Bust Éireann

murphaph

Eotr could you answer my little hypothetical question?

danjo-xx

I know some refuse to accept the FTP but under the terms of their license are they not obliged to accept the pass.

Yourself isit

murphaph wrote: »

Oh that's much better. Only 7 hours to get to London that way.

I was thinking of working people in say edinburgh...

Privatisation didn't help consumers of the British rail service. Or the taxpayer.

murphaph

danjo-xx wrote: »

I know some refuse to accept the FTP but under the terms of their license are they not obliged to accept the pass.

On any PSO route yes.

The whole FTP business needs reform anyway. It's not good enough that the true cost of this scheme (which by all accounts seems to cover a third of the population) is completely opaque to the taxpayer who funds it.

You have CIE given a block grant and are forced to take an unlimited number of FTP holders who pay no fare.

At least with the transition to Leap FTP cards the true cost of the scheme can be made known and the DSP billed accordingly by the NTA. Then the responsible minister can start deciding if he or she wishes to fund the FTP in its current form or reform it and fund other social protection schemes instead.

I dare say the FTP could, with a little tinkering, cost the state a fraction of what it does by discouraging frivolous journeys (especially at peak time). Then the state could pay any operator the actual cost of transporting the person holding the FTP.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

On any PSO route yes.

The whole FTP business needs reform anyway. It's not good enough that the true cost of this scheme (which by all accounts seems to cover a third of the population) is completely opaque to the taxpayer who funds it.

You have CIE given a block grant and are forced to take an unlimited number of FTP holders who pay no fare.

At least with the transition to Leap FTP cards the true cost of the scheme can be made known and the DSP billed accordingly by the NTA. Then the responsible minister can start deciding if he or she wishes to fund the FTP in its current form or reform it and fund other social protection schemes instead.

I dare say the FTP could, with a little tinkering, cost the state a fraction of what it does by discouraging frivolous journeys (especially at peak time). Then the state could pay any operator the actual cost of transporting the person holding the FTP.

peak time means nothing in terms of the FTP as people need to travel when they need to travel.

GM228

danjo-xx wrote: »

I know some refuse to accept the FTP but under the terms of their license are they not obliged to accept the pass.

Indeed it is not currently a contractual requirement of the private operators operating PSO services, but this was due to the DSP freeze on funding of the scheme, however once the freeze is lifted the NTA can require a private operator to honour the scheme at time of contract renewal.

Interestingly over 90 private operators in Ireland accept the FTP.

murphaph

Yourself isit wrote: »

I was thinking of working people in say edinburgh...

Privatisation didn't help consumers of the British rail service. Or the taxpayer.

As I said to eotr....look beyond Britain for your examples. Tendered out routes with minimum quality of service contracts and the fare box controlled by the tariff association are commonplace and successful in Europe.

That the Tories implemented privatisation in the manner they did should come as no surprise to anybody.

I am quite happy that when DB (that's Deutsche Bahn AG not Dublin Bus) goes on strike, I can take a train from the ODEG (Eastern German Railway Company) into work instead. I have the same VBB ticket regardless. The VBB pays the operators an agreed rate for running the services (most of which would be commercially loss making of course) to an agreed minimum standard and the VBB gets all fare revenue collected by the individual operators.

The service is a million times better than anything the average Irish commuter experiences. Contrary to the behaviour the NBRU would like to incite, when the Berlin S-Bahn strikes, the Berlin U-Bahn puts on extra services to at least lessen the imposition on the ordinary members of the public. There's some sense of duty there. I don't ever get that feeling from the Irish transport unions. You can see it's only ever about the money and the attitude to getting it is usually Machiavellian.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

peak time means nothing in terms of the FTP as people need to travel when they need to travel.

Then let them pay a nominal fare if they absolutely must travel at peak time (the vast majority of FTP journeys do not need to be made then). There is no FTP where I live unless you are severely disabled (disability is strictly graduated here, 20%, 40% etc. and only 60% disabled or more entitles you to a FTP. Pensioners have no automatic entitlement to one at all). There's a discounted fare scheme for over 65s but no blanket free travel.

The FTP scheme in Ireland is quite literally out of control.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

Then let them pay a nominal fare if they absolutely must travel at peak time (the vast majority of FTP journeys do not need to be made then). There is no FTP where I live unless you are severely disabled (disability is strictly graduated here, 20%, 40% etc. and only 60% disabled or more entitles you to a FTP. Pensioners have no automatic entitlement to one at all). There's a discounted fare scheme for over 65s but no blanket free travel.

