Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2018 Fare Dermination

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,331 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    coylemj wrote: »
    You can nitpick along those lines ad nauseum..... the people who travel 4 stages are subsidising people who go 5 stages.
    XPS_Zero wrote: »
    Those of us working now are paying for the pensions (via our PRSI and USC), disability and Jobseekers of people not working, and others will replace us to pay for us.


    You're paying for people to have free college tuition, you are paying (via central taxation, not fares contrary to popular understanding) for people to have free travel.


    Other people paid for you to go to school etc


    We all subsidize each other.

    Your irony detector needs new batteries.


  • Options
    #33
    XPS_Zero
    Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭XPS_Zero


    coylemj wrote: »
    Your irony detector needs new batteries.


    I was trying to quote the person you were quoting, made a mistake


    Why is anything I said ironic?


  • Options
    #34
    howiya
    Registered Users Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭howiya


    bk wrote: »
    howiya wrote: »
    Its not a comment on how high/low the current subsidy is. My suggestion is that subsidy could be increased to compensate operators for a decrease in fare revenue if we lower ticket prices to encourage increased usage.

    Where would you put increased usage?

    The buses are already massively overcrowded. An increased subsidy would only balance out for the loss in ticket revenue.

    So you would also have to put in a massive capital investment to buy lots more buses and depots and employ lots more drivers and then increase the subsidy even further to meet the now increased operating cost, in order to meet the demand.

    And of course you then run into the problem of the congestion in the city center and lack of bus stop space. There already isn't enough space for the buses we have, never mind lots more.

    It is a nice idea, but doesn't make sense when the problem you are currently facing is overcrowding.

    We need to do BusConnects first, including the infrastructure side. Then you could maybe look at ticket prices, but it doesn't make sense given the current situation.
    coylemj wrote: »
    You can nitpick along those lines ad nauseum..... the people who travel 4 stages are subsidising people who go 5 stages.

    That is why the Amsterdam model has long been my preferred solution. You pay per km. But anything is better then the current mess.
    So people who drive in Dublin city should still do so until we get Bus Connects? If there's nowhere else to put them


  • Options
    #35
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    howiya wrote: »
    So people who drive in Dublin city should still do so until we get Bus Connects? If there's nowhere else to put them

    Nonsense DB is getting a 35% increase in service between here and January. That should be a near BC level of capacity.


  • Options
    #36
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    XPS_Zero wrote: »
    It really is time for them to promote the Leap Visitor card in BusAras, Connoly, Heuston, Tara, Pearse etc



    At the moment IE staff sell tourists the Irish rail daily unlimited or weekly unlimited tickets and it's a flagrant rip off, it's so wrong I don't know where to start. I can assume they do know about Leap Visitor so maybe they are told by IE senior staff to do this?


    Were in an era of integration now, that info desk at Connoly, when a tourist asks, should have a stack of LVs there they can hand to the person, with a big poster on their glass window saying "BUY THE LEAP VISITOR CARD AND SAVE A FORTUNE". Don't let IE do what DB tried (thankfully unsuccessfully) to do citing their "brand" as being more important.


    It's in the IE laws that they'll try to sell you the best ticket for your journey, maybe they could actually try doing that?

    I think you'll that in many cities state owned national rail operators like to distance themselves to some degree from the local city public transport operators.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Stevek101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Stevek101


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Nonsense DB is getting a 35% increase in service between here and January. That should be a near BC level of capacity.


    How much growth at peak rush hour are we getting? Most of it is at weekend which is greatly needed but there also needs to be massive growth on core corridors.


    I would be thinking they should introduce the express 300 set services of BusConnects asap.


  • Options
    #38
    KD345
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    bk wrote: »

    That is why the Amsterdam model has long been my preferred solution. You pay per km. But anything is better then the current mess.

    Not sure a per km system is a good idea for Dublin, either under the current set up or with Bus Connects. Getting from A to B can take different length routes. For example, depending on where you live in Clontarf, you could be charged for taking a loop of the area on the 130 or new 64. Or someone in Citywest/Kingswood being charged for travelling through various parts of Clondalkin just to get to the city centre. Even under Bus Connects very few routes are direct.

    The proposed 90 minute ticket keeps things simple. One fare from A to B regardless of how you get there.


  • Options
    #39
    Van.Bosch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,849 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    KD345 wrote: »
    Not sure a per km system is a good idea for Dublin, either under the current set up or with Bus Connects. Getting from A to B can take different length routes. For example, depending on where you live in Clontarf, you could be charged for taking a loop of the area on the 130 or new 64. Or someone in Citywest/Kingswood being charged for travelling through various parts of Clondalkin just to get to the city centre. Even under Bus Connects very few routes are direct.

    The proposed 90 minute ticket keeps things simple. One fare from A to B regardless of how you get there.

    Are the charges not “as the crow flies”, so the meandering doesn’t cost more than a straight line?


  • Options
    #40
    KD345
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    Van.Bosch wrote: »
    Are the charges not “as the crow flies”, so the meandering doesn’t cost more than a straight line?

    Possibly, I’m not too sure. That would be much fairer than “per km”.


  • Options
    #41
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,680 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Most of the loops will be gone under BusConnects anyway; but crow-flies for bus and rail distance for train/tram would be fair really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    I would be sceptical about the logistics surrounding tag on/off on buses I think a flat fare would make more sense. A tag on/off system may sound good in theory but in reality what would likely end up happening is that it would add to dwell times as people will be tagging off when alighting the bus which would either A) Create dwell time issues or B) Pople will end up missing their stop as the bus will drive off before leaving the stop. I think a flat fare is the best solution as it would be the best for dwell times.

    Personally I would like to see a number of validators placed throughout the bus so people can tag on while the bus is motion meaning the only lost time at stops would be passengers boarding and alighting as fare taking would be done while the bus is in motion like the old days with conductors.


  • Options
    #43
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I would be sceptical about the logistics surrounding tag on/off on buses I think a flat fare would make more sense. A tag on/off system may sound good in theory but in reality what would likely end up happening is that it would add to dwell times as people will be tagging off when alighting the bus which would either A) Create dwell time issues or B) Pople will end up missing their stop as the bus will drive off before leaving the stop. I think a flat fare is the best solution as it would be the best for dwell times.

    Personally I would like to see a number of validators placed throughout the bus so people can tag on while the bus is motion meaning the only lost time at stops would be passengers boarding and alighting as fare taking would be done while the bus is in motion like the old days with conductors.

    Well it works very well from what I've seen in Amsterdam. But then they have the tag-off at the rear door and you are only allowed exit at the rear door and the rear door is operated by passengers, like DART/Luas. So there is little effect on dwell times.

    Of course that doesn't work well here, because we still have some single door buses and even where there are two doors, some drivers still refuse to use them.

    So I agree a single fare is probably easiest option given our historical operational environment.

    As you mention the absolute ideal is the German/Polish model, that is similar to Luas. 3 or 4 doors, enter/exit through any door, no driver interaction, use one of multiple validators on the bus. But that is probably too radical for our bus companies!

    BTW yes, the per km in Amsterdam is by the bird flies. It would be calculated by the distance as recorded by GPS at where you tagged-on and then later tagged-off, so very fair.


Advertisement