Dublin Bus Flat Fare?

bk

As we all know, it would be a major advantage if Dublin Bus dropped the fare stage system and move to a single flat fare, particularly in conjunction with smart cards. But I was wondering how much such a flat fare would be, so I did some back of the envelope calculations and I came up with some very interesting numbers.

Based on DB's last annual report (2009), they carried 128.3 million passengers and had €196 million in revenue, so looking at this in a very simplistic way [1] DB would have to charge just €1.53 if they were to switch to a flat fare system and remain revenue neutral. Not bad at all.

But what if they do what in London and set a higher flat fare for cash and a lower flat fare for smart card users. Well in London, 80% of users use smart card, so assuming the same here, if DB were to set the cash fare at €3 the smart card flat fare would only need to cost €1.15

So with a scheme like this, the vast majority of tickets prices would decrease, only people who use the city center 50c fare would see an increase.

And we would get a much easier to understand and attractive bus service with faster travel times due to reduced loading times.

[1] Obviously I'm making a lot of assumptions and simplifications:

1) That all revenue was from ticket sales, the vast majority is, but they also make money from other areas such as advertising etc.

2) That all other ticket sales switch to a flat fare and all the monthly/annual tickets, etc. were scraped. Which would be unlikely to happen, but not as mad as you might think. On an annual DB ticket, you would have to travel more then twice a day, every day or more then 4 times a day on every work day in order to make it cheaper then a €1.15, so in reality I'd imagine most people wouldn't bother with bus only monthly/annual tickets with such a cheap flat fare.

3) Doesn't take into account reduced price student fares.

On the other hand, with this much cheaper fare and improved travel times, I'd imagine DB would see a big increase in usage, which could offset the above loses.

So I think a €3/€1.20 cash/smartcard flat fare system for DB would definitely be achievable and in every ones interest:

- Commuters get cheaper tickets and an easier to use and faster bus service.
- DB drivers don't have to deal with as much cash anymore and can focus on driving and safety instead.
- DB drivers might also benefit from the likely increase in users as more buses and drivers might be needed, or at least less likely to be reduced further.
- DB management benefit from a more successful bus service.
- Everyone who lives in Dublin benefits from more people using buses and less cars on the road.

I really can't think why anyone would object to this?

LXFlyer

Problem is that there is a higher level of subsidy in London (funded by the congestion charge) and the subsidy in Dublin is decreasing.

The second problem is that passenger numbers have dropped significantly in the last year!

Whatever system comes in needs to be simple with minimal customer/driver interaction in order to speed up dwell times.

Victor

You really want people to move to annual tickets - it gives the user the best value and the transport organisations a secure income on which they can plan their services. It would also encourage people to use public transport as they have paid for it already.

For pay-as-you-go smartcards, depending on where you pitch each fare the percentage of people paying each of those fares will vary. €3 does seem a little high and €1.20 seems a bit low - that much of a difference and everyone will switch to smartcards and you won't have enough income.

dearg lady

A flat fare would definitely be great, so much easier! But I'd say it would be more than €1.15. I wonder how many of those 128.3 million passengers were paying passengers?

dearg lady

Victor wrote: »

You really want people to move to annual tickets - it gives the user the best value and the transport organisations a secure income on which they can plan their services. It would also encourage people to use public transport as they have paid for it already.

For pay-as-you-go smartcards, depending on where you pitch each fare the percentage of people paying each of those fares will vary. €3 does seem a little high and €1.20 seems a bit low - that much of a difference and everyone will switch to smartcards and you won't have enough income.

something more like 1.50/2.50 might be better. You'd still get people who don't regularly use the bus paying the higher fare.
I know with the London Oyster card, as well as paying the flat fare, you can also load a monthly ticket for example on to your oyster card , if that is better value

schemingbohemia

bk wrote: »

[1] Obviously I'm making a lot of assumptions and simplifications:

I think that's the one part in your post that's correct.

Sorry for being harsh but it's a lot more complicated than that. How much does Dublin Bus get from Social Welfare (or whatever they're called now) per passenger journey?

It's also very risky to assume that by reducing fares by X numbers will increase by Y. That leaves DB in a very precarious position if the predicted numbers don't increase, there's a whole amount of planning required into how many people they can actually transport with the resources they have at present, if you give them extra buses will they only be required for 4 hours a day is that good value?

I definitely agree with a large discount for smart card holders/large penalty for cash payers but getting the flat fare right is a very tricky thing to do.

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

Problem is that there is a higher level of subsidy in London and the subsidy in Dublin is decreasing.

The revenue numbers actually excludes the PSO subsidy. So it has little effect on my calculations. Yes, you might need to charge a little more for the flat fares, but this is no different then also having to charge more for the fare system. And don't forget, such a cheap price could lead to a big increase in usage and therefore utilisation.

Victor wrote: »

You really want people to move to annual tickets - it gives the user the best value and the transport organisations a secure income on which they can plan their services. It would also encourage people to use public transport as they have paid for it already.

While I can certainly see the attraction to DB, I don't see annual tickets being attractive to most commuters, the upfront cost is just too high.

Cheap and easy to understand and use tickets are more likely to drive public transport usage.

Victor wrote: »

For pay-as-you-go smartcards, depending on where you pitch each fare the percentage of people paying each of those fares will vary. €3 does seem a little high and €1.20 seems a bit low - that much of a difference and everyone will switch to smartcards and you won't have enough income.

And then you adjust the difference over time, remember even if 100% of people end up using smart cards, you would still only need to charge a flat fare of only €1.50 to be revenue neutral.

And this would actually be a really good thing as you could then completely do away with DB's cash handling costs, thus saving more money and the buses would load much faster.

dearg lady wrote: »

A flat fare would definitely be great, so much easier! But I'd say it would be more than €1.15. I wonder how many of those 128.3 million passengers were paying passengers?

No idea, I can only go on the numbers in the annual report and it certainly isn't supposed to be 100% accurate, just an exercise to come up for a rough figure. But you would also introduce this in conjunction with smart cards for social welfare passengers, so you could start coming up with more accurate numbers and start charging the government a more realistic fee for carrying these passengers while cutting down on fraud.

bk

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Sorry for being harsh but it's a lot more complicated than that. How much does Dublin Bus get from Social Welfare (or whatever they're called now) per passenger journey?

The revenue amount I quote, excludes the social welfare subsidy.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's also very risky to assume that by reducing fares by X numbers will increase by Y. That leaves DB in a very precarious position if the predicted numbers don't increase, there's a whole amount of planning required into how many people they can actually transport with the resources they have at present, if you give them extra buses will they only be required for 4 hours a day is that good value?

I said an increase in passenger numbers is a likely outcome in reducing and simplifying ticket prices (see Ryanair for example), but I actually don't include any projected increase in passenger numbers in my calculations. The figures I give are based purely on 2009 passenger numbers and revenue.

BTW even if buses only only used for 4 hours a day, it can still be good value, as long as you manage the driver cost correctly (split shifts, etc.) Remember the biggest cost after labour is diesel, which you wouldn't be using in the off hours anyway. And you wouldn't even need to buy new buses as DB is about to remove 120 buses under Network Direct.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I definitely agree with a large discount for smart card holders/large penalty for cash payers but getting the flat fare right is a very tricky thing to do.

Yet many other cities do it without issue. Hell, you don't even need to look at London, it is done in every other city in Ireland (Cork, Limerick, etc.).

bk

dearg lady wrote: »

something more like 1.50/2.50 might be better.

If you made the cash fare 2.50, then the smart card fare would only need to be 1.30 per my numbers.

Sure you can adjust the difference between the cash and card fare however you like. Personally I prefer giving it as wide a gap as possible as it would drive smart card take up more and all the resulting benefits of that and the cheaper you can make the card fare (at least initially), the more you are likely to drive increase numbers using buses.

dearg lady

Victor wrote: »

You really want people to move to annual tickets - it gives the user the best value and the transport organisations a secure income on which they can plan their services. It would also encourage people to use public transport as they have paid for it already.

