, Seen as how we wouldn't let you on/off at the traffic light or annoyed you in some other way, I think most posters are bus and union hating car driving private sector workers, but in a few years time when your cars die and your jobs are gone, bear in mind what your wishing for here.

Routes to be hit,
78A
210
1
2
3
56A
77/77A
201
202
19
121
122
172
42A
42B
103
13
13A
12B
40
40A
11
48A
14
14A
44
44B
44C
45
7
111
114
115

All above routes will will severly reduced or removed.

Plus 64 universal duties to be removed these would operate most of the expresso services. Each of these duties would usually involve 4/5 individual journeys.

plus 10 extra works which are overtime duties which operate at peak time mostly on the QBC'S. Each of these duties would usually involve 3/4 individual journeys.

180 Duties in total to be removed, each dutie would usually cover 4/5 individual journeys, Thats almost 1,000 journeys being removed from the network.

I know we have all had our diffrences on here, but in the best interest of public transport we need to stick together on this issue and resist attacks on the working class, while the Government are busy bailing out banks and paying back greedy developer's bank loans with our money.

spareman let them bitch and moan because as soon as the euros are pulled nearly all of D.15 will be affected. i know from talking to drivers on the 39 route that at least half of the entire mon-fri schedule is made up of euro's/universals. whats not in the above are the routes that the euro's/universals operate

shltter

spareman wrote: »

Out of curiosity are any of your drivers members of any union's, and if they were would they have a job?

AFAIK
He just owns the license

He doesn't own any buses or employ any drivers

He has a private bus company to operate the service on his behalf

shltter

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The free bus pass is paid for out of the social welfare budget, not out of the transport budget.

I personally think the pass is a good idea, but there are certainly things about the scheme that need to be considered. It has to be said that the free bus pass sometimes works to the disadvantage of the elderly. Some services are more likely than others to get withdrawn if there is a shortage of buses for some reason. These services tend to be the ones disparagingly known as 'granny runs'. The reason for this is that there is simply no extra cash to be collected on these services since the company gets paid for transporting these people whether they actually travel or not and whether a full complement of services is running or not.

I am indeed the MD of Swords Express, and this interest was appropriately declared in accordance with the charter!

Best,

antoin.

Been working in DB for 15 years and have never ever heard the term "granny run"

But it is true that the money paid for the Social welfare travel scheme in no way pays for the cost of the scheme

And routes that would have no major additional income ie not many people travelling to work or shopping will be the first to be hit and that can be seen in the list produced by Spareman

That is why the unions have called this a socially retrograde move that will affect the most vulnerable in our society. ( namely the old,young, disabled and unemployed )

shltter

dub_commuter wrote: »

Of course I back the drivers, and do not hate them all at all, there are unfortunately more idiots working for DB than average in bus companies I've experienced in Europe, but it's still a very low number, which is much higher in some garages than others.

These cuts are in no way a good thing, and will leave people stranded or increase their time taken to get to their destination which is never a good thing. In extreme cases it may make their commute no longer viable so it could make it very hard for people to make it to work on time, or in lesser cases increase their working day, as well as that of the DB staff.

However, there are routes where efficiencies need to be made, for instance, there is one route at the weekend in Phibsborough where a bus will operate 3 journeys on the 38C in a shift an hour long each the last one from the City Centre to Blanch. The next duty starts from Blanch to replace it. To do this, you have one bus run in service from the city centre to the terminus, and another one drives up from Phibs out of service normally around 5 mins behind for the whole journey, and operates the service back into the city centre. The bus which operated the outbound from the city centre, then returns back to Phibs, out of service. Thats two wasted journeys out of service, if the changed happened in the city centre you'd save fuel, wages etc. That kind of thing needs to be stamped out.

However, cutting 120 buses is not the answer as I don't believe there are 120 cases like the above have been posted. Also the irony that the government claim peak time will not be effected. Well how can it not be? Most buses are needed during the peak, if they think there is anywhere near 100 buses sitting around during the peak spare gathering dust they're misguided, let alone 120! Outside peak there are spare buses for sure that are high in numbers, but fleet withdrawals will always have an effect on peak, as there is when the number of buses needed is much higher.

