Public Transport may collapse in 2013 says Varadkar

Judgement Day

Heard this on Newstalk today:

Leo Varadkar’s warning that the public transport system will collapse next year if the CIE group doesn’t get its house in order.

The Transport Minister says €36 million in extra funding is still available for the company this year, but he’s “running out of pockets”.

The Minister has ordered CIE to develop a realistic business plan, implement cost reductions, sell-off non-core assets and secure new credit facilities.

Leo Varadkar says the very survival of the public transport network depends on it.

Audio link:
http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/featured-5-slideshow-homepage/top55-varadkar-warns-of-public-transport-potential-collapse/

Jawgap

Not all public transport is provided by the CIE Group of companies

CIE

Judgement Day wrote: »

Heard this on Newstalk today:

Leo Varadkar’s warning that the public transport system will collapse next year if the CIE group doesn’t get its house in order.

The Transport Minister says €36 million in extra funding is still available for the company this year, but he’s “running out of pockets”.

The Minister has ordered CIE to develop a realistic business plan, implement cost reductions, sell-off non-core assets and secure new credit facilities.

Leo Varadkar says the very survival of the public transport network depends on it.

Audio link:
http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/featured-5-slideshow-homepage/top55-varadkar-warns-of-public-transport-potential-collapse/

Varadkar's just a hatchet man; another re-run of the 1960s. He has to go.

yosser hughes

Jawgap wrote: »

Not all public transport is provided by the CIE Group of companies

You're right. Luas is public transport but does not receive any state subvention.
Publically owned but privately operated.

Atlantic Dawn

Why doesn't he just sack the lot of them running the company at the top with the usual generous public service golden handshake and start fresh with a new team with a proven track record. The public doesn't deserve to be given a poorly run service, most recent example of which is the 4 carriage DARTs at peak times while the spare carriages sit idle at the depot.

murphaph

CIE wrote: »

Varadkar's just a hatchet man; another re-run of the 1960s. He has to go.

What will his going achieve? Will it magic up millions of Euro we don't have to pay for an inefficient behemoth to carry on as before?

The state should not be in the business of driving buses anywhere really. The state's role should be limited to regulation of the system, tendering routes and controlling integrated ticketing and fares, like TfL does in London. The buses should be all run by private companies who must tender for routes.

CIE has NEVER had to face economic reality. It is more of a jobs club than a public transport provider.

Jawgap

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Why doesn't he just sack the lot of them running the company at the top with the usual generous public service golden handshake and start fresh with a new team with a proven track record. The public doesn't deserve to be given a poorly run service, most recent example of which is the 4 carriage DARTs at peak times while the spare carriages sit idle at the depot.

I don't think the entire problem is at the top of the company, it's in their cost structure and staff costs - much of which is driven by work practices that are out-moded and geared more towards the convenience of the staff than the travelling public.

I think they should be radically slimmed down - left only to provide socially desirable but economically unjustifiable services - all the other routes and services should be franchised out.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

I think they should be radically slimmed down - left only to provide socially desirable but economically unjustifiable services - all the other routes and services should be franchised out.

You don't even need them for those, you just tender all the routes you want served and if an unprofitable one is there (in reality most routes are unprofitable if we just look at the fare box and not the wider benefits to the economy of having fewer private cars on the road etc.) then it's there. The state agrees to pay x to a firm for route y and all fares are collected and go to the state to be used for paying for all the routes, sub venting as necessary.

The tenders would usually be bundled, so an operator would be tendering for a set of routes, which he'd have to serve to the standard agreed with the state. The state would then impose financial penalties on the operator for poor punctuality (within their control) and so on. It is nothing new, it's done all over the world.

dowlingm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Why doesn't he just sack the lot of them running the company at the top

because you have to have money to pay severance (since you will also have to hire replacements)

But then labour/employment law is not a strong suit of this forum.

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

Varadkar's just a hatchet man; another re-run of the 1960s. He has to go.

Replace tweedledum with tweedledee. That'll help.

kieran4003

I see the usual CIE bashing is going on anyway in this thread and some of the comments coming from the usual anti CIE division of this board are not worth responding to.

What I will say is this. Mr. Varadkar would want to rethink what he is saying as the biggest problems in CIE are due to the government.
1. Cutting the subvention year on year with rising fuel costs and expecting the same services.
2. Handing out far too many Free travel passes and expecting CIE to carry the burden.
3. Abolishment of the fuel rebate.
4. Politicans interfering in CIE like Alan Kelly & the Nenagh line.

