Does Dublin Bus Need to Be Privatised Once & For All

SIX PACK

Like similar to other major cities where it works very well & you never have to worry about Drivers going on strike eg. London, Edinburgh, Madrid, Berlin, to name but a few

TINA1984

Nope

North London bus passengers face strike disruption.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20537585

Edinburgh

Capital chaos as bus drivers stage a wildcat strike


http://www.scotsman.com/news/capital-chaos-as-bus-drivers-stage-a-wildcat-strike-1-727196

fta93

How many routes would private owners actually want to take over though. Aren't only a small percentage profitable?

LXFlyer

Eh, in Edinburgh the main bus company (Lothian Buses) is owned by the local councils.

markpb

Edinburgh buses are operated by Lothian, which is owned by the three local authorities and not privatised at all.

Madrid buses are operated by EMT which is owned by the local authority.

Berlin buses are operated by BVG which is owned by the local authority.

London buses are only partially privatised - separate companies operate groups of bus routes but the timetables, fares, Oyster card, level of service, communication and branding is all owned and operated by TfL so it's invisible to the customer.

I'm sure there are good examples of privatised bus services out there, I just don't know any.

All this is beside the point. Whether you're for or against privatised bus services, the very major problems we have with Dublin Bus stem from central government, not the company that operates them. Ticket, timetables, starting time, ending time, night bus service, level of service, etc. None of those will be seriously changed by a private company because urban public transport requires heavy subsidies. If that's not present (which it isn't really right now), getting a private company in will make almost no difference.

Dravokivich

Privatisation isn't a magic wand. This is what, 3 days of strikes and the people are calling for it merely due to the buses not running? You hardly hear much of anything about Dublin Bus in the news unless there is some sort of dispute, threat of dispute or accident. Privatising it, does not mean employees will be less likely to strike.

LXFlyer

To be fair, there is a gradual process of change in Dublin, which, in my view, will ultimately lead to the NTA taking over the network management function from Dublin Bus (this has already started to a limited degree). This will include schedule design, provision of bus stops, provision of customer information etc.

Dublin Bus will ultimately be the bus operator (or a bus operator) as such, and will be responsible for providing the buses/staff to deliver the service dictated by the NTA.

The customer's main point of contact ultimately will be the NTA, but that is going to take some time to deliver.

Christ the Redeemer

Ha, yea that will totally make for a better service. all 3 remaining routes would be great!

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

To be fair, there is a gradual process of change in Dublin, which, in my view, will ultimately lead to the NTA taking over the network management function from Dublin Bus (this has already started to a limited degree). This will include schedule design, provision of bus stops, provision of customer information etc.

Dublin Bus will ultimately be the bus operator (or a bus operator) as such, and will be responsible for providing the buses/staff to deliver the service dictated by the NTA.

The customer's main point of contact ultimately will be the NTA, but that is going to take some time to deliver.

The problem there is there is no evidence the NTA are any more competent than DB or CIE or the DoT. Same problem, different more chiefs.

devnull

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The problem there is there is no evidence the NTA are any more competent than DB or CIE or the DoT. Same problem, different more chiefs.

To be fair whilst the NTA are not perfect, they are hugely better than what went before.

the_syco

If Dublin Bus gets privatised, most of the "bad areas" that like throwing stones at buses won't have buses no more.

There's a road that goes into Ballymun that scum would attack any buses going by, which would be cut.

You may remember buses not going into certain parts of north Finglas a few years back due to attacks? The entire area would be cut.

A lot of routes would be cut to once every two hours between ten in the morning and five in the evening.

devnull

It doesn't have to work that way, since what is being proposed is TENDERING now all out de-regulation where it is a free for all and is not something we should be looking for.

In a tendering system all tenders have to meet guidelines on frequency which are set by the NTA with penalties if they are not met. That way none of the things you suggest will happen.

If they don't meet the guidelines, they don't get the tender, and if they don't tender and only DB do, DB win the tender and everything stays the same, apart from the fact that there will be quality standards required built in.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The problem there is there is no evidence the NTA are any more competent than DB or CIE or the DoT. Same problem, different more chiefs.

I disagree - there is for the first time some accountability in terms of companies having to justify fares proposals, and there is now some transparency in that fare change determinations are now published, which we never saw before.