For pay-as-you-go smartcards, depending on where you pitch each fare the percentage of people paying each of those fares will vary. €3 does seem a little high and €1.20 seems a bit low - that much of a difference and everyone will switch to smartcards and you won't have enough income.

bk wrote: »

If you made the cash fare 2.50, then the smart card fare would only need to be 1.30 per my numbers.

Sure you can adjust the difference between the cash and card fare however you like. Personally I prefer giving it as wide a gap as possible as it would drive smart card take up more and all the resulting benefits of that and the cheaper you can make the card fare (at least initially), the more you are likely to drive increase numbers using buses.

yeah, I know, but I'm makin an arbitrary adjustment for the large number of passengers who don't pay, or who would switch to the cheaper fair

Cool Mo D

bk wrote: »

If you made the cash fare 2.50, then the smart card fare would only need to be 1.30 per my numbers.

Sure you can adjust the difference between the cash and card fare however you like. Personally I prefer giving it as wide a gap as possible as it would drive smart card take up more and all the resulting benefits of that and the cheaper you can make the card fare (at least initially), the more you are likely to drive increase numbers using buses.

Your numbers don't account for people on annual/monthly/weekly tickets, who make as many journeys they like at no extra cost per journey.

Since it can be reasonable assumed that the people who buy these would otherwise be paying more on a per-journey basis, you will have to raise the cost of your individual fares to keep it revenue neutral.

I would suggest 1.60 / 2.50 personally.

There is always the possibility of zoned fares: maybe inside/outside the M50 with inside the M50 being 1.40 / 2.00 and outside being 1.80 / 2.50 or the like.

bk

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Your numbers don't account for people on annual/monthly/weekly tickets, who make as many journeys they like at no extra cost per journey.

You obviously didn't read my entire post, I did take this into consideration, with a €1.15 flat fare, I worked out that you would have to travel on a bus more then twice a day, every single day of the year (including leap days and Christmas day, etc., so in otherwords very unlikely) or more then 4 times a day every work day in order to make the annual commuter ticket work out cheaper. Even more so for monthly tickets.

Under those circumstances, I would imagine it would be cheaper for the vast majority of monthly and annual tickets holders to switch to a flat fare.

Obviously that is only for bus annual tickets, it might be a different story if combined with DART, etc.

Even if they don't switch, the amount of revenue taken from monthly/annual tickets being so close to my flat fare amount, means my calculation remains accurate, at least from this point of view.

Or to put it another way, an annual ticket works out at about €1.15 per trip anyway for most users, so it doesn't change my estimates and in fact it strengthens it as it indicates how much DB think a single trip should cost.

LXFlyer

The biggest problem in deciding on a flat fare is the fact that passenger numbers dropped last year and (I believe) are still dropping across all modes.

Personally I suspect that a zonal system for pay-as-you-go/cash passengers may be the preferred option as it is less risky than a single flat fare, but that has implications for dwell times as people will either have to tag on and off or tag the driver's machine.

There is no way that period passes will be scrapped - they are a very attractive option and any new system will be able to incorporate them. For those of us using the taxsaver scheme they provide a much more economic way of travelling around.

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

The biggest problem in deciding on a flat fare is the fact that passenger numbers dropped last year and (I believe) are still dropping across all modes.

Personally I suspect that a zonal system for pay-as-you-go/cash passengers may be the preferred option as it is less risky than a single flat fare, but that has implications for dwell times as people will either have to tag on and off or tag the driver's machine.

True, this is probably what conservative DB will do.

On the other hand, a more enterprising management might get this crazy idea that reducing prices and speeding the service up might actually increase passenger numbers!!

I mean the idea of increasing prices during a recession because passenger numbers are down seems like a self filling prophecy to me.

lxflyer wrote: »

There is no way that period passes will be scrapped - they are a very attractive option and any new system will be able to incorporate them. For those of us using the taxsaver scheme they provide a much more economic way of travelling around.

I actually wasn't suggesting scraping the taxsaver scheme, just that if you introduce a flat fare of about €1.15 or €1.20, the taxsaver scheme actually becomes more expensive for the majority of passengers. It only works out cheaper for a very small niche.

Specially if you were to make the flat fare a travel 90 type ticket.

bk

BTW I was under the impression that DB actually want a flat fare. The they previously tried to introduce it, but it was blocked by the Department of Transport.

jacko1

bk wrote: »

BTW I was under the impression that DB actually want a flat fare. The they previously tried to introduce it, but it was blocked by the Department of Transport.

I recall Labour proposing it before and we now have a designated Minister for Public Transport (Alan Kelly, Labour) so maybe it will finally happen. From what i hear he's young and very capable so hopefully he'll drag the dept into the 21st century

antoinolachtnai

It is a very interesting discussion.

However, some points of fact.

1. The average fare you have calculated includes childrens' fares, and the discounts people already get for using the various sorts of tickets. Some of the DB drivers should be able to give an idea of how many fares are children's fares. You would need to factor this into your calculation if you want to retain the distinction between child and adult fares and student discounts. (But perhaps it would be better to get rid of these?)

2. The average fare also includes social welfare. Social welfare payment is not a subsidy, it is considered regular revenue, as far as I know.

3. Some of these discounted fares are the result of using something like a rambler card to make a two-part journey. Again, you would need to factor this in to figure out a 'true' average fare. And you would have to decide if it was your priority to have a flat fare on buses or a multimodal single fare.

4. This is a bit of a by-the-by, but the subsidy has actually been increasing year-on-year, if you calculate on a per-customer basis. We also looked at the subsidy in London here before, and it isn't an awful lot higher than in Dublin, if you average it out per bus. The London situation is quite different too. (Remember, as well as the cash subsidy from the exchequer, there are also subsidies from two other sources - capital grants, which you can find in the accounts under depreciation and funds taken directly from other state owned businesses, i.e., DB's commercial services)

5. Integrated ticketing is an expensive system to run. It is currently budgeted at around EUR 6m and it could increase from there.

The biggest issue I see is one of who should pay for our public transport system. Under a flat fare arrangement people close to the city who travel few miles, would be greatly subsidising people in the outer reaches of the bus system. The relatively high fare that results will discourage these customers from using the system.

This might work well in a dense, compact city, but the Dublin Bus zone is actually massive. It would be a lot to expect to be able to get a bus from Donabate or Blessington to the other side of the city for 1.60 (or whatever). London is massive too, but the situation is a bit different, in that there is a good bit more density, and the whole bus strategy and has a strategiy context of needing to relieve demand from the highly subsidised Underground system.

Victor

I agree with a lot of what Antoin has said.

I would be wary of any big bang approach, given the law of unintended consequences and advocate a gradual shift over maybe 3 years.

---

If you are going for zones, I would consider something like the attached. The basic fare would be 2 increments (like the Stockholm Strippkart) and then each additional zone is one increment.

Red line = zone boundary
Heavy black line = railway
Light black line = electoral division boundary

Zones Fare increments Typical fare
1 2 €1.50
2 3 €2.00
3 4 €2.50
4 5 €3.00
5 6 €3.50

Alternatively, transfer the 33, 65, 66(?), 67(?) and 84 out of the zone system and operate them semi-express or on a different system.

CIE

I like the idea of "semi-express". Either that or designate such service as "express" and service that bypasses more points as "super-express". Major arteries should have some routes making all stops and some as "semi-express" or "limited-stop" anyhow.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It is a very interesting discussion.

Yes, as I said this is not meant to be 100% accurate, rather I did this as a thought exercise and to get debate going.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

1. The average fare you have calculated includes childrens' fares, and the discounts people already get for using the various sorts of tickets. Some of the DB drivers should be able to give an idea of how many fares are children's fares. You would need to factor this into your calculation if you want to retain the distinction between child and adult fares and student discounts. (But perhaps it would be better to get rid of these?)