The FTP scheme in Ireland is quite literally out of control.

no . they are either entitled to free travel or they aren't. there is no evidence that the vast or any amount of ftp journeys don't need to be made at peak or any time, and such inconveniences to these people bring no benefits but less users on the service.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

no . they are either entitled to free travel or they aren't. there is no evidence that the vast or any amount of ftp journeys don't need to be made at peak or any time, and such inconveniences to these people bring no benefits but less users on the service.

You're not really in favour of any kind of transparency when it comes to public transport spending, are you?

CIARAN_BOYLE

end of the road wrote: »

no . they are either entitled to free travel or they aren't. there is no evidence that the vast or any amount of ftp journeys don't need to be made at peak or any time, and such inconveniences to these people bring no benefits but less users on the service.

Dublin bus is standing room only at peak time on many routes. Often people get left behind at the bus stops because the busses are too full.

Less users on the service would be a good thing. If this can be done by encouraging people who don't need to travel at peak time to move their travel time earlier or later that's a good thing in my opinion.

end of the road

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Dublin bus is standing room only at peak time on many routes. Often people get left behind at the bus stops because the busses are too full.

Less users on the service would be a good thing. If this can be done by encouraging people who don't need to travel at peak time to move their travel time earlier or later that's a good thing in my opinion.

the service would still be full with people being left behind anyway, so it would be a waste of time. extra vehicles would sort that issue out and it would also allow for future growth at the same time, meaning more people win.

Stephen15

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Dublin bus is standing room only at peak time on many routes. Often people get left behind at the bus stops because the busses are too full.

Less users on the service would be a good thing. If this can be done by encouraging people who don't need to travel at peak time to move their travel time earlier or later that's a good thing in my opinion.

Double deckers in the UK and Ireland particularly those made by Wrightbus and Dennis which is all of Dublin Bus' fleet and some of BE's are quite poorly designed for standing compared to the buses on the continent which nearly all single deckers bar some double deckers in Berlin.

Bendy buses are quite good as you can fit a similar amount as a Double Deckers but allows more standing room as Double by their very nature only allow for standing throughout 50% of the bus.

I noticed in Italy the policy seems to be if the doors can close then the bus isin't full. City buses are designed similar to airport shuttle buses with only a few seats. Three doors really helps reduces dwell times with zero driver interaction.

monument

salonfire wrote: »

You mean the system that puts a roof over your head. Puts fuel in your car. Provides the clothes on your back. The food in your belly. Allows you to travel almost anywhere in the world relatively cheaply. Offers you a choice of electricity suppliers. A choice of TV stations. A choice of what car to buy. A choice of Internet and phone providers.

Sounds horrible. I can see why you would want to change it to something that has never been proven to work for the people.

Err... you don't need neoliberalism for most/all of those things. Anyway, we'll try to keep this transport related...

Yourself isit wrote: »

The evidence in the UK is that privatised rail costs both the government and the customer more.

Whether that applies to buses her I don't know. I'd be surprised of certain operators didn't in fact up prices as they aren't making that much profit.

With buses it has not been exactly great in some respects https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain

markpb

end of the road wrote:

FTP (...) people need to travel when they need to travel.

end of the road wrote:

there is no evidence that the vast or any amount of ftp journeys don't need to be made at peak

If there's no evidence that those journeys don't need to be on-peak, where's your evidence that they *do* need to be?

end of the road wrote:

the service would still be full with people being left behind anyway.

Any evidence for this?

suicide_circus

If people want to find one reason for the underfunding in public transport they need look no further than the FTP. It is simply not necessary to give that quantity of people unlimited free travel. We also patently cannot afford it. Nowhere else in Europe do the give FTPs to all OAPs...are we going to suggest that Germany/Austria/Holland are abusing their elderly? How about we try and offer our old people a proper standard of health care before you reach for utopia? 1.2 million people are entitled to a FTP. Absolutely absurd.

Gael23

suicide_circus wrote: »

If people want to find one reason for the underfunding in public transport they need look no further than the FTP. It is simply not necessary to give that quantity of people unlimited free travel. We also patently cannot afford it. Nowhere else in Europe do the give FTPs to all OAPs...are we going to suggest that Germany/Austria/Holland are abusing their elderly? How about we try and offer our old people a proper standard of health care before you reach for utopia? 1.2 million people are entitled to a FTP. Absolutely absurd.

You have a point but it would be political suicide for the Minister for Social Protection to restrict the FTP.

suicide_circus

Gael23 wrote: »

You have a point but it would be political suicide for the Minister for Social Protection to restrict the FTP.

