NTA Statistical Bulletin on Commercial Bus Services in Ireland

Iwannahurl

The National Transport Authority has today (September 4, 2014) published its first Statistical Bulletin on Commercial Bus Services in Ireland.

Previously, the Authority reported on services in the Greater Dublin Area. However, this Bulletin compiles full-year (2013) data from all 124 operators in Ireland with active licences – a 100% return.

These comprise the private bus operators and Bus Éireann’s Expressway service.

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/the-role-played-by-commercial-bus-services-in-ireland/

cdebru

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/the-role-played-by-commercial-bus-services-in-ireland/

Interestingly 24% of journeys were on the free travel scheme on commercial services, given that not all private operators accept the free travel pass, and people aren't always aware that some private operators do accept it, 24% is huge. Gives some idea of the scale of use in the semi state sector of public transport and how seriously underfunded it is.

Iwannahurl

I haven't studied the issue, so I'm not familiar with the stats.

WRT 24% of trips being on the free travel scheme, could it be the case that the proportion is so high because of relative underuse of PT by people who don't qualify for free travel?

Clearly a free travel pass is an incentive, which influences people's travel choices.

devnull

Bus Eireann Expressway is also included in Commercial stats remember.

cdebru

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't studied the issue, so I'm not familiar with the stats.

WRT 24% of trips being on the free travel scheme, could it be the case that the proportion is so high because of relative underuse of PT by people who don't qualify for free travel?

Clearly a free travel pass is an incentive, which influences people's travel choices.

I'm sure it is an incentive and if everyone had one we would need more buses and trains to carry everyone. It is also true that there is a significant cost in carrying so many of your passengers for such a small return that the real cost is being borne by the fare paying passengers which in turn puts off fare paying passengers and exacerbates the problem.

cdebru

devnull wrote: »

Bus Eireann Expressway is also included in Commercial stats remember.

Your point being ? that BE expressway free travel usage is even higher than 24% presumably no wonder the company is in such dire straits.

Vic_08

cdebru wrote: »

Interestingly 24% of journeys were on the free travel scheme on commercial services, given that not all private operators accept the free travel pass, and people aren't always aware that some private operators do accept it, 24% is huge. Gives some idea of the scale of use in the semi state sector of public transport and how seriously underfunded it is.

24% of journeys but FT payments account for less than 14% of revenue.

for PSO services FT payments account for 12.5% of revenue, the % of FT journeys is not listed but it is a good bet that it will be significantly higher than the 24% that use commercial services.

One major caveat with all these figures is that the 25 BE Expressway routes would comprise the largest operator in the commercial group.

Unfortunately these statistics leave more questions than answers due to their anonymised nature. A full breakdown by operator, route and type of service would be far more revealing but I assume that DoT/NTA are still hiding this information from the taxpayers under the auspices of commercial sensitivity.

The inclusion/omission of RTP figures for various tables is a massive fudge. IMO this should be listed seperately as it is barely part of the national network at all due to the manner in which it is operated and the lack of information available for non-locals. It also skews figures due to the very high PSO per journey/passenger km and low revenue.

devnull

cdebru wrote: »

Your point being ? that BE expressway free travel usage is even higher than 24% presumably no wonder the company is in such dire straits.

My point was that if you take them out of that bundle, the number would probably go down a few percentage points.

Vic_08

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't studied the issue, so I'm not familiar with the stats.

WRT 24% of trips being on the free travel scheme, could it be the case that the proportion is so high because of relative underuse of PT by people who don't qualify for free travel?

Clearly a free travel pass is an incentive, which influences people's travel choices.

Does that not closely mesh with the % of residents who are covered by the FT scheme? Figures listed here are around the 25% mark aren't they?

What this actually says about usage because of the scheme is debatable and tbh the statistics given do not give enough information to make any worthwhile conclusions about that.

What is clearly highlighted is the disgraceful manner in which operators both state and commercial are being used to prop-up a section of the social welfare budget. How many other industries in the state are expected to use their own resources to subsidise government department spending? Not to mention the ancillary damage to their product carrying FT recipients causes.

AngryLips

Vic_08 wrote: »

What is clearly highlighted is the disgraceful manner in which operators both state and commercial are being used to prop-up a section of the social welfare budget. How many other industries in the state are expected to use their own resources to subsidise government department spending?

Builders in the construction industry are mandated to provide a certain percentage of social and affordable housing so it's not exactly unique. The Government has also mandated the provision of broadband in uneconomical areas under the national broadband scheme so it exists there too.