The companies now cannot willy nilly change services without the NTA reviewing them - that has to be in the customers' interests.

We are now seeing bus licences (and service approvals for BE/DB) being issued in a structured manner, rather than the non-existent haphazard manner of before.

We have finally got a national journey planner, which includes all operators.

Things are changing and I think to blithely write off the NTA just with a sweeping typed comment is frankly a little crude to be honest.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

Things are changing and I think to blithely write off the NTA just with a sweeping typed comment is frankly a little crude to be honest.

I think it's still too short a time-scale to truly see if they will be of any use long term but they have delivered some improvements in some areas to date, I'll certainly admit that. At the same time they have taken on a lot of what the DoT, DCC and CIE used to do. Have we seen reductions in staff in those organisations to offset the transfer of duties, certainly not common public knowledge that this has occurred so already a duplication of costs to the detriment of the taxpayer. This is one aspect that needs to be looked at. Didn't they also hand over review of the national cycling strategy to an openly cycle hostile entity in the NRA, not exactly a positive step from them either.

endacl

Ah sure, fcek it. Privatise everything. It'll all work better in private hands.

Virgin Trains anybody...?

bk

endacl wrote: »

Ah sure, fcek it. Privatise everything. It'll all work better in private hands.

Virgin Trains anybody...?

Luas, Aircoach, GoBus, Citylink, Swords Express, London Bus, anyone?

endacl

bk wrote: »

Luas, Aircoach, GoBus, Citylink, Swords Express, London Bus, anyone?

But they operate alongside public bus services, and very successfully. Which of those run a Sunday morning service to killenarden though?

LXFlyer

endacl wrote: »

But they operate alongside public bus services, and very successfully. Which of those run a Sunday morning service to killenarden though?

What he means is that managed properly, there is nothing to say that having bus services operated by private companies would be that bad a thing.

The key is that the NTA retain control over dictating required service levels and monitor performance closely and penalise companies for non-performance.

I'm not sure quite what your reference to Virgin Trains is? The West Coast fiasco was down to Department for Transport shortcomings. Virgin are viewed by most people as by and large doing a good job.

bk

endacl wrote: »

But they operate alongside public bus services, and very successfully. Which of those run a Sunday morning service to killenarden though?

There are hundreds of small private bus companies running scheduled services all over rural Ireland, all to places not served by BE, etc. They don't get the attention that the big operators get, but they are certainly there, serving the community, many of them for more then 30 years, e.g.:

http://www.loughswillybusco.com/
http://www.johnmcginley.com/timetable.html
http://www.feda.ie/site/
http://www.gallagherscoaches.com/Timetable.htm

Don't forget, there are 4 times as many private buses in Ireland as their are Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann fleets combined.

dfx-

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

Ha, yea that will totally make for a better service. all 3 remaining routes would be great!

This, pretty much.

Private companies will not run services that don't make money.

LXFlyer

dfx- wrote: »

This, pretty much.

Private companies will not run services that don't make money.

Route tendering is not the same as allowing an operator choose routes.

Polar101

My experiences with privatising city bus traffic are not very good - in my old hometown the service levels dropped, as the operators had to cut costs in order to stay competitive and win tenders. And strikes have been happening as well.

It also led to several different bus companies running the routes, so the standard of buses varies a lot. The city also has pretty strict rules for tendering, so it is easy to get fined for missed departures or non-environmentally friendly buses. As a result (others reasons apply) many of the operators have been in financial difficulties. You'd think the tendering rules would mean better service for passengers, but that hasn't been the case there.

MGWR

devnull wrote: »

To be fair whilst the NTA are not perfect, they are hugely better than what went before.

What exactly "went before"? and what did it go before?

And we've already seen plenty of evidence that increasing the centralisation/nationalisation results in worse service overall.

MGWR

bk wrote: »

Luas, Aircoach, GoBus, Citylink, Swords Express, London Bus, anyone?

Luas isn't private. The RPA is a government agency.

LXFlyer

MGWR wrote: »

Luas isn't private. The RPA is a government agency.

LUAS is operated by Veolia/Transdev, a private company, under a competitive tender issued by the RPA.