CIE

murphaph wrote: »

What will his going achieve? Will it magic up millions of Euro we don't have to pay for an inefficient behemoth to carry on as before?

The state should not be in the business of driving buses anywhere really. The state's role should be limited to regulation of the system, tendering routes and controlling integrated ticketing and fares, like TfL does in London. The buses should be all run by private companies who must tender for routes.

CIE has NEVER had to face economic reality. It is more of a jobs club than a public transport provider.

Why tendering routes? Private companies are too "stupid" to determine what routes should be run? You don't think that a private company could succeed, for example, by restoring a bus route that Network Direct cut in Dublin? And why controlling fares?—is the concept of private bus companies "undercutting" by charging a lower fare but providing the same quality that frightening?

The reason Varadkar's got to go is because he is another hatchet man for the state. Get the state out of it and money can appear from the private sector. I don't see Varadkar doing this, in this instance; otherwise I would be on the side defending him.

dowlingm wrote: »

because you have to have money to pay severance (since you will also have to hire replacements)

Not if they are transferred to other (non-state) companies to do similar kind of work. Then they can go whatever way they deserve, by attrition (most likely self-attrition).

dowlingm wrote: »

Replace tweedledum with tweedledee

That's not what I said.

Nevertheless, if Varadkar is a mere "Tweedledum", it does verify the "hatchet man" scenario.

Sponge Bob

I thought that €36m was to pay for redundancies anyway

gbob

kieran4003 wrote: »

I
4. Politicans interfering in CIE like Alan Kelly & the Nenagh line.

And as a recent example is the restructuring of certain expressway services cutting running times by removing stops that are not revenue generating, only for the local councillor/td to get dragged in and put pressure on BE to have them reinstated.

You can't have a transport company being told they have to be self sufficient while expecting them to carry on providing services into every one horse town in the country.

CIE

gbob wrote: »

And as a recent example is the restructuring of certain expressway services cutting running times by removing stops that are not revenue generating, only for the local councillor/td to get dragged in and put pressure on BE to have them reinstated.

You can't have a transport company being told they have to be self sufficient while expecting them to carry on providing services into every one horse town in the country

Well, they certainly do not do that anymore. Lots of "one-horse towns" with no BE service that used to have it; but what didn't save that was the lack of through service (e.g. service terminating in Garristown instead of going on to Drogheda or suchlike).

the groutch

from the Dublin Bus perspective, cutting routes and upping the cost by approx 20% within a year isnt exactly going to win you new customers.

mdebets

CIE wrote: »

Why tendering routes? Private companies are too "stupid" to determine what routes should be run? You don't think that a private company could succeed, for example, by restoring a bus route that Network Direct cut in Dublin? And why controlling fares?—is the concept of private bus companies "undercutting" by charging a lower fare but providing the same quality that frightening?

For public transport to succeed in a city, you need a coherent branding and fare structure. You don't want to end up with 10 different companies competing on 5 different routes with 20 different fare structures. The current fare structure of DB is too complex and should be made easier.

Public transport has also other goals than making money. You want to take cars off the street for various reasons.
To achieve that, you have to accept, that not all of the routes are profitable. If you would get private companies to just run the routes they want, they just take the profitable ones and the non-profitable ones are either left to the state (at overall larger costs than today, because the profits from the profitable routes are missing) or not provided at all.

For the public transport system to work and if you want to include private companies, you really need a following structure.
One central authority, that decides, which routes and which frequency is needed and the fares. This authority collects all fares.
They then tender the routes out to private companies for a fixed price with penalties, if they don't reach the service level defined. The authority can then cross-subsidy the loss-making routes with the profit-making routes and it wouldn't make a difference to the private companies if they tender for a loss or profit-making route, as they are getting a fixed price, independently of how much money the route collect in fares.

Trampas

The way things are going buses will only ever run at peak times because every other time of the day they would be making a loss.

I agree DB needs to have a flat fare or something or zones like the luas

OurLadyofKnock

Ah, was wondering when he would say this. I suspect he already has a slew of tenders behind the scenes.

The opening salvo of a long overdue war. Not that I am taking sides other that the PT user, but this volitile reaction has to explode at some point. Looks like he's opened the pressure valve to see what happens.