Yep that's democracy for you. I'm honestly not interested in hearing any politician bitch about public transport while refusing to grasp that particular nettle.

horseburger

murphaph wrote: »

On any PSO route yes.

The whole FTP business needs reform anyway. It's not good enough that the true cost of this scheme (which by all accounts seems to cover a third of the population) is completely opaque to the taxpayer who funds it.

You have CIE given a block grant and are forced to take an unlimited number of FTP holders who pay no fare.

At least with the transition to Leap FTP cards the true cost of the scheme can be made known and the DSP billed accordingly by the NTA. Then the responsible minister can start deciding if he or she wishes to fund the FTP in its current form or reform it and fund other social protection schemes instead.

I dare say the FTP could, with a little tinkering, cost the state a fraction of what it does by discouraging frivolous journeys (especially at peak time). Then the state could pay any operator the actual cost of transporting the person holding the FTP.

How do you define a frivolous journey?

I got into a discussion with someone in another thread, a while back, who was giving out about passengers from intermediate towns using the 30 bus to Donegal. This person was arguing that Cavan and Virginia passengers should just use the 109 service and not use the 30 bus service.

This person ignored the fact that Bus Éireann already requests that Cavan and Virginia passengers use the 109 in times that the 30 bus services are likely to fill up, with passengers from the locations between Cavan and Donegal, which is reasonable request, to try and accommodate passengers at busy times who use the 109 and 30 bus services.

I was making the point that, why shouldn't Cavan passengers use the Donegal bus, in times on the 30 service when there is space for passengers going to and from Cavan and Virginia as well as the various stops from Cavan and Donegal. I asked this with consideration to the fact that the fare to Cavan on the 30 bus is only a few euros less than the fare to Donegal, even though Cavan is pretty much halfway along the route. I asked this, as I think it is possible, that passengers at Cavan and Virginia might use the 30 bus more often, to and from Dublin, every week, than a passenger at Donegal going to and from the airport, who would be using it less frequently.

Does it matter what the passengers reasons are for using any bus or train service? No one is asked, what their reasons are, for using a bus when they buy a ticket.

I think it is a bad move to start describing passengers reasons for using buses as frivolous, arguing that one passengers reason for using a bus is less important than someone else's.

Passengers have numerous different reasons for needing to get from one place to another.

CIARAN_BOYLE

end of the road wrote: »

the service would still be full with people being left behind anyway, so it would be a waste of time. extra vehicles would sort that issue out and it would also allow for future growth at the same time, meaning more people win.

Extra vehicles is a good thing but the passenger numbers during the day wouldn't support that to be commercially viable which is why I am looking good at load management options.

end of the road

markpb wrote: »

If there's no evidence that those journeys don't need to be on-peak, where's your evidence that they *do* need to be?

they wouldn't be there if they hadn't somewhere to go

markpb wrote: »

Any evidence for this?

if it's a full service which leaves people behind then it is being used.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Extra vehicles is a good thing but the passenger numbers during the day wouldn't support that to be commercially viable which is why I am looking good at load management options.

but there is no need for load management. extra vehicles may not be commercially viable for a commercial operator but the services we are talking about aren't commercial services so extra vehicles or departures would be viable.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

they wouldn't be there if they hadn't somewhere to go



if it's a full service which leaves people behind then it is being used.



but there is no need for load management. extra vehicles may not be commercially viable for a commercial operator but the services we are talking about aren't commercial services so extra vehicles or departures would be viable.

Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

A pensioner going into town to do a bit of shopping is not an essential journey and can be made at 9.30 or 10.00 rather than 8.30. It is completely time insensitive. The "hospital appointment at 8.00" is much rarer than the shopping trip, but given the move to Leap even the occasional peak time trip could be allowed free of charge, say a couple of times per month.

You are arguing against load management, which is employed on far more sophisticated public transport systems like Berlin's. If a far superior system needs load management then you can bet your bottom dollar that Ireland's cobbled together system does too.

You are acting as if the money for buses and drivers is limitless. It isn't. More buses means fewer of something else.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

A pensioner going into town to do a bit of shopping is not an essential journey and can be made at 9.30 or 10.00 rather than 8.30. It is completely time insensitive. The "hospital appointment at 8.00" is much rarer than the shopping trip, but given the move to Leap even the occasional peak time trip could be allowed free of charge, say a couple of times per month.

You are arguing against load management, which is employed on far more sophisticated public transport systems like Berlin's. If a far superior system needs load management then you can bet your bottom dollar that Ireland's cobbled together system does too.