Iwannahurl

Vic_08 wrote: »

What is clearly highlighted is the disgraceful manner in which operators both state and commercial are being used to prop-up a section of the social welfare budget. How many other industries in the state are expected to use their own resources to subsidise government department spending? Not to mention the ancillary damage to their product carrying FT recipients causes.

The most important word in the term "public transport" is "public". Free or subsidised transport for older people and other groups provides very important social and health benefits, and greater use of public transport benefits everyone:

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/twenty_first_century.pdf

http://www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf

Vic_08 wrote: »

Not to mention the ancillary damage to their product carrying FT recipients causes.

Is that a can of worms being opened?

Iwannahurl

Vic_08 wrote: »

Unfortunately these statistics leave more questions than answers due to their anonymised nature. A full breakdown by operator, route and type of service would be far more revealing but I assume that DoT/NTA are still hiding this information from the taxpayers under the auspices of commercial sensitivity.

I would certainly like to know much more about specific routes. In Galway I often see empty or nearly empty buses surrounded by a sea of cars carrying only one or two occupants. Just recently, on the car-clogged school run, I spotted an empty bus just 100 metres from a primary school. It would be very revealing to see detailed passenger numbers and revenues for such a bus service.

Vic_08

AngryLips wrote: »

Builders in the construction industry are mandated to provide a certain percentage of social and affordable housing so it's not exactly unique. The Government has also mandated the provision of broadband in uneconomical areas under the national broadband scheme so it exists there too.

Social housing is a fixed cost known to potential developers before starting construction (ignoring those that wormed their way around the provisions in the first place) that can be budgeted for. If it's costs were too high then a developer was free to not start construction in the first place.

The NBS was a contract (tendered) so one would have to assume that the financial benefits for the winner were more than enough to cover costs and as the fixed term scheme has now ended with 3 now hiking up the costs to former NBS customers it is easy to see where those profits are.

The free travel scheme is totally different, it is ongoing rather than a fixed up front cost and the terms of it are constantly in flux with no connection between operator participation and renumeration. Since the inception of the scheme it has expanded massively in scope and coverage while the arbitrary fixed payment has not been increased in line as well as being spread across more operators and services.

Vic_08

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The most important word in the term "public transport" is "public". Free or subsidised transport for older people and other groups provides very important social and health benefits, and greater use of public transport benefits everyone:

It doesn't benefit anyone when it is so badly funded that it makes the very services unviable to the extent they are withdrawn altogether. Many communities have had their services curtailed or cut completely in the last 5 years due to squeezed revenue and the need to make retained services more profitable.

In considering where and why cutting services the only figures that were relevant were the farebox receipts. FTP users were ignored as they do not contribute a penny to these services directly or indirectly. As long as a huge gulf exists between the usage and the renumeration from the DSP; even more crucially as long as FTP payments are lumps sliced up from a fixed pie rather than an individual charge based on actual usage then DSP customers will remain invisible for accounting purposes.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/twenty_first_century.pdf

http://www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf

Nothing in those reports appeared to point to there being significant benefits in giving 1/4 of the population unlimited free access to public transport, I did like the paragraph on how PT is an essential part of US terrorism and disaster relief programs though.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that a can of worms being opened?

Probably. Too un-PC an area to be publicly discussed by leaders, just like all other types of anti-social behaviour sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist is the favoured policy.

lucernarian

AngryLips wrote: »

Builders in the construction industry are mandated to provide a certain percentage of social and affordable housing so it's not exactly unique. The Government has also mandated the provision of broadband in uneconomical areas under the national broadband scheme so it exists there too.

I'm afraid not your honour! In the case of the national broadband scheme, its not a mandate that is supplied but a commercial contract to provide what turned out to be 3g mobile phone coverage in areas which did not enjoy it. The scheme was technically legal under state aid rules but I feel it would not have happened if the EU commission had considered the implications of whether the company could even supply broadband with the proposed service! What happened was that the EU and govt approved an expensive scheme, paid for by both EU and national govt to extend coverage when their UMTS licence from comreg required them to substantially increase their coverage anyway!! Getting money and signing an agreement to do what you're legally obliged to do regardless is kind-of the opposite to being mandated to provide uneconomical service and have the price dictated to you no matter the actual cost.The likes of eircom or UPC were never told to provide broadband on a social, uneconomic basis. The telephone allowance served as an indirect subsidy for eircom if anything, that was matched to the number of subscribers.