Also I have noticed that none of the routes being pulled back are ones where there is other private operators running similar services which may explain why summer hill is not hit much. I would hope that is not deliberate as there is a bigger picture here.

Drivers would not get same running time for an out of service trip to a terminus as an in service one

In service 55 minutes out of service 20 minutes

It is also to do with working time so while to you it seems like a waste to the company it is not. You would have to understand runnning times max driving time and look at the bills to understand it.


When you pull a bus it is gone for the day not just off peak




Private operators are operating where the money is so obviously those areas would not have been reduced

antoinolachtnai

If the service is being reduced in areas which are unprofitable as you say, then the PSO payment will have to be reduced proportionately, in accordance with EEC/1191/69. The shallower peak at peak times (which are the most costly times for dublin bus) will also entail lower subsidies.

shltter

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the service is being reduced in areas which are unprofitable as you say, then the PSO payment will have to be reduced proportionately, in accordance with EEC/1191/69. The shallower peak at peak times (which are the most costly times for dublin bus) will also entail lower subsidies.

correct

A quick look at the list will show no cuts to big paying routes 16/41/27/46A etc

The company and the Minister have said that the cuts are designed not to affect the majority of the travelling public and that they targeted routes with lower patronage.

AlekSmart

Given that the "alterations" as advised appear to have come directly from the Deloitte laptop it is not surprising that they major on the routes most directly associated with the PSO obligation.

However I believe it to be a risky and ultimately self-defeating strategy in terms of the SPECIFIC reality of Dublin`s Public Transport Services.

For example the 16/16A route described as a core Corridor route simply cannot be described as high-frequency OR reliable in the context of how those terms might apply in,for example London or Edinburgh.

Instead,for a major portion of it`s operational day the 16/A Driver can spend significant proportions of his time sitting immobile at the SAME "PINCH-POINTS" EVERY DAY.
The very PINCH-POINTS about which Minister Dempsey appears to have just been told about whereas the Drivers have for years been regarded as "Moaning" about or using to their own advantage to throw the anchor out etc etc...

Funny that...how it takes an expensively prepared "Consultants Report" drawn up by an Accountancy Firm to appraise a Minister of a long standing situation of which he could have recieved chapter,verse and illustration had he bothered his arse to seek the first-hand views of those operating within his wonderful system.

We now see a particularly Irish form of modal shift being stealthily introduced which they hope will see passengers forcibly migrated from decimated non-QBC routes onto their supposedly Hi-Freq Corridors

Unfortunately the nutty reasoning appears to have failed to realize that unless given a SERIOUS extra injection of resources (120 Buses.160 Drivers perhaps) these routes as currently structured will simply turn into parodies of peak-time Luas journeys to Heuston Station.

It would appear that Deloitte`s forensic understanding of Dublins Public Transport systems did not stretch as far as wondering what the result of withdrawing non-QBC journeys and directing passengers onto QBC routes will be.

10`s 46A``s 145`s etc STUFFED to the gills with sweltering disaffected reluctant pasengers wondering exactly how long it will take the Bus to travel from Suffolk St to Mountjoy Square.

Oddly enough the VAST majority of the journeys passengers will have alighted alarmingly close to the OLD 46A terminus in Fleet allowing the driver to ponder on the reality that 5 years ago he and his bus could be working productively back out to Dun Laoire rather than sitting in Westmoreland St trying to traverse Hell.

The Keys to success are blindingly simple and revolve around Rapid,Direct,Frequent Bus services into and out of the City Centre.

If this ethos can only be met by facing-down the City Council and reverting back to non X-City routings then lets do it...NOW.

The essential thrust of the O Connell St Integrated Area Plan which gave us the new Boulevarde image was and remains one of PEDESTRIANIZATION.
This means people will NEED to understand the requirement to WALK along the expensive Chinese granite.
OK in times of plenty we could devote inordinate resources into ferrying them along that short distance but these are times of woe and if the system can be improved for ALL by a small number taking to the shoe-leather then bring it on !!!