You are acting as if the money for buses and drivers is limitless. It isn't. More buses means fewer of something else.

no time is "time insensitive" . if someone has somewhere to be they have somewhere to be. it's not for you or i to decide whether a trip is valid or not. it's their bus or train as much as mine and they will use it when they wish. if one doesn't like it that is their problem. more money for busses doesn't mean fewer of something else, as once the money is put asside for busses then if it isn't spent on busses it won't be spent. countries budget for things and if the money isn't spent on what it is budgeted for then it won't be transferred to something else.

marienbad

end of the road wrote: »

no time is "time insensitive" . if someone has somewhere to be they have somewhere to be. it's not for you or i to decide whether a trip is valid or not. it's their bus or train as much as mine and they will use it when they wish. if one doesn't like it that is their problem. more money for busses doesn't mean fewer of something else, as once the money is put asside for busses then if it isn't spent on busses it won't be spent. countries budget for things and if the money isn't spent on what it is budgeted for then it won't be transferred to something else.

eotr - I am sorry but the above is nonsensical .

quadrifoglio verde

end of the road wrote: »

no time is "time insensitive" . if someone has somewhere to be they have somewhere to be. it's not for you or i to decide whether a trip is valid or not. it's their bus or train as much as mine and they will use it when they wish. if one doesn't like it that is their problem. more money for busses doesn't mean fewer of something else, as once the money is put asside for busses then if it isn't spent on busses it won't be spent. countries budget for things and if the money isn't spent on what it is budgeted for then it won't be transferred to something else.

If more money is spent on buses it means less money is spent somewhere else. Be it nurses, services for the homeless or increasing the number of primary school pupils. There is a finite amount of money that the government has at its disposal.
Come down out of that money tree will you and live in the real world

markpb

end of the road wrote:

no time is "time insensitive" . if someone has somewhere to be they have somewhere to be. it's not for you or i to decide whether a trip is valid or not. it's their bus or train as much as mine and they will use it when they wish. if one doesn't like it that is their problem.

The cost of transporting someone at peak times is more than the cost of transporting them earlier or later. Transport operators around the world try to encourage people to travel off peak for that reason. If someone is gifted free transport by the state, wouldn't it make sense for them to be encouraged to travel at a time when it's cheaper for the state? If someone is going shopping or feeding the ducks, those trips are definitely discretionary.

end of the road wrote:

more money for busses doesn't mean fewer of something else, as once the money is put asside for busses then if it isn't spent on busses it won't be spent. countries budget for things and if the money isn't spent on what it is budgeted for then it won't be transferred to something else.

I'm sorry, what!? This is the most bizarre thing I've read in a very long time! Do you think that allocating money on buses but not buying them magically makes extra capacity?

end of the road

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

If more money is spent on buses it means less money is spent somewhere else. Be it nurses, services for the homeless or increasing the number of primary school pupils. There is a finite amount of money that the government has at its disposal.
Come down out of that money tree will you and live in the real world

sadly incorrect. if more money is spent on busses it is money that has been budgeted to spend on busses. if for whatever reason it isn't spent on busses then it doesn't get spent. a countries budget doesn't operate along the lines of how one would operate a household or company budget unfortunately.

markpb wrote: »

The cost of transporting someone at peak times is more than the cost of transporting them earlier or later. Transport operators around the world try to encourage people to travel off peak for that reason. If someone is gifted free transport by the state, wouldn't it make sense for them to be encouraged to travel at a time when it's cheaper for the state? If someone is going shopping or feeding the ducks, those trips are definitely discretionary.



I'm sorry, what!? This is the most bizarre thing I've read in a very long time! Do you think that allocating money on buses but not buying them magically makes extra capacity?

they have to travel when they have to travel. if they didn't need to travel they wouldn't be traveling. the peak time restrictions were abolished because they brought nothing to the table.

markpb

end of the road wrote:

sadly incorrect. if more money is spent on busses it is money that has been budgeted to spend on busses.

Where do you think the money came from to be budgeted on the first place? The government would need to decide to spend less money on other things.

ED E

murphaph wrote: »

Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.

Expecting sense from him is asking too much.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

sadly incorrect. if more money is spent on busses it is money that has been budgeted to spend on busses. if for whatever reason it isn't spent on busses then it doesn't get spent. a countries budget doesn't operate along the lines of how one would operate a household or company budget unfortunately.

You aren't even advocating the above (which is wrong anyway but let's not get distracted (intentionally?) by that.

You are actually advocating budgeting for and spending more money on buses rather than limit peak time journeys for FTP holders, remember?