Macy0161

I lived through bus privatisation in Manchester. What remains is a much poorer service in most areas compared to what was there before privatisation. On a recent visit (similar to mentioned above) the same route had several bus companies running it - all seemed to terminate at different points along the route. Unless you were going a short distance it was totally confusing trying to get to what was, if you looked at the map, the actual final stop of the route.

London is mentioned as an example. I think there's a certain amount of it looking great from the outside/ on short visits. My relations in London wouldn't be that enamoured with how it's worked out compared to what was there before.

MGWR

lxflyer wrote: »

LUAS is operated by Veolia/Transdev, a private company, under a competitive tender issued by the RPA.

Still owned by the government. This kind of operation is the rail version of bus route tendering. If Veolia had to maintain alignment, stations, tracks, wires, vehicles et al completely out of the farebox, it'd be a different kettle of fish. Of course, the regulatory environment in Ireland (or the EU at large) does not allow for that kind of operation.

bmaxi

Privatisation of the bus service, while it would get rid of a lot of the restrictive practices and anti social behaviour, may not come at no cost to the taxpayer. I remember reading that when British Rail was in public ownership the cost to the taxpayer in subvention was only one third of the cost it is in private operation.

LXFlyer

MGWR wrote: »

Still owned by the government. This kind of operation is the rail version of bus route tendering. If Veolia had to maintain alignment, stations, tracks, wires, vehicles et al completely out of the farebox, it'd be a different kettle of fish. Of course, the regulatory environment in Ireland (or the EU at large) does not allow for that kind of operation.

The point is it is an example of a private company operating a public transport service. That was the point he was trying to get across.

That's what I would suggest is the model to be followed for the buses.

The NTA would own the buses, bus stops, and infrastructure, and the operators operate the buses. That's the extent of private involvement that I would like to see. The network, and schedules need to be managed by the NTA.

Certainly the deregulation as in the UK is a recipe for disaster.

Dravokivich

lxflyer wrote: »

Certainly the deregulation as in the UK is a recipe for disaster.

One thing I've noticed with the NTA, they look into what's failed and the impact of such failures when they are working on something. It's part of why they are slow, but I'd rather such consideration than going at something all in a hurry.

bk

The Luas is the most successful form of public transport in Ireland. It is the only form of public transport that has generally run at a profit and is almost universally loved by those who use it.

And it is run by a private company.

It is an excellent example of how a private company can run a very efficient, well operating and loved service and it pretty much blows out of the water any nonsense I read here about private companies not being able to run public transport successfully.

Yes the system is owned by the NTA, but all maintenance and running of the service is contracted out to private companies. The NTA also control, fares, scheduling, maintenance, etc. and ensure that the private company meets these standards.

It is pretty much the exact same model that we are proposing for the privatisation of the bus fleet too. The NTA will own the brand, website, bus stops and buses. They will then tender out the running of routes to Dublin Bus and other private companies, who will use these buses and bus stops to a schedule set out by the NTA.

It is pretty much the same model that has proved very successful with the LUAS and London Bus, I see no reason why it can't work for buses too.

Aircoach, Citylink, GoBus, etc. are all examples of private companies entering the market and offering services vastly superior to what BE and IR previously offered. Pretty much hourly, 24 hour non stop direct services to every city in Ireland. Here in Ireland we actually have numerous examples of private companies offering excellent public transport services.

DoesNotCompute

Macy0161 wrote: »

London is mentioned as an example. I think there's a certain amount of it looking great from the outside/ on short visits. My relations in London wouldn't be that enamoured with how it's worked out compared to what was there before.

Can you elaborate on this?

I lived in London for 4 years, and I found the bus service to be excellent. Some of the features of London Bus that set it apart from Dublin Bus, for example:

-A flat fare across the city, so you don't have to be messing around with change. It also minimises interaction with the driver, as he doesn't have to calculate your fare to issue a ticket

-Proper integrated ticketing with the rest of the public transport network

-Smart cards which can be loaded with spare change and weekly, monthly, or annual tickets simultaneously (so if you have purchased an annual ticket for zones 1 & 2, for example, and you occassionally travel outside of zones 1 and 2 to go to the airport, you can use the spare change that is also loaded on your card to cover trips that are not covered by your annual ticket). Also there is no "minimum" amount of spare change that must be loaded onto the smart card, as opposed to the €5 minimum with the Leap card.