Yes I admit my numbers don't include the student/child fares, and no I don't think they should be scraped as it would mean a big jump in fares for student/child.

Specially as children up to the age of 16 get to travel for free on buses in London!

However, if we were to move to a standard flat fare, then we should move to a system of you using a smart card with id for student/child fares, like they require in London. No cash student/child fares.

This would allow the system to continue with no intervention from the driver and the id would discourage fraudulent use.

Likewise the social welfare passes should be smart cards with id.

This leads to an interesting idea, should the student and social welfare smart cards then only work on the smart card reader by the driver so that the driver can keep an eye on them and ask to check the id if something doesn't look right?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

2. The average fare also includes social welfare. Social welfare payment is not a subsidy, it is considered regular revenue, as far as I know.

Yes, I'm not sure, I only took the revenue figure, there is a separate PSO payment, that I don't take into account. So I wasn't sure if the social welfare payment was included in the PSO or not?

However even if it isn't and it is included in revenue, isn't my numbers still correct, as this just indicates how much DB should be charging the Department of Social Welfare for each social welfare passenger carried.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

3. Some of these discounted fares are the result of using something like a rambler card to make a two-part journey. Again, you would need to factor this in to figure out a 'true' average fare. And you would have to decide if it was your priority to have a flat fare on buses or a multimodal single fare.

Personally I'd like to see this flat fare ticket be a 90 minute transferable or alternatively a daily cap like in London. Obviously this would need to be factored into the ticket price, but I'm still convinced it shouldn't cost much more.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

5. Integrated ticketing is an expensive system to run. It is currently budgeted at around EUR 6m and it could increase from there.

Is that just DB or spread across dart, rail and luas as well?

Also if we got rid of cash fares completely, how much money would be saved in cash handling, security and insurance?

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The biggest issue I see is one of who should pay for our public transport system. Under a flat fare arrangement people close to the city who travel few miles, would be greatly subsidising people in the outer reaches of the bus system. The relatively high fare that results will discourage these customers from using the system.

I was waiting for someone to bring up this argument

It is an old argument and not just about public transport, I've had this argument many times about telecommunication services like phone and broadband.

On the one hand it seems to make sense and be fair to charge people more who use the resource more. However often their can be hiding costs, that make it not worth while doing.

The hidden costs are pretty obvious on buses, they include increase administration costs and in particular the bus spending more time stopped at a bus stop then it otherwise would.

Also every time I've seen fixed pricing introduced I've seen a massive jump in the use of the service. I was personally involved with IrelandOffLine when we fought to get something called FRIACO to be introduced. This meant fixed cost internet access (per month) rather then per minute pricing. Literally within two months of it's introduction we saw a massive increase in Internet services in Ireland and Eircom cut the price of bb in half (€110 to €55 per month) and started rolling it out widely.

Do I know the same would happen on DB, honestly no. But I highly suspect you would see a significant increase in passenger numbers with an easy to understand, use and cheap single fare.

Victor wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what Antoin has said.

I would be wary of any big bang approach, given the law of unintended consequences and advocate a gradual shift over maybe 3 years.

The problem with a zonal system, is that you then still need to either tag on and tag off or talk to the driver. So you don't really end up getting the benefits of improved loading times with a flat fare and really it isn't all that different from the current stage fare system.

A zonal system doesn't really solve any of the problems.

Victor wrote: »

Alternatively, transfer the 33, 65, 66(?), 67(?) and 84 out of the zone system and operate them semi-express or on a different system.

CIE wrote: »

I like the idea of "semi-express". Either that or designate such service as "express" and service that bypasses more points as "super-express". Major arteries should have some routes making all stops and some as "semi-express" or "limited-stop" anyhow.

This would be a better idea then a zonal system. Basically you would just have a higher flat fare if boarding one of these routes.

It could work something like this, on these routes, outbound pay €2/€4 cash/card if boarding before the M50 and the normal flat fare of €1.20/€3 if boarding outside the M50. With the same in reverse.

I don't think you really want to make it a completely express service, what if someone at Drumcondra wants to go to Balbriggan, they should be able to wave down the bus, but obviously you don't want to encourage that for normal use. Perhaps don't allow dropping off of customers inside the M50 (when going outbound). So basically it operates as a semi-express service.

foggy_lad

A single flat fare wuld never work, people going to fairview would be subsidising the fares of those going to Balbriggan Skerries maynooth bray etc. what is needed is to keep the city centre fare at 50cent and move outwards in circular zones charging €2 €3 and €4. the zones should be colour coded so people know where they are starting and finishing their journey unlike with the absolutely nonsensical and obsolete stage fare system currently in place.

Aard

The main problem with smartcards and anything other than flat-fare for bus is enforceability. In the Netherlands, people were "tagging off" the busses before they actually got off in order to avoid a higher fare. To get around this, I guess you could make people tag off at the driver's door, but that's useless in terms of reducing dwell times.

Victor wrote: »

You really want people to move to annual tickets - it gives the user the best value and the transport organisations a secure income on which they can plan their services. It would also encourage people to use public transport as they have paid for it already.

AFAIK, in Dublin the annual card is 10 times the monthly card. This doesn't offer any real incentive imo unless you're really sure you're going to use it for the year. OTOH, in France the annual cards are generally 8 or 9 times the price of the monthly. I know there's subsidies and fares in general at play here, but for most people 2 months' free isn't enough if they're going to fork out several hundred in one go. Maybe a "season" ticket would work?

In addition, there was an MIT study of the London system after Oyster was brought in. Very few use annual passes, and they are mostly well-off people who aren't as price-sensitive. About the same numbers use monthly tickets. A lot of people, however, used weekly tickets, though not as many as those who used Oyster. It seems that even though it might work out as more expensive in the long run, a lot of people might prefer to use the smart card for a few euro here and there. This can also be seen in Hong Kong, where the average balance on the Octopus card is iirc roughly €5. People like carrying around a little cash on their card for impulsive trips.

Victor wrote: »

Alternatively, transfer the 33, 65, 66(?), 67(?) and 84 out of the zone system and operate them semi-express or on a different system.

Great idea. Something like an "urban" bus service and a "long distance" bus service.

bk

foggy_lad wrote: »

A single flat fare wuld never work, people going to fairview would be subsidising the fares of those going to Balbriggan Skerries maynooth bray etc.

Yeah, it would never work, just like it doesn't work in London or Cork or Limerick or any other hundreds of cities around the world with flat fares!!

As has been pointed out if you bothered to read my last post, a solution exists for the really distant destinations like Balbriggan, etc. by making them semi express services with a higher flat rate.

foggy_lad wrote: »

what is needed is to keep the city centre fare at 50cent and move outwards in circular zones charging €2 €3 and €4. the zones should be colour coded so people know where they are starting and finishing their journey unlike with the absolutely nonsensical and obsolete stage fare system currently in place.

And how would that reduce dwell time as you would still have to tag on and tag off or talk to the driver, so really no advantage over the current system?

antoinolachtnai

bk wrote: »

Yes, as I said this is not meant to be 100% accurate, rather I did this as a thought exercise and to get debate going.

I think the figure is going to be up around 1.90 for a flat fare by the time you are done, rather than 1.20 or 1.30.

Yes, I'm not sure, I only took the revenue figure, there is a separate PSO payment, that I don't take into account. So I wasn't sure if the social welfare payment was included in the PSO or not?

It is not part of the PSO.

However even if it isn't and it is included in revenue, isn't my numbers still correct, as this just indicates how much DB should be charging the Department of Social Welfare for each social welfare passenger carried.

The DSW is unlikely to agree to pay the full fare for its passengers, since it would need more budget.