This guy knows CIE Unions/Mgt have no public support and the only thing that kept them going was the distraction of the Tiger years - when most people were deluded. Now public sector workers are going through a rough time. The ones that still have jobs.

Interesting times ahead.

OurLadyofKnock

mdebets wrote: »

For public transport to succeed in a city, you need a coherent branding and fare structure. You don't want to end up with 10 different companies competing on 5 different routes with 20 different fare structures. The current fare structure of DB is too complex and should be made easier.

Public transport has also other goals than making money. You want to take cars off the street for various reasons.
To achieve that, you have to accept, that not all of the routes are profitable. If you would get private companies to just run the routes they want, they just take the profitable ones and the non-profitable ones are either left to the state (at overall larger costs than today, because the profits from the profitable routes are missing) or not provided at all.

For the public transport system to work and if you want to include private companies, you really need a following structure.
One central authority, that decides, which routes and which frequency is needed and the fares. This authority collects all fares.
They then tender the routes out to private companies for a fixed price with penalties, if they don't reach the service level defined. The authority can then cross-subsidy the loss-making routes with the profit-making routes and it wouldn't make a difference to the private companies if they tender for a loss or profit-making route, as they are getting a fixed price, independently of how much money the route collect in fares.

and at what point has CIE ever delivered this, suggested this or even indulged this?

The system would probably end up more integrated if it fell apart and random chance came into play.

Private operators would have a vested interest in integration as it feeds them customers. CIE does not want customers, it wants jobs for the lads.

The only thing that CIE has ever perfectly integrated was Barry Kenny's lips moving in perfect synch with him talking rubbish.

HydeRoad

kieran4003 wrote: »

1. Cutting the subvention year on year with rising fuel costs and expecting the same services.

Where is the money to come from?

kieran4003 wrote: »

3. Abolishment of the fuel rebate.

Where is the money to come from?

Lapin

Judgement Day wrote: »

The Transport Minister says €36 million in extra funding is still available for the company this year, but he’s “running out of pockets”.

He seems to forget that those are our pockets.

Dravokivich

Trampas wrote: »

The way things are going buses will only ever run at peak times because every other time of the day they would be making a loss.

I agree DB needs to have a flat fare or something or zones like the luas

The zones suit luas because they are on tracks going through defined routes.

It'll be quite a bit of work to plan out zones for bus routes, as there's the possibility for 1 to have a long stretch in one zone, while another cuts through a few zones in a short distance.

It'll be much fairer for them to be ranged by distance as mentioned by Bk before, if the fare structure is to be amended and have staggered rates, as opposed to flat fare. That way the fares will be uniform throughout the network.

Grandeeod

kieran4003 wrote: »

I see the usual CIE bashing is going on anyway in this thread and some of the comments coming from the usual anti CIE division of this board are not worth responding to.

What I will say is this. Mr. Varadkar would want to rethink what he is saying as the biggest problems in CIE are due to the government.
1. Cutting the subvention year on year with rising fuel costs and expecting the same services.
2. Handing out far too many Free travel passes and expecting CIE to carry the burden.
3. Abolishment of the fuel rebate.
4. Politicans interfering in CIE like Alan Kelly & the Nenagh line.

For a start the anti-CIE view goes way way beyond this forum. It is ingrained in our culture. The average Joe on the street will be critical. Why? Because CIE is a national joke. It represents poorly run public transport, rude staff, a begging bowl approach to running a business and an arrogance derived from its 60 plus years in existence. All my life I have heard criticism of CIE and I'm no wipper snapper.

The Government certainly do contribute to the problems in CIE, but they are by no means the biggest problem. Perhaps thats the way CIE staff feel, but to the customer/observer its a very different story. But I do agree with you that there should be less political interference (WRC is probably the biggest example) and the free travel pass issue should be addressed.

IMO the CIE model has failed. Its a negative brand and in the real world a negative brand is extremely bad for business. In railway terms, the IE brand within the group has done nothing to improve public perception as the traditional failures of CIE still persisted. I completely understand how staff and transport enthusiasts continue to defend CIE, but I prefer to look at it from a business point of view, therefore the CIE group is a shambles and it won't matter what you cut, save or reform. It has to go and the public must be given a positive replacement devoid of all the traditional CIE failures.