Therefore it behoves the authorities to recognize that,and refrain from this idiocy of stuffing over 50% of Dublins peak Bus movements into a narrowed thoroughfare and then wonder why the bloody system collapses each day

Nowhere in ANY of this stuff have I seen mention made of actually going out and stimulating business by any means available.
Realistically,in order to do this Bus Atha Cliath requires direct involvement and permission from its main shareholder and thus far he has proven reluctant to approce anything except contraction....apparently in order to "Prove" that his "suspicions" were correct.

The past few days have proven to me,yet again,the sheer depth of Interest and committment that exists at the Operational Level of the Bus Atha Cliath framework.

Every Garage has its huddles of staff,discussing,argueing,joking and worrying about what the future holds...BUT within each huddle the scale of innovation,flexibility,committment and INTEREST is huge.

Yet nowhere in any of this has the Company,Minister,Consultants or anybody else asked "Well whaddyiz tink...any oul suggestions out dere"?
I guarantee that for every 10 Off-The-Wall nutty suggestions there will be at least one nugget which could be looked at and utilized.

Instead our administrators revert to their inbred nature and their need to keep the gravy-train going even up to the last-day.

Consultants,Accountants and other assorted "Professionals" all first in the line to be paid (handsomely) for their advice whilst that other band of "Professionals" sit ignored like the wise monkeys.:rolleyes:

spareman

AlekSmart wrote: »

Every Garage has its huddles of staff,discussing,argueing,joking and worrying about what the future holds...BUT within each huddle the scale of innovation,flexibility,committment and INTEREST is huge.

Yet nowhere in any of this has the Company,Minister,Consultants or anybody else asked "Well whaddyiz tink...any oul suggestions out dere"?
I guarantee that for every 10 Off-The-Wall nutty suggestions there will be at least one nugget which could be looked at and utilized.

Instead our administrators revert to their inbred nature and their need to keep the gravy-train going even up to the last-day.

Consultants,Accountants and other assorted "Professionals" all first in the line to be paid (handsomely) for their advice whilst that other band of "Professionals" sit ignored like the wise monkeys.:rolleyes:

Myself and a few of the other driver's in Donnybrook agreed that not one bus driver in the company would have introduced route 47 if we had been in the hot seat, but yet we must pay for these mistakes, these decisions are made in offices using statistics, They obviously looked at the figures and seen 50% of passengers getting on in stillorgan paid there fare to donnybook (€1.60) So therefore there would be good demand between stillorgan and donnybrook, but as us drivers know only too well, not all passengers are honest when it comes to paying the correct fare.

If we had a mechanism to make suggestions it would help, but then again would they even listen to us?

One thing that is really eating me at the moment is passengers who evade the fare, when I look at my colleagues many with young families not knowing how they will pay the mortgage next month.

shltter

spareman wrote: »

Myself and a few of the other driver's in Donnybrook agreed that not one bus driver in the company would have introduced route 47 if we had been in the hot seat, but yet we must pay for these mistakes, these decisions are made in offices using statistics, They obviously looked at the figures and seen 50% of passengers getting on in stillorgan paid there fare to donnybook (€1.60) So therefore there would be good demand between stillorgan and donnybrook, but as us drivers know only too well, not all passengers are honest when it comes to paying the correct fare.

If we had a mechanism to make suggestions it would help, but then again would they even listen to us?

One thing that is really eating me at the moment is passengers who evade the fare, when I look at my colleagues many with young families not knowing how they will pay the mortgage next month.

The other problem is that you cannot believe a word that comes out of their mouths

In august with just 4 months left of the year they predicted a €16 million euro loss for 2008.
They now say it was a €10 million euro loss for 2008

If they can be so wildly wrong in projections with 2/3 of the year gone what faith can anyone have in their projections for 2009 with not even a month gone yet.

Also the recent fare increase DB have said will bring in 10 million euro put that against the 10 million they lost last year if everything else stayed the same would mean a break even for 2009

So where is the forecasted loss of 31 million euro coming from

Oil has fallen to under $40 a barrel so no increased cost there ( infact a massive saving on 2008)

The national wage agreement they say they will not pay so no increase in wage costs

The removal of excise rebate DB has said that will cost around €10 million

Loss of revenue from reduced numbers travelling 4% reduction in numbers would not equate to a 4% drop in income even if it did that would be around 6.5 million

where is the rest coming from ?????

antoinolachtnai

The discrepancy and the changes in forecasts could have to do with accounting and financial management issues. Most importantly, I'd say it has to do with the depreciation. In my view, the books of Dublin Bus are tending to understate the profitability of the company, because the company straight-line depreciates vehicles over 8.5 years rather than the 15 or 17 years that a bus actually lasts for. (The reason the company is profitable is obviously because it receives a substantial subsidy and a capital grant. The capital grant for a bus paid for in 2009 will appear as income on the profit and loss over its supposed lifetime.)

