murphaph wrote: » Oh that's much better. Only 7 hours to get to London that way.
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.
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.
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.
end of the road wrote: » peak time means nothing in terms of the FTP as people need to travel when they need to travel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
end of the road wrote: the service would still be full with people being left behind anyway.
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.
Gael23 wrote: » You have a point but it would be political suicide for the Minister for Social Protection to restrict the FTP.
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.
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?
markpb wrote: » Any evidence for this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
murphaph wrote: » Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.
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.