Personally I'd like to see this flat fare ticket be a 90 minute transferable or alternatively a daily cap like in London. Obviously this would need to be factored into the ticket price, but I'm still convinced it shouldn't cost much more.

Then the fare would have to be a bit higher again.

Is that just DB or spread across dart, rail and luas as well?

Also if we got rid of cash fares completely, how much money would be saved in cash handling, security and insurance?

Yes, it is all the services. But DB is 65 or more percent of journeys in Dublin.

You probably can't get rid of cash fares completely. You would save about .5 percent in bank fees for the coins. You would save maybe one percent again at a guess in internal costs. And if you go to smartcard, you will have to pay a commission in the region of 2-6 percent on smartcard ticket sales. So there isn't that much saving.

It is an old argument and not just about public transport, I've had this argument many times about telecommunication services like phone and broadband.

On the one hand it seems to make sense and be fair to charge people more who use the resource more. However often their can be hiding costs, that make it not worth while doing.

The hidden costs are pretty obvious on buses, they include increase administration costs and in particular the bus spending more time stopped at a bus stop then it otherwise would.

The delay at stops is to do with the ticketing system rather than the fare.

Also every time I've seen fixed pricing introduced I've seen a massive jump in the use of the service.

Of course that will happen. There will be more customers, especially the more expensive passengers to deal with, i.e., out of town.

That's the problem. More users would mean more buses would be required. This drives up the cost base.

It's not quite like telecoms. The costs for peak services are much more variable.

Do I know the same would happen on DB, honestly no. But I highly suspect you would see a significant increase in passenger numbers with an easy to understand, use and cheap single fare.

I basically agree with you. However, this all costs money. If you cut fares in the areas that are expensive to serve and increase fares in the areas that are cheap to serve, you will end up with lots of demand, and no money to supply services to meet that demand.

The problem with a zonal system, is that you then still need to either tag on and tag off or talk to the driver. So you don't really end up getting the benefits of improved loading times with a flat fare and really it isn't all that different from the current stage fare system.

tagging on and off is really quick. It won't impact on boarding times that much.

I don't think you really want to make it a completely express service, what if someone at Drumcondra wants to go to Balbriggan, they should be able to wave down the bus, but obviously you don't want to encourage that for normal use. Perhaps don't allow dropping off of customers inside the M50 (when going outbound). So basically it operates as a semi-express service.

Everything in public transport is connected to everything else, but this is really a separate issue. I would not rely on improving or changing the routes as a basis for resolving the fare issue. You're not going to be able to serve outer suburbs with express services on a Sunday or late at night, say.

The real key to free up money to do some or all of the good ideas you put forward is to address operating costs of the services.

maggy_thatcher

bk wrote: »

While I can certainly see the attraction to DB, I don't see annual tickets being attractive to most commuters, the upfront cost is just too high.

Most people with annual tickets purchase them under the taxsaver scheme via their employer. This often means the cost is spread over 12 months, so it isn't hit that hard.

If we take just the pure Dublin Bus ticket -- that's €1000 currently. For those fortunate enough to be on the 41% tax bracket, this means they effectively only pay €480 (€690 for those in the 20% bracket). Paid monthly, this is €40/month (or €57.50/month). A €1.50 smart card fare would mean that they'd be paying €3.00 a day just for their work commute. As such, if on average they work more than 13 days (or 19 on low-tax) a month, they'd be better off with the annual pass. That also doesn't take into account the fact that the annual ticket also includes Nitelink, and the fact that some people like to catch the buses on weekends / leisure purposes outside their daily commute makes the fact that the annual passes are often the best way to travel on DB if you can get it under Taxsaver.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

True, this is probably what conservative DB will do.

On the other hand, a more enterprising management might get this crazy idea that reducing prices and speeding the service up might actually increase passenger numbers!!

I mean the idea of increasing prices during a recession because passenger numbers are down seems like a self filling prophecy to me.



I actually wasn't suggesting scraping the taxsaver scheme, just that if you introduce a flat fare of about €1.15 or €1.20, the taxsaver scheme actually becomes more expensive for the majority of passengers. It only works out cheaper for a very small niche.

Specially if you were to make the flat fare a travel 90 type ticket.

Firstly DB management do not have the final say in what system is used. That is down to the NTA and ultimately the Minister.

Secondly from what I could glean about the thinking behind this, where users make 2 or more bus trips within a certain time frame, then the smartcard fare will be higher than the single fare, but will still offer a discount over two single fares, with a cap being introduced equivalent to the price of a 1 day bus pass.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This might work well in a dense, compact city, but the Dublin Bus zone is actually massive. It would be a lot to expect to be able to get a bus from Donabate or Blessington to the other side of the city for 1.60 (or whatever). London is massive too, but the situation is a bit different, in that there is a good bit more density, and the whole bus strategy and has a strategiy context of needing to relieve demand from the highly subsidised Underground system.

You can get from Donabate to Blessington for EUR 1.85 using a Travel 90 ticket - assuming that you get to the city in 90 minutes!

Victor wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what Antoin has said.

I would be wary of any big bang approach, given the law of unintended consequences and advocate a gradual shift over maybe 3 years.

---

If you are going for zones, I would consider something like the attached. The basic fare would be 2 increments (like the Stockholm Strippkart) and then each additional zone is one increment.

Red line = zone boundary
Heavy black line = railway
Light black line = electoral division boundary

Zones Fare increments Typical fare
1 2 €1.50
2 3 €2.00
3 4 €2.50
4 5 €3.00
5 6 €3.50

Alternatively, transfer the 33, 65, 66(?), 67(?) and 84 out of the zone system and operate them semi-express or on a different system.

The 66 and 67 are now normal fare services.

The outer suburban fares apply only to routes 33, 33a, 65, 84 and 184.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think the figure is going to be up around 1.90 for a flat fare by the time you are done, rather than 1.20 or 1.30.

I would be inclined to agree with you that if there is to be a single flat fare, that it would have to be in the region of EUR 1.80 - EUR 1.90, with an additional outer suburban flat fare for routes 33, 33a, 65, 84 and 184 for journeys to/within the outer zone.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Everything in public transport is connected to everything else, but this is really a separate issue. I would not rely on improving or changing the routes as a basis for resolving the fare issue. You're not going to be able to serve outer suburbs with express services on a Sunday or late at night, say.

The real key to free up money to do some or all of the good ideas you put forward is to address operating costs of the services.

Your initial comment is absolutely correct - there is so much happening between the launch of the epurse smartcard, decision on fare structure, network redesign, the impact of AVLC and RTPI - all of these impact on the attractiveness of the service.

In relation to the period passes there has not been much mention of multi-mode passes - remember LUAS and Irish Rail have different fare structures to Dublin Bus and will continue to do so.

In London I'm pretty sure that period passes (weekly, monthly and annual) still represent a large proportion of regular users so I would not be so quick to diminish their attractiveness as a product.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I think the figure is going to be up around 1.90 for a flat fare by the time you are done, rather than 1.20 or 1.30.


The DSP is unlikely to agree to pay the full fare for its passengers, since it would need more budget.


Yes, it is all the services. But DB is 65 or more percent of journeys in Dublin.


That's the problem. More users would mean more buses would be required. This drives up the cost base.

Tagging on and off is really quick. It won't impact on boarding times that much.

Everything in public transport is connected to everything else, but this is really a separate issue. I would not rely on improving or changing the routes as a basis for resolving the fare issue. You're not going to be able to serve outer suburbs with express services on a Sunday or late at night, say.

The real key to free up money to do some or all of the good ideas you put forward is to address operating costs of the services.

Quite an excellent thread all round.

So much to mull over,but I find Antoin`s opinions to be generally well focused from an operators perspective.

Many people still fail to realize that the general availability of a €1.20 Bus Fare is an absolute steal,especially if it can be stretched a bit with some judicious over-riding.