Also, you have to keep an eye on the reserves (mainly the reserve for accidents) in the DB accounts.

Now just because the company can be shown to be profitable on paper doesn't mean that it actually has any cash. It doesn't. The profits and the reserves have been tied up in the fleet and other assets.

John_C

spareman wrote: »

Myself and a few of the other driver's in Donnybrook agreed that not one bus driver in the company would have introduced route 47 if we had been in the hot seat, but yet we must pay for these mistakes, these decisions are made in offices using statistics, They obviously looked at the figures and seen 50% of passengers getting on in stillorgan paid there fare to donnybook (€1.60) So therefore there would be good demand between stillorgan and donnybrook, but as us drivers know only too well, not all passengers are honest when it comes to paying the correct fare.

You obviously know the route better than I do but the 47 seems like a good idea to me. The 46A tends to fill up somewhere around Stillorgan in the mornings and then looses a good chunk of its passengers between UCD and Donnybrook. This leaves a 2 mile stretch of the N11 with effectively no bus service. Is it not a help to have a few extra buses on the busiest section of the route?

As an occasional passenger, it seems to me that there's room for cuts in Dublin Bus without affecting the level of service. Having the 46A turn around at D'Olier St like it used to and keep out of Monkstown Farm would probably save the equivalent of nearly a dozen buses which could be put to work on the main route bringing in fares.

meanmachine3

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The free bus pass is paid for out of the social welfare budget, not out of the transport budget.

I personally think the pass is a good idea

while the pass may seem a good idea it's also a joke. you have those in dublin that need photo i.d. with most of the passes issued here but if they're issued in any other part of the country you dont need photo i.d.
yesterday 2 people boarded my bus using a red pass ,to me something didn't seem right so i asked the one with the pass to show it to me .this pass didn't have any photograph on it( in all my years as being a bus driver i have never once pulled someone up over their s/w pass) ,with that they bailed of the bus as fast as they could and started waving me on. i told one my supervisors about what happened and he said it must have been stolen.

shltter

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The discrepancy and the changes in forecasts could have to do with accounting and financial management issues. Most importantly, I'd say it has to do with the depreciation. In my view, the books of Dublin Bus are tending to understate the profitability of the company, because the company straight-line depreciates vehicles over 8.5 years rather than the 15 or 17 years that a bus actually lasts for. (The reason the company is profitable is obviously because it receives a substantial subsidy and a capital grant. The capital grant for a bus paid for in 2009 will appear as income on the profit and loss over its supposed lifetime.)

Also, you have to keep an eye on the reserves (mainly the reserve for accidents) in the DB accounts.

Now just because the company can be shown to be profitable on paper doesn't mean that it actually has any cash. It doesn't. The profits and the reserves have been tied up in the fleet and other assets.

No It can't be explained by depreciation

End of August 2008 they forecast a loss of 16 million 4 months later it turned out to be 10 million

Depreciation would be known at the start of the year its not a surprise.

My suspiscion is that DB were playing up the loss in August and that is what they are doing now as well.

6 million is a huge difference it is the wage cost for 160 drivers
It is the combined DB surplus for the 3 years previous
It is over twice the cost of the National pay deal


In 4 months 6 million euro appeared and no one is asking DB where did it come from or were they lying in August and if they were how can you trust what they say now.

BTW the depreciation was a con trick they introduced in 1997 to make the company look in worse condition than it was they they damatically reduced the number of years that a bus was depreciated over this put a huge dent in the accounts for that year and let them argue that they needed cost saving measures.

antoinolachtnai

Actually, depreciation can sometimes be rescheduled quite easily. If the introduction of new buses is deferred into the next financial year, that will increase profit by 40k/bus, or 4m if 100 buses are involved. Another thing is profit from the sale of buses. The buses sold had a book value of zero, so selling 100 buses and getting EUR 30k each for them will give you 3 million in extra profit.