-24 hour buses on some routes. The best Dublin Bus can do after midnight for Celbridge, for example, would be a nitelink at 00.00, 02.00, and 04.00. If you miss the 4am nitelink, you're pretty much screwed.

-Regular bus service literally every couple of minutes during peak hours

markpb

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Also there is no "minimum" amount of spare change that must be loaded onto the smart card, as opposed to the €5 minimum with the Leap card.

I think you misunderstand the €5 deposit. It's predominantly used for train and tram customers where they tag on (which removes the maximum fare) and then tag off (which refunds the difference). It's not a minimum load - it's a standard feature of transit cards. In fact, it's so standard, it exists on Oyster too.

I agree totally with the rest of your post though

Dravokivich

markpb wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the €5 deposit. It's predominantly used for train and tram customers where they tag on (which removes the maximum fare) and then tag off (which refunds the difference). It's not a minimum load - it's a standard feature of transit cards. In fact, it's so standard, it exists on Oyster too.

I agree totally with the rest of your post though

Topups on leap were in multiple of 5 right? I think this is what he's referring to.

Although, I've heard it doesn't seem to be set as such when topping up in payzone.

markpb

Dravokivich wrote: »

Topups on leap were in multiple of 5 right? I think this is what he's referring to.

Ah, my bad, you're right. Oddly enough, any time I topped up my Oyster card, I always assumed a £5 minimum even though no one ever specified it.

LuckyLloyd

bk wrote: »

The Luas is the most successful form of public transport in Ireland. It is the only form of public transport that has generally run at a profit and is almost universally loved by those who use it.

And it is run by a private company.

It is an excellent example of how a private company can run a very efficient, well operating and loved service and it pretty much blows out of the water any nonsense I read here about private companies not being able to run public transport successfully.

Yes the system is owned by the NTA, but all maintenance and running of the service is contracted out to private companies. The NTA also control, fares, scheduling, maintenance, etc. and ensure that the private company meets these standards.

It is pretty much the exact same model that we are proposing for the privatisation of the bus fleet too. The NTA will own the brand, website, bus stops and buses. They will then tender out the running of routes to Dublin Bus and other private companies, who will use these buses and bus stops to a schedule set out by the NTA.

It is pretty much the same model that has proved very successful with the LUAS and London Bus, I see no reason why it can't work for buses too.

Aircoach, Citylink, GoBus, etc. are all examples of private companies entering the market and offering services vastly superior to what BE and IR previously offered. Pretty much hourly, 24 hour non stop direct services to every city in Ireland. Here in Ireland we actually have numerous examples of private companies offering excellent public transport services.

LUAS currently has two routes.
Both routes are high volume and pre designed with profitability in mind.

Regarding London Bus services, Dublin Bus has successfully implemented a real time information system and is introducing buses that call out each stop electronically to passengers. Leap Card is in its early stages, but integrated ticketing will get there. With respect to night bus services, etc you can forget it. We're a much smaller city with a much different demand level. There is probably an argument for reintroducing some select nitelink routes that would be busy, but they were operating buses that had but a handful of passengers and cancelled the service on that basis.

Macy0161

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

I lived in London for 4 years, and I found the bus service to be excellent. Some of the features of London Bus that set it apart from Dublin Bus, for example:

Their main point is that it didn't need privatisation, and Dublin Bus wouldn't need it either to do the things listed. It was an ideological decision.

The London privatisation is heavily regulated though, which stands it apart from the likes of Manchester. I can only imagine the uproar from those looking to exploit privatisation, if privatisation was to happen but on similar terms to London.

LuckyLloyd

Plus, if we're talking the UK and privatisation, let's not ignore the national rail service disaster.

bk

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

LUAS currently has two routes.
Both routes are high volume and pre designed with profitability in mind.

Regarding London Bus services, Dublin Bus has successfully implemented a real time information system and is introducing buses that call out each stop electronically to passengers. Leap Card is in its early stages, but integrated ticketing will get there. With respect to night bus services, etc you can forget it. We're a much smaller city with a much different demand level. There is probably an argument for reintroducing some select nitelink routes that would be busy, but they were operating buses that had but a handful of passengers and cancelled the service on that basis.