Other threads on Boards in recent days have confirmed my observations that Dublin bus has rather suddenly and noticeably "grown a pair" in relation to Revenue Control.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056237905

Post #15 in the above thread is relevant.

This week alone I have witnessed 3 Revenue Checks in the City Centre which resulted in buses being held for inspection purposes.

A major part of the problem is that a laissez-faire attituide has become enshrined within Dublin Bus over the past 20 years which led people to believe that payment of the correct fare was entirely discretionary,as was/is possession of an appropriate pass.

The last official statistics I saw from the company put Fare Evasion (from memory) at below 2%.

Most Busdrivers reading that were somewhat underwhelmed and could be excused a mild guffaw.

However,the worrying aspect is whether or not Senior DB Management were formulating Business Plans on such dubious baseline figures.

Since the disappearance of regular Revenue Control Inspections in favour of "Blitzes",usually along QBC's the risks of detection became virtually nil for a serial evader.

Similarly the DSP Free Travel Scheme and it`s somewhat less than onerous requirements became an irrelevancy to most persons who considered themselves entitled to unrestricted Free Travel for themselves and their companion/s.

Now,as the State and it`s agencies face financial ruin,there is a sudden mad rush to claw-back on the principles which have always governed Public Transport in an attempt to stabilize the ship.

It's a high-risk strategy and is not going down well at all with the masses,but that is entirely due to slack management and a desire to be seen as "nice" or "all inclusive" even to those intent on abusing the services and systems we all need.

I have a personal attitude which,in simplistic terms,focuses my attention on serving those customers who do make the attempt to contribute to the effecticient operation of their service.

These people still make up the silent majority of customers,but it is they who are continually asked to take-the-hit as the gain`s they so assidiously strive to maintain are thrown away as we bend our systems over backways to facilitate an ever-expanding group of non-compliant,vexatious customers who'se self-centredness knows no bounds.

In simplistic terms it can be best illustrated by the individual boarding a bus on a wet,cold miserable day,grumbling about how long they're waiting,only then beginning the long fraught process of fumbling for change,whilst behind them a line of customers stand passively with rain dripping down their noses and the correct fare ready...even the Pre-Paid/Smartcard ticket holder must wait in line,as usually,our ill-tempered self-centred individual will have positioned themselves and their baggage in such a manner as to cause maximum restriction....this scenario can and does occur several times at busy stops on individual journeys,a fact which can be validated any day by standing along O Connell St and observing the busier routes such as the 16/A or 4,11,19/A.

This nonsense has to stop

In City Centre terms Dublin has taken great strides in managing it`s Traffic Flows and all credit should be given for that.

However,having made these improvements it beggars belief that we persist in a fare collection system designed for Two Person Operation,with a cheery old conductor whistling and singing his/her way around the bus to do the meeting,greeting and crossing the palm with silver tricks.

Zero Delay on Boarding should be the target.

Minimize those dwell times and the results will percolate down to the benefit of EVERYBODY.

There may even be something in the suggestion of making ALL Public Transport journeys DSP funded and eliminating all faffing about on boarding.

Remember those "lucky enough to have a job" are paying a "Universal Social Charge" after all,which could be construed as paying for those old "Social Services"......such as Public Transport

It would be a very interesting exercise to see exactly how the DSP accounts for it's Free Travel Scheme spending as it surely remains one of the great mysteries left in Irish Public Administration.....;)

bk

Hmm, interesting, so I was just reading on wikipedia about Oyster (London Travel Smartcard) and it seems cash usage on buses is now down to under 2% !! And they plan to phase out cash all together soon.

Interestingly they also plan on making the system compatible with all contactless credit and debit cards.

I based my numbers on a 20% cash figure, but that was back in 2005 it seems.

So based on my figures and a 2% cash, then it would have to be about €1.50, per my figures.

So yes, taking everything else into account (child fares, free travel passes, etc.) a fare of about €1.85 seems to be about correct.

This figure is pretty strongly supported by DB Travel 90 tickets costing €1.85, indicating that is the price DB think a flat fare would be.

However I think they could do a €1.65 flat fare, with a €2.50 to €3 cash fare at least for the first 2 or 3 years for the following reasons:

1) It took London bus a couple of years to go from 20% cash to 2% cash and London Bus actually had only 25% cash before Oyster was even introduced with very high weekly ticket usage. The reverse is true in Dublin, with the majority using cash here. So we would likely to see significant cash usage for a few years and this cash usage can help subsidise the lower smartcard fare, at least for the first 2 or 3 years.

2) It eliminates the widespread fraudulent use of cheaper fares (sometimes accidentally due to the horrific complexity of the stage fare system).

3) You could then remove/redeploy the revenue protection staff, as you wouldn't need them anymore, thus saving more money. After all everyone would be paying a flat fare, with the driver only having to keep an eye on social welfare and child/student users.

The problem of fraudulent use of social welfare and child/student users can be fought by making them use smart cards with id and only allowing them to use the card reader by the driver.

4) I believe an affordable flat fare, in conjunction with faster routes times (due to less dwell times) would significantly increase the use and therefore utilisation of DB, therefore more money for DB.

A flat fare also brings some interesting possibilities, such as a reduced off peak time flat fares, to encourage offpeak usage.

For instance a flat fare of only €1.20 if you use the bus between 11 and 3pm, etc.

I'm sure the ticket machines can be programmed to charge a lower fare during certain times of the day. Of course that is strictly possible now, but it would be far too difficult to handle at the moment due to all the different stage fares and cash.

Such a lower off peak fares could be limited to only smartcards, making it easier to operate and promoting the use of smart cards.

Also this all raises the question, should we then look at returning to rear door buses, to allow passengers to exit at the rear doors and thus further reduce dwell times?

I know this has an issue with people trying to sneak on the rear doors. But I've looked into it and it seems there exists CCTV systems that can detect people entering an exit door (rather then exiting). Such a system could trigger a loud alarm and send a picture of the offender to the driver, who could then ticket and/or throw off such offenders. Don't know how much such a system cost, it is actually relatively easy to do, but might be worth looking into?

foggy_lad

bk wrote: »

Yeah, it would never work, just like it doesn't work in London or Cork or Limerick or any other hundreds of cities around the world with flat fares!!

As has been pointed out if you bothered to read my last post, a solution exists for the really distant destinations like Balbriggan, etc. by making them semi express services with a higher flat rate.

And how would that reduce dwell time as you would still have to tag on and tag off or talk to the driver, so really no advantage over the current system?

We are talking about Dublin though not Cork or Limerick where the city busses are still operated by Bus Eireann instead of a seperate city bus company and where their range is limited by the size of the cities.

Yes i agree that busses to the farther flung suburbs should be semi-express but there should also be regular all-stops services to cater for those at intermediate points whose journeys could be lenghtened by at up yo 90minutes by having to go into the city centre to get a bus to Balbriggan Maynooth etc And making them a higher flat rate is the same as offering a different fare for a different transport zone of outer suburban.

no matter what bus you get onto you will have to tag on or interact with the driver but if only 50cent and 1/2euro coins are accepted and fares are 50cent, €2, €3 and €4 the driver if competant can with the co-operation of passengers board everyone in record times.

Victor

CIE wrote: »

I like the idea of "semi-express". Either that or designate such service as "express" and service that bypasses more points as "super-express". Major arteries should have some routes making all stops and some as "semi-express" or "limited-stop" anyhow.

In fact, the 33 should operate Skerries-Airport and then use the Port Tunnel. The 84 could do Kilcoole-Cherrywood, Stillorgan, Donnybrook-City Centre. Or people could be facilitated to use the train and such rediculous routes done away with.