Do CIE even enjoy the benefit of payments directly linked to user levels? I didn't think that could happen yet.

LXFlyer

lucernarian wrote: »

I'm afraid not your honour! In the case of the national broadband scheme, its not a mandate that is supplied but a commercial contract to provide what turned out to be 3g mobile phone coverage in areas which did not enjoy it. The scheme was technically legal under state aid rules but I feel it would not have happened if the EU commission had considered the implications of whether the company could even supply broadband with the proposed service! What happened was that the EU and govt approved an expensive scheme, paid for by both EU and national govt to extend coverage when their UMTS licence from comreg required them to substantially increase their coverage anyway!! Getting money and signing an agreement to do what you're legally obliged to do regardless is kind-of the opposite to being mandated to provide uneconomical service and have the price dictated to you no matter the actual cost.The likes of eircom or UPC were never told to provide broadband on a social, uneconomic basis. The telephone allowance served as an indirect subsidy for eircom if anything, that was matched to the number of subscribers.

Do CIE even enjoy the benefit of payments directly linked to user levels? I didn't think that could happen yet.

No - they get a lump sum - no relation whatsoever to use.

lucernarian

Thanks, I probably should have searched for updates on the DSP smartcard rollout! Its been a while since I was on the forum.

Mrs OBumble

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The most important word in the term "public transport" is "public". Free or subsidised transport for older people and other groups provides very important social and health benefits, and greater use of public transport benefits everyone

It's not often that I disagree with Iwannahurl, but I do this time.

Public is indeed the most important word - but it doesn't mean social.

Public transport is
"shared passenger transport service which is available for use by the general public, as distinct from modes such as taxicab, car pooling or hired buses which are not shared by strangers without private arrangement."

ie, it is not private.

While social transport is imporant, I think that it should only be about having services available to prevent excessive isolation.

I'm opposed to the practise of giving people part of their welfare payment in the form of free (ie taxpayer-funded) travel, because it stops people having to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices: I have no problem with pensioners choosing to spend their pension on a day-trip to Cork - but I don't think it should be unlimited. Ditto I don't think that disabled people should get their days entertainment by catching buses all over the city and chatting to the drivers (as happens in Galway). Also, free-travel discriminates against those who cannot use public transport due to disability / health issues.

If people need extra transport assistance because of health needs (eg to travel to a city for treatment), fine - but fund it from the health budget: part of the cost of not offering a procedure in A is the cost of getting people who need it to B.

And that's without getting into the arguments about the effect on operators.

Iwannahurl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not often that I disagree with Iwannahurl, but I do this time.

Public is indeed the most important word - but it doesn't mean social.

...

I'm opposed to the practise of giving people part of their welfare payment in the form of free (ie taxpayer-funded) travel, because it stops people having to take responsibility for the consequences of their choices: I have no problem with pensioners choosing to spend their pension on a day-trip to Cork - but I don't think it should be unlimited.

Ditto I don't think that disabled people should get their days entertainment by catching buses all over the city and chatting to the drivers (as happens in Galway). Also, free-travel discriminates against those who cannot use public transport due to disability / health issues.

If people need extra transport assistance because of health needs (eg to travel to a city for treatment), fine - but fund it from the health budget: part of the cost of not offering a procedure in A is the cost of getting people who need it to B.

No worries -- I like a good argument.

The social aspects of public transport are co-benefits, along with other gains such as improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions, more efficient use of road space etc.

I don't think subsidies of public transport should be unlimited either, since that is clearly not sustainable. The same applies to healthcare, only more so perhaps.

However, the dividend from state investment in public transport is far greater than from private transport, where the externalised costs are not being factored to an appropriate extent.

If disabled people -- the more mobile ones -- are meeting their social needs by riding on buses and chatting to drivers, that is not a problem with public transport subsidies. Maybe the problem is with inadequate social services or lack of community facilities. In any case, bus drivers should concentrate on their job and not spend time in idle chatter (which is not to say they can't be polite or even friendly).

When we were in Stockholm a few years ago adults with children in buggies could travel free on the buses. They also had a very effective congestion charge in place. Try introducing those measures in Galway (or perhaps anywhere in Ireland) and just watch people's heads explode.

TheBandicoot

On MrsB's point, this is one of the reasons I would advocate for a universal basic income, and do away with the majority of social welfare in favour of that. With a BI you have more freedom, and with that comes taking "responsibility for the consequences of their choices"- since it gives you a choice and agency, instead of relying on a specific scheme or programme.