I don't know why you commented my post and then proceed to post this, which has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point I was making, is that unlike what some people are claiming here, there are many examples of both small and large private operators operating very successful public transport services right here in Ireland.

So there is no reason to think that city bus services can't also be delivered in a similarly successful manner by private operators.

As to your second point, Dublin Bus did not successfully introduce RTPI, Leap Card or the new passenger announcement system. All of these projects are developed, lead and fully financed by the NTA, not DB. The 80 new buses with audio and visual announcements on them (and double doors *), were designed, speced and purchased by the NTA.

* A dead give away that these buses weren't speced by DB, as DB seem to hate double doors.

As for Nitlelink, I believe it should be scrapped and instead replaced by a core network running once a hour 24 hours, picking up passengers both inbound and outbound and at a regular cost (or regular cost + €1). I believe such a system would be far more successful then the Nitelink.

A private operator being introduced which takes 10% of the Dublin Bus routes might help with this. Such an operator with 100 coaches (roughly 10% of the DB fleet) might be interested in maximising the use of those coaches and offer to run an all night service along all the core DB routes, since DB aren't interested in doing it.

bk

Reading the document posted earlier, it is clear that the NTA are heading to a London Bus model, where the NTA take over the management of most aspects of the bus service, with Dublin Bus and private operators just operating the buses and routes.

In the Document the NTA say they will:

- Purchase the buses (they already purchased DB's 80 newest buses).
- Manage routes, specifying, schedule, frequency, etc. and penalties for not meeting performance.
- Take control of bus stops and shelters, standardising them with a consistent look and feel and make them multi-operator.
- Take control of fares and ticketing.

It is clear that the London Bus model is on it's way.

Losty Dublin

bk wrote: »

The Luas is the most successful form of public transport in Ireland. It is the only form of public transport that has generally run at a profit and is almost universally loved by those who use it.

And it is run by a private company.

Luas lost over €3 million in 2011 and 2012 while in 2010 it's operating profit/surplus was €2 milliion less than 2009. Indeed it is expected to run at a loss for the next 4-5 years based on RPA's estimations. It's a private company and it's now making a loss.

bk wrote: »

It is an excellent example of how a private company can run a very efficient, well operating and loved service and it pretty much blows out of the water any nonsense I read here about private companies not being able to run public transport successfully.

All Transdev/Veolia do is run the system provided to them. It isn't exposed to any exceptional costs or capital spending that other transport operators are, it was handed a new off the peg system that CIE designed and planned so it's far easier for it to run profitably. In 10 years time when it will need a lot of work done to it see how profitable it will be.

bk wrote: »

Yes the system is owned by the NTA, but all maintenance and running of the service is contracted out to private companies. The NTA also control, fares, scheduling, maintenance, etc. and ensure that the private company meets these standards.

It is pretty much the exact same model that we are proposing for the privatisation of the bus fleet too. The NTA will own the brand, website, bus stops and buses. They will then tender out the running of routes to Dublin Bus and other private companies, who will use these buses and bus stops to a schedule set out by the NTA.

The Railway Procurement Agency actually owns Luas, not the NTA. The NTA has rather little to do with it's operation bar monitor it's proposed services under the terms of the 2008 Dublin Transport Authority Act. NTA

bk wrote: »

It is pretty much the same model that has proved very successful with the LUAS and London Bus, I see no reason why it can't work for buses too.

Of course it can work. Private companies charged with running a service with low capital outlay and a subvention regardless of if it makes a loss or not. A win win situation if ever. Stagecoach's management must be licking their lips at the idea

bk wrote: »

Aircoach, Citylink, GoBus, etc. are all examples of private companies entering the market and offering services vastly superior to what BE and IR previously offered. Pretty much hourly, 24 hour non stop direct services to every city in Ireland. Here in Ireland we actually have numerous examples of private companies offering excellent public transport services.

Nobody doubts it that private companies can offer good service. You do have to wonder why there are not as many similar operators running buses around our cities or rural areas.

bk

The Luas started making a loss after the Luas was extended out towards Saggart and Brides Glen, what are basically ghost estates. It was government interference to help their developer buddies out that has made the Luas temporarily loss making.