Poking through Dublin Bus accounts and a document (20058 accounts) I found on the internet

Fares €160,000,000
Concessionary fares (Department of Social Protection) __20,000,000
Advertising ___5,000,000

---

Revenue €185,000,000
PSO Payment __60,000,000

---

Total €245,000,000
===========

Not including:
Taxsaver
Vehicles

Year Revenue PSO Sub-total
2004 177,553,000 61,810,000 239,363,000
2005 181,453,000 64,900,000 246,353,000
2006 189,272,000 69,845,000 259,117,000
2007 200,364,000 80,078,000 280,442,000
2008 203,668,000 85,629,000 289,297,000
2009 196,307,000 83,199,000 279,506,000
2010

Not including:
Loss/gain on disposal of tangible assets
Interest receivable
Contribution from the parent company
Release of provision for liabilities and charges

bk

foggy_lad wrote: »

We are talking about Dublin though not Cork or Limerick where the city busses are still operated by Bus Eireann instead of a seperate city bus company and where their range is limited by the size of the cities.

Hmm, I give you examples of cities that are both larger and smaller then Dublin that have flat fares, yet for some magical reason it can't be done in Dublin!!!

foggy_lad wrote: »

Yes i agree that busses to the farther flung suburbs should be semi-express but there should also be regular all-stops services to cater for those at intermediate points whose journeys could be lenghtened by at up yo 90minutes by having to go into the city centre to get a bus to Balbriggan Maynooth etc And making them a higher flat rate is the same as offering a different fare for a different transport zone of outer suburban.

God, you really don't read my posts, I've already given a solution to that problem.

Take the 33 outbound as an example.

You allow it to pick up passengers at all stops passed, however you have a higher flat fares for pickups inside the M50 (lets say €2.30 using smart card) and the normal flat fare outside the M50 (lets say €1.60 using smart card). Also you don't allow drop offs inside the M50.

This would allow people to wave down the 33 at any stop along the route, while discouraging use of it by anyone who isn't going outside the M50.

Obviously these buses should be clearly identified as such, perhaps with a completely different color scheme to normal DB buses.

Problem solved and you still have flat fares.

foggy_lad wrote: »

no matter what bus you get onto you will have to tag on or interact with the driver but if only 50cent and 1/2euro coins are accepted and fares are 50cent, €2, €3 and €4 the driver if competant can with the co-operation of passengers board everyone in record times.

No, with flat fares you would never have to talk to the driver, just tag on.

With stage or zonal fares you either have to:
1) Talk to the driver
2) BOTH tag on and tag off

I don't see why you can't see the difference and why the latter isn't much better then the current system.

1 above is exactly the same as the current system and with all it's disadvantages. 2 is little better as it will take people longer to get off the bus and people can't board until everyone gets off.

2 might be a little better if we had rear exit doors, people could tag off there then. But that has it's own problems as with a zonal or stage fare system, people might tag off at the rear exit reader early to avoid higher fares.

No if the objective is to reduce dwell times and speed up journey times, then the only possible way is a flat fare system. I simply can't see any other possibility.

Victor

bk wrote: »

foggy_lad wrote: »

A single flat fare wuld never work, people going to fairview would be subsidising the fares of those going to Balbriggan Skerries maynooth bray etc.

Yeah, it would never work, just like it doesn't work in London or Cork or Limerick or any other hundreds of cities around the world with flat fares!!

Those flat fare zones are rather small. In Cork it might cover 150,000 out of 280,000 people - the city, Douglas and Curaheen. All the routes to Midleton, Blarney, Carrigaline, etc. are stage fares.

My brother's stage is called "The Post Box" - there is no post box.

bk wrote: »

Yes I admit my numbers don't include the student/child fares, and no I don't think they should be scraped as it would mean a big jump in fares for student/child.

Realistically are €1 schoolchild fares Donabate-Blackrock (to attend private schools) fares justifiable, when Donabate-Malahide (Donabate doesn't have a secondary school so many students attend the schools in Malahide) is also €1.

Specially as children up to the age of 16 get to travel for free on buses in London!

There is a different government regime in the UK with local government much more responsible for education and transport (and other functions), so the system may be getting other money for those children.

However, if we were to move to a standard flat fare, then we should move to a system of you using a smart card with id for student/child fares, like they require in London. No cash student/child fares.

I agree, give every schoolchild a smartcard to avail of schoolchild fares. However, this would have some issues

This would allow the system to continue with no intervention from the driver and the id would discourage fraudulent use.

Likewise the social welfare passes should be smart cards with id.

This leads to an interesting idea, should the student and social welfare smart cards then only work on the smart card reader by the driver so that the driver can keep an eye on them and ask to check the id if something doesn't look right?

I think they should all go to Smartcards and be treated like any other passenger, with revenue protection being the primary means of intervention, not the driver checking every pass.

Personally I'd like to see this flat fare ticket be a 90 minute transferable or alternatively a daily cap like in London. Obviously this would need to be factored into the ticket price, but I'm still convinced it shouldn't cost much more.

Is that just DB or spread across dart, rail and luas as well?

Most users are a bit agnostic when it comes to public transport. They want to use what suits them and not be tied to single type or provider. While certain services, like airport, express and premium / first class might be kept separate, all standard services should be interchangeable.

Also if we got rid of cash fares completely, how much money would be saved in cash handling, security and insurance?

Modest, but real amounts. Having station, online and debit/credit card top-ups, like Irish Rail have would be important, so as to not lose money to vendors commissions.

Also every time I've seen fixed pricing introduced I've seen a massive jump in the use of the service. I was personally involved with IrelandOffLine when we fought to get something called FRIACO to be introduced. This meant fixed cost internet access (per month) rather then per minute pricing. Literally within two months of it's introduction we saw a massive increase in Internet services in Ireland and Eircom cut the price of bb in half (€110 to €55 per month) and started rolling it out widely.

While both are services, I think there are differences between telecoms and transport - you can't runa transport system at 20-40 times the nominal capacity!

The problem with a zonal system, is that you then still need to either tag on and tag off or talk to the driver.

I wonder if tagging off at the bus stop might be practical. I'm not sure if its ever used with a non-rail system.

It could work something like this, on these routes, outbound pay €2/€4 cash/card if boarding before the M50 and the normal flat fare of €1.20/€3 if boarding outside the M50. With the same in reverse.

I don't think you really want to make it a completely express service, what if someone at Drumcondra wants to go to Balbriggan, they should be able to wave down the bus, but obviously you don't want to encourage that for normal use. Perhaps don't allow dropping off of customers inside the M50 (when going outbound). So basically it operates as a semi-express service.

As above, the longer routes should be slightly outside the system.

bk

Victor wrote: »

I wonder if tagging off at the bus stop might be practical. I'm not sure if its ever used with a non-rail system.

I thought of and dismissed that idea. You would have to have power and comms going to every bus stop in Dublin, with resulting issues of maintenance and vandalism.

It would probably cost way more then just having a reasonable flat fare.

If we want to get the maximum benefit out of smart cards and reduce dwell times, I can't see any other feasible way other then flat fares.

Unfortunately I wouldn't be at all surprised if DB go with the most conservative option of just introducing an epurse with just a slight discount over cash fares and the need to tell the driver what fare you want.

So really no benefit over the current system and no reduction in dwell times, just a way for people to not have to carry change!! :mad:

And you know what, that is fair enough, it would probably be too much change to introduce both epurse smart cards and flat fares at the same time. It probably makes sense to roll out epurse smart cards first with the current stage fare system and work out the bugs first and let people get use to smart cards.

But then they should aim to introduce flat fares within 6 to 12 months after epurse smart cards, in order to get the full benefit out of smart cards and reducing dwell times.

Victor

Revised map below.

Aard wrote: »

The main problem with smartcards and anything other than flat-fare for bus is enforceability. In the Netherlands, people were "tagging off" the busses before they actually got off in order to avoid a higher fare. To get around this, I guess you could make people tag off at the driver's door, but that's useless in terms of reducing dwell times.