They could also have changed the depreciation policy.

Also, it is just possible that they could have done a bit better than they expected to revenue-wise.

Money can and does move in and out of the reserve.

A decision to change something on any of the fronts above could make a difference to the final profit figure.

(I am not trying to defend DB management here. As far as I am concerned this is all nutty.)

monument

Reform?...

EDIT: I guess I have to reformat it...

Dempsey publishes report setting out how to improve bus services

“Bus users deserve a better bus service and this report sets out how we can make that happen.” - Dempsey

26 January 2009

The Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey TD, today published a report on a cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann carried out on his behalf by a Deloitte led consortium.

Speaking today at the launch of the report Minister Dempsey said; “Bus users deserve a better bus service and this report sets out how we can make that happen. Never has there been a greater demand for quality public transport services yet bus passenger numbers are falling. Today I am setting out how I believe we can stop a further slide in bus passenger numbers by improving bus services at a time when CIE are facing enormous financial difficulties.

This report will act as a blueprint for a fundamental review and re-shaping of the current bus network in Dublin. This change process needs to start now. I have asked the Chairman of CIE to set out for me, within the next two weeks, an implementation programme of the report’s recommendations. Bus passengers want to see improvements in the bus network without delay and so do I. Business as usual is not an option for CIE in 2009.

This year I have made record funding available to CIE (€313m) at a time when money has never been more scarce. CIE is projected to incur losses in 2009 of up to €100m unless it makes changes now to grow passengers numbers and cut costs. With the help of this blueprint published today CIE can make real improvements to its services and attract more passengers. This report shows that Dublin Bus do not need more buses they just need to better use the buses they already have.”

The main recommendations of this report are as follows:

DUBLIN BUS
There is considerable scope for Dublin Bus to improve its service to customers, increase efficiencies and save money.

Specifically the report recommends the development of a simpler and more efficient bus network that can serve more customers more efficiently.

The report concludes that Dublin Bus has enough buses in its current fleet to service demand but it needs to use its fleet more efficiently.

Dublin Bus should act now to:

• Redesign its bus network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics (i.e. bus demand patterns have changed dramatically as the city has changed but the bus network has not changed adequately to meet that demand).
  
• Develop and market easy to understand routes and timetables.
  
• Improve reliability and reduce “bunching” of buses by creating even headways between bus departures and introduce intermediate running times.
  
• Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail centres (thus saving customers time).
  
• Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
  
• Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.

A detailed analysis by the consultants of the Finglas bus Corridor demonstrated how some changes by Dublin Bus to improve efficiencies on this route could deliver cost saving of €2.1m on that route alone.

BUS ÉIREANN
The report recommends that Bus Éireann should explore:

Further use of subcontracting to minimize costs

• Opportunities to combine bus services from multiple organizations (schools, Rural Transport Programme, conventional bus services, HSE services etc. )

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the company specific recommendations set out above, the report recommends the following:

• Provide better customer information at bus stops and through the rollout of real time information for customers (like the DART and LUAS).
  
• Accelerate bus priority programme and continue to eliminate bus “pinch points”.
  
• Introduce a car free “Bus Gate” at College Green to facilitate bus movement.
  
• Implement changes to the licensing regime and process.
  
• Provide greater clarity around government subsidised transport objectives.

Ends

REPORT HERE: (PDF) http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/final%20report%20bus%20review%20220109.pdf

Note for Editor
The following are other actions currently being pursued by Government to improve bus services for customers

• The Dublin Transport Authority (DTA) will be established later this year
  
• Record funding was provided for CIE this year (€313m)
  
• The current bus licensing regime is in the process of being overhauled to allow for a simpler, faster process for bus operators to gain route licences
  
• A programme to tackling 42 individual bus pinch points in Dublin city centre is underway
  
• A new system to fast track the deliver of Quality Bus Corridors will be introduced.

Carawaystick

nothing there about reforming fares to make prepaid more advantageous and reducing dwell times - probably the second biggest delay after chronic traffic