It is notable that Luas is expected to be profitable again once the Luas Cross City line opens, getting it back to where it should be, operating through densely populated locations.

The Luas receives no operating subsidy unlike DB, BE and IR. So even if it is now slightly loss making, that is still far more successful then the CIE companies who receive massive subsidies and still manage to makes losses much greater then Luas.

The RPA manage the Luas daily, but it is actually licensed by the NTA. Really the RPA should be subsumed into the NTA like was originally planned.

Losty Dublin

bk wrote: »

The Luas started making a loss after the Luas was extended out towards Saggart and Brides Glen, what are basically ghost estates. It was government interference to help their developer buddies out that has made the Luas temporarily loss making.

It's factually incorrect to say that as the line extensions have not caused revenues to fall. Yes they have added to operational costs and cost it money but based on the massive drop in revenue and profit in 2010, losses were on their way.

bk wrote: »

It is notable that Luas is expected to be profitable again once the Luas Cross City line opens, getting it back to where it should be, operating through densely populated locations.

More to do with guesstimated economic recovery and anticipated additonal journeys. It will take in more monies but at what operational cost?

bk wrote: »

The Luas receives no operating subsidy unlike DB, BE and IR. So even if it is now slightly loss making, that is still far more successful then the CIE companies who receive massive subsidies and still manage to makes losses much greater then Luas.

The RPA manage the Luas daily, but it is actually licensed by the NTA. Really the RPA should be subsumed into the NTA like was originally planned.

The RPA subsidise the losses of running the Luas so it is state subsidised and will be any year that it records a loss. Comparing it to CIE is not objective as CIE runs many loss making services, has 1.1 million passengers whom it can't charge fares for, 3,000 buses and trains to maintain, 1,600 miles of railway track and bridges and stations to keep in good nick. It isn't like for like on so many levels.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

I don't know why you commented my post and then proceed to post this, which has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point I was making, is that unlike what some people are claiming here, there are many examples of both small and large private operators operating very successful public transport services right here in Ireland.

So there is no reason to think that city bus services can't also be delivered in a similarly successful manner by private operators.

As to your second point, Dublin Bus did not successfully introduce RTPI, Leap Card or the new passenger announcement system. All of these projects are developed, lead and fully financed by the NTA, not DB. The 80 new buses with audio and visual announcements on them (and double doors *), were designed, speced and purchased by the NTA.

* A dead give away that these buses weren't speced by DB, as DB seem to hate double doors.

As for Nitlelink, I believe it should be scrapped and instead replaced by a core network running once a hour 24 hours, picking up passengers both inbound and outbound and at a regular cost (or regular cost + €1). I believe such a system would be far more successful then the Nitelink.

A private operator being introduced which takes 10% of the Dublin Bus routes might help with this. Such an operator with 100 coaches (roughly 10% of the DB fleet) might be interested in maximising the use of those coaches and offer to run an all night service along all the core DB routes, since DB aren't interested in doing it.

Just to correct you slightly. I think it is important that the record be straightened, as I think in this case you are doing Dublin Bus quite a disservice.

For all the faults that DB may have, they were actually quite forward thinking. They had tested on-street RTPI back in the late 1990s on the 25a and 78a routes, but the government pulled the plug on the funding for the control system just when they were ready to launch, which then meant that they had to rely on a radio based system for a decade due to the AVM system being life expired.

Subsequently, Dublin Bus did get funding, and did all of the procurement and development work on the AVLC system that provides their information for the RTPI. Without it there would be no RTPI for Dublin Bus.

That involved procuring the software and GPS and depot equipment, and subsequently developing the full schedules that provide the predictive times for every single bus departure.

This facilitated the provision of RTPI on both the Dublin Bus website and their app.

For once someone did however realise that it would be worthwhile having the on-street facility available for all operators. Hence this task was given to Dublin City Council, until that part of DCC was subsumed into the NTA.

The NTA took the responsibility for the provision of back end computer systems that enables the on-street RTPI and allows it to feature all operators information (if they provide the data).

So it's not really fair to suggest that Dublin Bus were not responsible - the lions share of the work was done by them to get the system up and running.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

The Luas started making a loss after the Luas was extended out towards Saggart and Brides Glen, what are basically ghost estates. It was government interference to help their developer buddies out that has made the Luas temporarily loss making.