One option is to prevent tagging off when the bus is moving and to prevent tagging on when the driver knows there is an inspection team ahead. Again, you could have hte taggin off at hte bus stop.

AFAIK, in Dublin the annual card is 10 times the monthly card. This doesn't offer any real incentive imo unless you're really sure you're going to use it for the year. OTOH, in France the annual cards are generally 8 or 9 times the price of the monthly. I know there's subsidies and fares in general at play here, but for most people 2 months' free isn't enough if they're going to fork out several hundred in one go. Maybe a "season" ticket would work?

You also need to compare the annual ticket to the price of a single ticket.

Note that in France there is a PRSI-type system that part funds transport and that may be the reason that the annual ticket has a lower nominal price - but one is still paying the full price, just differently.

bk

Victor wrote: »

One option is to prevent tagging off when the bus is moving and to prevent tagging on when the driver knows there is an inspection team ahead. Again, you could have hte taggin off at hte bus stop.

Doesn't really help, the person could just tag off when the bus stops at an earlier stop.

This is academic anyway as most of DB's bus fleet doesn't have rear exit doors. So tagging off via rear doors would only gradually work as rear exit door buses are introduced over a 12 year period.

In the meantime, most passengers would have to tag off at the front of most buses, therefore causing delays.

Again tagging off at bus stops would be very expensive and error prone to maintain.

No, I don't see any other solution then flat fares, allowing for tag on only.

Aard

I don't really understand the idea of those taking short trips subsidising those taking long trips. In many other cities both bigger and smaller, there is a flat fare and people seem to get around OK.

For example, in France you can get a bus from Monaco to Cannes for €1. In Nice city centre, one bus stop will cost you €1. It's a flat fare over distances of 40km+ ! That's like having the same flat fare zone extended from Dublin to Drogheda! Having said that, Balbriggan is about as far as Drogheda, and I personally don't think it should fit in with the flat-fare structure. But certainly, anywhere within around 20kms of the city centre should qualify for the flat fare. If you reduced the ticket-validity to 60 minutes, you might eliminate some extreme cross-city travel.


It wouldn't be hard to operate a 2-zone system on the very few outer suburban routes. Like on the 84, the zone boundary would be just after Bray (wherever the outer suburban currently kicks in). Outbound, any smartcard "tags on" before Bray would only be valid as far as the zone boundary, and any "tags on" after the boundary would be valid until the end of the line. However, if you want to travel across the zone boundary, you have to buy a cash ticket, with a fixed fare of €3 or whatever the standard cash fare would be. Of course, one could avoid all that and just buy a weekly ticket.

It's not elegant, but for the few routes that operate very far out, it could be worth it.

antoinolachtnai

People keep saying that tag-on/tag-off is unworkable on a single-door bus. Obviously a double-door bus would be better, but where is the evidence for this?

There is an obvious big political issue with implementing a flat fare, if it means that you are going to increase the fare paid by people in Harold's Cross (say) by 50 or 60 percent.

That is apart from the financial headache of what you are going to do when the number of outer-edge journeys increase and the number of inner journeys massively decreases.

It is fine to compare to London or Cannes, but they have addressed the problem through having a far lower operating cost base.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

People keep saying that tag-on/tag-off is unworkable on a single-door bus. Obviously a double-door bus would be better, but where is the evidence for this?

Common sense.

Just think about it for a moment. People can't get on until you get off.
At the moment, people just walk straight off the bus. If they have to tag off, they will have to to break their stride to tag off and you have to check the machine that you actually tagged off.

You will then have the odd time when tagging off didn't work and you have to try a second time or talk to the driver.

You will also have the muppets who don't bother taking their card out to tag off until they reach the machine and will stand there fumbling in their bag/wallet for their card, keeping everyone waiting, just like they currently do when they board the bus (any frequent bus rider knows the type).

Taking all this into account it is common sense that it would take at least twice as long to disembark the bus if you had to tag off.

Now the question if tagging on and off would be quicker or slower then talking to the driver and tagging on, I don't know.

But common sense should tell you that talking to the driver + tagging on or tagging on and tagging off are both going to take significantly longer then a flat fare and tagging on only.

antoinolachtnai

Sure, that's fine as a thought experiment, but have you any actual evidence on what the time difference actually is? There is single-door Tag-on tag-off in the Netherlands, as far as I know, and also in some parts of Australia. Obviously it could cause a delay, but how big is the delay, really? You could put in a third smartcard reader to speed things up, if it would help.

bk

I've just come across this very interesting study into integrated ticketing and fares in Dublin from 2000 !!

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/2648-0.pdf

While the study is 11 years old, there is lots of really interesting information in it for those interested in integrated ticketing. It discusses almost all the issues we have been discussing here.

And it seems that DB/Luas/IR seem to be following it's recommendations exactly (IR having a closed system with gates to tag on and off, Luas having an epurse with tagon and off all off the trams, etc.), so it gives a good indication of what might happen going forward.

It seems Dublin Bus will go with an epurse where you have to talk to the driver and tell him the fare you want and then tag on

So there will be little difference with the current system and therefore little reduction in dwell times.

Also the report recommends rebates over a zonal system for integrated fares. So how it works is you get something like a 50c reduction for each additional leg of your journey.

So lets say you start on the DART and pay €2.20, when you get off at the dart station and board a bus, you ask for a €1.65 fare, but the smart card sees that this is a second leg of your journey and therefore only charges you €1.15 and so on for leg three, etc. of your journey.

The report accepts that this may reduce the revenue taken in by the operators and suggests this lose of revenue be made up from increased subsidy from government.

However in light of our current economic woes, I don't think this part of the report will get implemented, at least in the short term.

Some other interesting tidbits, DB did a survey of most other bus operators in Europe and found:

- The vast majority operate flat fares.
- In order to drive high take up of cashless tickets (over 80%), there had to be more then a 50% difference in price between the smartcard and cash fare.

Separately, I've heard, but not 100% sure if it is true, that the integrated epurse will work in the following way:

- There will be no cap shared across the operators, however each operator may operate it's own cap.
- For instance DB is planning to operate a cap based on it's existing tickets. So for example, if you take two bus journeys within 90 minutes, you will be charged for a travel 90 ticket, rather then two singles, even if you never bought a travel 90. Similarly you won't be charged more then a 1 day rambler ticket or a weekly rambler ticket. In other words you will always only be charged the cheapest ticket possible up to a weekly ticket. This is pretty fair IMO, just a pity it can't operate across operators.
- Unfortunately the monthly and annual tickets won't apply automatically like this, but they can of course still be bought and added to your card.
- It seems that the standard fares using epurse will offer a "reduction" over the current cash fares in order to promote take up. The epurse fares will equal the cost of the old cash fares before the increase in January. So €1.25 cash is €1.20 card, €1.65 cash is €1.60 card, etc.

Or to put it another way, the recent cash fare increase was a sneaky way of introducing a "reduced" smartcard epurse fare.

bk

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Sure, that's fine as a thought experiment, but have you any actual evidence on what the time difference actually is? There is single-door Tag-on tag-off in the Netherlands, as far as I know, and also in some parts of Australia. Obviously it could cause a delay, but how big is the delay, really? You could put in a third smartcard reader to speed things up, if it would help.

In both the Netherlands and Australia they have rear doors for exiting the bus, with card readers at the exit door. So it isn't comparable with DB. I don't know of any city that operates a tag-off system and only has front doors like DB, perhaps for obvious reasons.

antoinolachtnai

I understand that some buses in the Netherlands only have a front door. I understand that buses in Melbourne o ly open rear doors in stations.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I understand that some buses in the Netherlands only have a front door. I understand that buses in Melbourne o ly open rear doors in stations.

Jeepers Antoin,that just sounds SO Irish !!!!

I wonder if Boards.au is full of bronzed folks givin out about this ??