OurLadyofKnock

Dravokivich wrote: »

It'll be quite a bit of work to plan out zones for bus routes, as there's the possibility for 1 to have a long stretch in one zone, while another cuts through a few zones in a short distance.

All you do is define the zones according to distance tavelled and not actual pin-point geographic reality. Easy.

This is the problem with CIE - They seek to over complicate everything from costing for TGV level infrastruture when reopening a rail line - any rail line - to making a HUGE song and dance over moving a bus stop and a milllion other basic things which they turn into eternal sagas.

murphaph

Dravokivich wrote: »

The zones suit luas because they are on tracks going through defined routes.

It'll be quite a bit of work to plan out zones for bus routes, as there's the possibility for 1 to have a long stretch in one zone, while another cuts through a few zones in a short distance.

It'll be much fairer for them to be ranged by distance as mentioned by Bk before, if the fare structure is to be amended and have staggered rates, as opposed to flat fare. That way the fares will be uniform throughout the network.

Zones don't have to be made up of simple concentric circles if there are many routes "skirting" around a single zone.

In any system, there will be people who "just about" have to pay more because of zonal boundaries and people who "just about" pay less. It'll never be perfect tbh, though a very accurate system could be developed for commuters using tag on tag off technology that would bill them to the metre, completely ignoring the zonal system, which could be just there for occasional users (or just land them with a hefty flat charge as in London, to discourage people from paying cash on the bus at all). Tourists could buy leap cards that they can return for their deposit back or whatever. It's all doable really, but none of it will be done under CIE.

IMO the agency charged with managing fares etc. should not be CIE nor anyone connected to CIE. CIE should be wound up completely. I do accept that it is not just the fault of the company-there has been far too much political interference in CIE down the years but it doesn't excuse the way it has been run entirely.

Victor

Tendering for all PSO routes and possibly all routes (including privately operated ones) is already on the way for 2014-2015.

Trampas wrote: »

The way things are going buses will only ever run at peak times because every other time of the day they would be making a loss.

Not quite.

Providing no off-peak services is less profitable than providing peak-time only services, as you have assets and staff that are doing nothing and you have dead-running from terminus to depot.

kodoherty93

I heard recently that there is over 1.1 million free travel passes. Do old people really need free transport, maybe some do so means test the system. But do it in such a way that only a old person that is at the risk poverty benefits.

But its ridculous that a student only gets a 25% discount on an adult ticket, where in most countries its half the price and children travel free.

Its time that the old people start paying for a service that they use but dont pay anything

doubletrouble?

kodoherty93 wrote: »

I heard recently that there is over 1.1 million free travel passes. Do old people really need free transport, maybe some do so means test the system. But do it in such a way that only a old person that is at the risk poverty benefits.
Its time that the old people start paying for a service that they use but dont pay anything

here is where most of you are mis-informed about the types of people using the so called free passes. most of the people carried for free on public transport using the free passes not pensioners. they are people under 66 using either legit or dodgy social welfare passes with the dodgy ones being on the increase big time. if fact most if not all dogy passes are actually social welfare passes and not the pensioners ones.
http://www.welfare.ie/en/schemes/freetravel/Pages/default.aspx

Judgement Day

Quite apart from the fact that most OAPs have paid taxes all their working lives and thus are entitled to their 'free' passes, it's some thing of a major red herring and would have very little impact on the moribund state of CIE's finances. If you were to means test it, I suspect that it would show that the bulk of well-off people choose to drive their mercs rather than fight for a seat on Irish Rail/BE and Dublin Bus. Buses rather than trains is the cry of detached, over paid economists and the like who rarely if ever mix it with the great unwashed on public transport. Incidentally, what property does Varadkar expect CIE to sell? Has nobody told him about the property crash. :rolleyes:

dowlingm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that most OAPs have paid taxes all their working lives and thus are entitled to their 'free' passes

I want to stop you there JD. By what basis do you maintain that "most OAPs" paid sufficient taxes that a reward of free travel for the rest of their lives is an appropriate entitlement? Why should they pay ANY ESB, telephone etc? Why not free food and the free run of any hotel in the country? Why not medical care equivalent to whatever the best VHI plan is?

My parents are hitting retirement age now so god knows I'd like to see them get a lot of free stuff but I think it's fair to ask where the line is drawn and whether free travel is on the prudent side of it.