It is notable that Luas is expected to be profitable again once the Luas Cross City line opens, getting it back to where it should be, operating through densely populated locations.

The Luas receives no operating subsidy unlike DB, BE and IR. So even if it is now slightly loss making, that is still far more successful then the CIE companies who receive massive subsidies and still manage to makes losses much greater then Luas.

The RPA manage the Luas daily, but it is actually licensed by the NTA. Really the RPA should be subsumed into the NTA like was originally planned.

I would think the sharp downturn in passenger numbers also contributed significantly to the fact that LUAS was left in a loss making situation.

dfx-

bk wrote: »

The Luas is the most successful form of public transport in Ireland. It is the only form of public transport that has generally run at a profit and is almost universally loved by those who use it.

And it is run by a private company.

It is an excellent example of how a private company can run a very efficient, well operating and loved service and it pretty much blows out of the water any nonsense I read here about private companies not being able to run public transport successfully.

Yes the system is owned by the NTA, but all maintenance and running of the service is contracted out to private companies. The NTA also control, fares, scheduling, maintenance, etc. and ensure that the private company meets these standards.

It is pretty much the exact same model that we are proposing for the privatisation of the bus fleet too. The NTA will own the brand, website, bus stops and buses. They will then tender out the running of routes to Dublin Bus and other private companies, who will use these buses and bus stops to a schedule set out by the NTA.

It is pretty much the same model that has proved very successful with the LUAS and London Bus, I see no reason why it can't work for buses too.

Aircoach, Citylink, GoBus, etc. are all examples of private companies entering the market and offering services vastly superior to what BE and IR previously offered. Pretty much hourly, 24 hour non stop direct services to every city in Ireland. Here in Ireland we actually have numerous examples of private companies offering excellent public transport services.

Luas, Aircoach don't drift off non-profitable routes do they..and cut routes at will do they not? I don't see Aircoach or Citylink running a coach from Rialto to Blackrock.

What if a private company gets route 114, 18, 56A, 17A, 239, 270 and it doesn't make them money. Do you think they'd stick around?

LXFlyer

dfx- wrote: »

Luas, Aircoach don't drift off non-profitable routes do they..and cut routes at will do they not? I don't see Aircoach or Citylink running a coach from Rialto to Blackrock.

What if a private company gets route 114, 18, 56A, 17A, 239, 270 and it doesn't make them money. Do you think they'd stick around?

To be fair - it would be a bundle of routes that would be tendered for.

devnull

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Nobody doubts it that private companies can offer good service. You do have to wonder why there are not as many similar operators running buses around our cities or rural areas.

Because any new entrant to such services needs to compete on some level with a company which is granted free buses and PSO that makes it nearly impossible for them to make a route break even let alone anything else, so to compare a non subsidized private operator with a subsidized public operator is nonsense, since of course the later will always be able to operate thinner services, because of that subsidy.

dfx- wrote: »

Luas, Aircoach don't drift off non-profitable routes do they..and cut routes at will do they not? I don't see Aircoach or Citylink running a coach from Rialto to Blackrock.

What if a private company gets route 114, 18, 56A, 17A, 239, 270 and it doesn't make them money. Do you think they'd stick around?

Well the only reason Dublin Bus are on some of the thinner routes is because they get PSO, so saying Dublin Bus don't abandon routes and private operators do is not a fair comparison, since one gets most of it's vehicles paid for by the taxpayer with subvention, whilst the other one has to pay for everything themselves. If Dublin Bus was made to operate without any PSO then they'd operate a lot less routes also.

I don't think anyone is asking for all out deregulation, we're asking for competitive tendering, and that is something that gives the company no control over timetables in any case, so it's irrelevant.

Losty Dublin

devnull wrote: »

Because any new entrant to such services needs to compete on some level with a company which is granted free buses and PSO that makes it nearly impossible for them to make a route break even let alone anything else, so to compare a non subsidized private operator with a subsidized public operator is nonsense, since of course the former will always be able to operate thinner services, because of that subsidy.