Aard

bk wrote: »

It seems Dublin Bus will go with an epurse where you have to talk to the driver and tell him the fare you want and then tag on

So it'll be pretty much the exact same as now. Slow and inefficient! The only thing different here is that DB are sure to get the exact money.

bk wrote: »

The report accepts that this [rebates for each leg] may reduce the revenue taken in by the operators and suggests this lose of revenue be made up from increased subsidy from government.

However in light of our current economic woes, I don't think this part of the report will get implemented, at least in the short term.

If this doesn't happen, then there is no such thing as integrated ticketing. It's more like integrated payment-method, while each operator has their own unique non-transferable tariffs.

bk wrote: »

- The vast majority operate flat fares.
- In order to drive high take up of cashless tickets (over 80%), there had to be more then a 50% difference in price between the smartcard and cash fare.

Seems about right. But with DB, allegedly, there'll be a saving of a whopping 5c! Granted, the daily/weekly caps will be in place so that's their only saving grace.


===


Great investigative work there Bk! What I take from it all is that IT is likely a myth, and that we're being sold a pup.

the groutch

imo, it has to stay in the same stage/stops system

if you introduced a flat fare, a huge amount of people who would normally pay a €1.15 will find just walk it instead

and with zones, one person could be go 7 or 8 stages and pay the lowest fare for staying within the same zone, they another person go 2 or 3 stages, but pay more because of going between two zones.

if you were to used prepaid cards, one way to do it is to have a machine for people to scan while waiting for the bus, so everyone can get on quickly, and then scan the card on the bus when getting off, and the card will know where you got on and off and deduct the fare, with those who didnt scan at the bus stop getting charged maximum fare

card only buses (can't pay by cash) should also be trialled during peak times on busy routes (eg 46a) imo

Aard

the groutch wrote: »

if you introduced a flat fare, a huge amount of people who would normally pay a €1.15 will find just walk it instead

I'd be happy if more people started walking the short trips. It means the bus stops less often, making the journey quicker and more comfortable.

the groutch wrote: »

and with zones, one person could be go 7 or 8 stages and pay the lowest fare for staying within the same zone, they another person go 2 or 3 stages, but pay more because of going between two zones.

What's wrong with that though? It doesn't really cost extra for DB to bring one person a few stages farther than somebody else. The bus is travelling the route anyway; it's almost like a sunk cost. The only time it gets expensive is when the bus is travelling through unpopulated areas and there is no possibily of people getting on.

I understand, in terms of the customer, that he's thinking he should pay less because he's not travelling as far. But is the relatively small differences in price of the stage system worth its complexity and inefficiency?

LXFlyer

the groutch wrote: »

imo, it has to stay in the same stage/stops system

if you introduced a flat fare, a huge amount of people who would normally pay a €1.15 will find just walk it instead

and with zones, one person could be go 7 or 8 stages and pay the lowest fare for staying within the same zone, they another person go 2 or 3 stages, but pay more because of going between two zones.

if you were to used prepaid cards, one way to do it is to have a machine for people to scan while waiting for the bus, so everyone can get on quickly, and then scan the card on the bus when getting off, and the card will know where you got on and off and deduct the fare, with those who didnt scan at the bus stop getting charged maximum fare

card only buses (can't pay by cash) should also be trialled during peak times on busy routes (eg 46a) imo

If people are paying €1.15 then they should be walking as the that fare is now €1.20!!!

That really is a very feeble argument - look at London - every bus journey is a flat fare of £2.20 cash, £1.30 oyster pay-as-you-go, with a daily cap of £4.00 if you are using the bus only.

Numerous routes in London travel long distances and they are all subject to the same fare. I haven't noticed any significant drops in bus usage as a result of the flat fare policy.

Aard

I get the impression that such gripes are not with the short-distance travellers paying too much, as it were, but with long-distance travellers paying too little.

bk

I think it is that most people in Dublin just aren't use to the concept of flat fares. I heard all the same arguments when we first suggested the introduction of flat fares for telecoms (why should I a light user subsidise heavy users). While I think we all know how that worked out (massive uptake almost straight after the introduction of flat fares).

I suppose I'm more use to the concept as I originally come from Cork. So used to flat fares. Wouldn't it be ironic that it BE got it's act together they could have significantly shorter dwell times then DB.

If you could make the flat fare €1.60, then the vast majority of users wouldn't pay more. Only €1.20 users would be effected and lets be honest, probably many if not most of them aren't really €1.20 users, they are probably really higher fare users fare dodging anyway.

As for honest, real €1.20 users walking (or cycling, dublin bikes) instead, that is actually a good thing. With public transport you want to discourage short journeys, particularly close to the city. That is why the LUAS tickets start high and increase gradually and why London zone 1 travel is by far the most expensive, to discourage short trips. You want to be carrying people from far outside the city center who have no other alternative (or the alternative might be car), not people for whom an alternative is walking.
Anyway walking is good for you.

So really the 50c and €1.20 fares are an anomaly in public transport and should really be done away with anyway. It just seems the Department of Transport don't have the balls to face any political criticism if they were to do this.

Anyway it is irrelevant for now, it seems DB are going to operate the exact same system as now, with you having to talk to the driver and therefore no reduction in dwell times :mad:

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

I think it is that most people in Dublin just aren't use to the concept of flat fares. I heard all the same arguments when we first suggested the introduction of flat fares for telecoms (why should I a light user subsidise heavy users). While I think we all know how that worked out (massive uptake almost straight after the introduction of flat fares).

I suppose I'm more use to the concept as I originally come from Cork. So used to flat fares. Wouldn't it be ironic that it BE got it's act together they could have significantly shorter dwell times then DB.

If you could make the flat fare €1.60, then the vast majority of users wouldn't pay more. Only €1.20 users would be effected and lets be honest, probably many if not most of them aren't really €1.20 users, they are probably really higher fare users fare dodging anyway.

As for honest, real €1.20 users walking (or cycling, dublin bikes) instead, that is actually a good thing. With public transport you want to discourage short journeys, particularly close to the city. That is why the LUAS tickets start high and increase gradually and why London zone 1 travel is by far the most expensive, to discourage short trips. You want to be carrying people from far outside the city center who have no other alternative (or the alternative might be car), not people for whom an alternative is walking.
Anyway walking is good for you.

So really the 50c and €1.20 fares are an anomaly in public transport and should really be done away with anyway. It just seems the Department of Transport don't have the balls to face any political criticism if they were to do this.

Anyway it is irrelevant for now, it seems DB are going to operate the exact same system as now, with you having to talk to the driver and therefore no reduction in dwell times :mad:

I would not read what is in the T21 document as being the bible on the subject. Time has moved on from when that document was prepared with the establishement of the NTA who do have a much greater customer focus.

There has been considerable debate I believe within the NTA, and with Dublin Bus on this topic so I would not certainly lose hope yet for some changes.

As a pedantic, but relevant, point, as I mentioned above you've several times suggested that DB decide on this - they don't - it is the NTA and the Department who have the final say on the fares structure. DB will obviously make their views known on a preferred system but do not make the final decision.

The key element of the epurse is that operators will retain revenues. Therefore whatever system is used must not in itself cause individual operator revenues to fall.

bk

lxflyer, true and I hope you are right.

Yes it isn't DB who have final decision on fares, it is the NTA now, however of course they have massive influence on it.

I believe flat fares can be introduced on DB in a revenue neutral manner. And flat fares on DB would be a massive improvement due to the reduction in dwell times.

However this in itself doesn't help with the other objective, integrated fares and travel, with some sort of reduction or capping across operators for multimode travel.

Unfortunately that is unlikely to be doable without some revenue lose to operators.

However I wonder could we see some increase in subsidies to support this. I know times are tough, but if we are not going to get DU and MN now, then it is imperative that we maximise the value in the existing services we have. A small increase in the subsidy to cover the cost of multimode travel savings would only be a small fraction of the cost of MN and DU, money that we won't be spending now.