Okay so it's Dublin Bus's fault......

devnull wrote: »

Well the only reason Dublin Bus are on some of the thinner routes is because they get PSO, so saying Dublin Bus don't abandon routes and private operators do is not a fair comparison, since one gets most of it's vehicles paid for by the taxpayer with subvention, whilst the other one has to pay for everything themselves. If Dublin Bus was made to operate without any PSO then they'd operate a lot less routes also.

Now it's the market's fault as well.

The reason why routes and services are subvented is because most of them don't make money. Dublin Bus have stripped and stripped, saved and redesigned routes and free buses and PSO and RTPI and Leap yet it still doesn't make money.

Imagine the level of service we'd have if it was subvented as well as it's contemporary companies in other cities in Europe?

devnull

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Okay so it's Dublin Bus's fault...... Now it's the market's fault as well.

I never spoke of any fault, I just said why it was.

There is a lot of stuff on here saying private operators won't do something because it doesn't pay and Dublin Bus will, but neglect to mention the subsidy part of it, which of course is going to be necessary, is why Dublin Bus are doing it in the first place. I don't argue that subsidy isn't needed, but my point more is that whoever runs a service is going to need subsidy of some kind on the thinner routes, that level of subsidy obviously depends on the business costs and how efficient it is.

The reason why routes and services are subvented is because most of them don't make money. Dublin Bus have stripped and stripped, saved and redesigned routes and free buses and PSO and RTPI and Leap yet it still doesn't make money.

You honestly believe that Dublin Bus the height of efficiency? I certainly don't and we've seen pages on the other thread of workers saying management are heavily overpaid, if that is the case then the cost base could be brought down which will save money which could be better used elsewhere. The higher your costs the worse the net result at the end of the day, since costs are directly in

There are also operational changes that can be made, there are buses out there with two sets of doors that could easily be used at most stops where it is clearly safe to do so. I accept that the doors should not be used when it is not safe or practical to do so. Instead you will see a bus sit at a stop for up to five minutes where the infrastructure is there to allow safe double door opening whilst everyone filters off through one door, and only then do people start to get on the bus.

The dwell time at stops is terrible during peak, you can easily have more time on a bus dwelling than actually moving through the traffic through the core corridors on a city center. Dwell times in other countries are much less and I hope that is something that is going to be dealt with in the near future, since dwell time is a major problem on Dublin Bus, and if you can eliminate that there will be money to be saved since you could reduce the number of buses needed to run a timetable, which would generate savings.

bk

lxflyer thanks for your very interesting post about DB's heavy involvement in the development of RTPI, they certainly deserve praise for that, in particular their early work on such a system.

I'm not sure I'd give as much praise for the implementation of the modern system. After all when they finally implemented it, all this technology was already mature and pretty much off the shelf, having been implemented in other countries years ago.

As to Luas profitability, here is the profit/loss of Luas since it opened:

2002 460,000
2003 780,000
2004 680,000
2005 985,000
2006 5,153,000
2007 7,771,000
2008 8,893,000
2009 4,463,000
2010 2,587,000
2011 -258,000
2012 -1,600,000
Total 29,914,000

So for 9 of the 11 years of it's existence, Luas has been profitable and even with the losses of the last two years, it is still way in the black over it's lifetime and the loses are being paid out of the previous years surpluses, so zero cost to the taxpayer.

And all of this on top of receiving zero operating subsidy from the government.

To put this in perspective, last year, Dublin Bus received 70 million operating subsidy, an additional 5 million in emergency government funding and yet they still managed to make a loss of almost 6 million!!

As for the reason Luas is making losses, as I said it is due to the extensions to the lines. In fact in 2011 Luas carried the most passengers it had ever to that date and again in 2012 they topped that figure again.

From the 2011 Annual report:

During 2011 the Infrastructure Business
reported a deficit before interest and tax
of €3.3m (2010 surplus €1.1m) as costs of
extended services to Cherrywood and Citywest
exceeded the revenues generated by these
new routes.

From the 2012 Annual report:

Although this result
represents an improvement on our forecast it is
substantially the same as 2011, as the higher revenue
and cost savings were offset by the additional
cost of operating the Luas Citywest extension. The
cost savings initiatives introduced progressively
throughout 2012 will have a greater impact on results
for 2013.

So the losses Luas made aren't due to recession, in fact they are making more revenue and carrying more passengers then ever before, but rather to the extensions they were forced to make to developers ghost estates.