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
DB fare increase
Options
Comments
-
punisher5112 wrote: »The validator at the door is so wrong.
It should be following the tfi route and have all cards, tickets etc use the machine where the driver can actually see you scan.
The SG model it's so far back the person is up the stairs before you can tell if it was then or the person ahead or behind that didn't scan, pretended to scan or just doesn't have any credit.
This happens regularly and very much so with school kids as they all push on. Foreign exchange students would then be next on the list and quite a few adults at it also.
Another issue I'm seeing more is people hoping on through centre doors and pretend they don't hear the driver.
If the buses were cashless and there was a flat fare as in London then maybe that would work but not right now as then Leap users travelling beyond 13 stages would have to squish past oŕ wait for people paying cash or Leap users doing 1-13 stage transactions.
I find the wide entrance on the SG a big improvement on other types of buses as on AV/Xs, VTs, EVs, RVs etc. there was a narrow entrance/exit meaning people with Leap cards or T90s back in the day would have to wait until the person interacting with driver was finished their transaction in order to board and the person with the driver was blocking the right hand reader. Nowadays on SGs two queues can form one for those paying at the driver and the other for those using the right hand reader.
Although the best system is on the continent with no zero driver interaction as validation is done as the bus in motion taking all revenue protection official or unofficial out of the drivers hand into the hands of regular dedicated ticket checkers.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22063
-
What folks are calling a short fare here, is basically the equivalent of a 10 minute walk.
Exactly I can't why older or disabled people might use a bus for these types of trips who have a pass anyway and can use the right hand validator. One example Ile use is I see people getting on the bus on York Road to travel to Dun Laoghaire which is about a 10 minute walk.0 -
If the buses were cashless and there was a flat fare as in London then maybe that would work but not right now as then Leap users travelling beyond 13 stages would have to squish past oŕ wait for people paying cash or Leap users doing 1-13 stage transactions.
I find the wide entrance on the SG a big improvement on other types of buses as on AV/Xs, VTs, EVs, RVs etc. there was a narrow entrance/exit meaning people with Leap cards or T90s back in the day would have to wait until the person interacting with driver was finished their transaction in order to board and the person with the driver was blocking the right hand reader. Nowadays on SGs two queues can form one for those paying at the driver and the other for those using the right hand reader.
Although the best system is on the continent with no zero driver interaction as validation is done as the bus in motion taking all revenue protection official or unofficial out of the drivers hand into the hands of regular dedicated ticket checkers.
This option I'm talking of is for when the fares are sorted.
It needs to be you can't just walk by the driver.0 -
punisher5112 wrote: »This option I'm talking of is for when the fares are sorted.
It needs to be you can't just walk by the driver.
Dublin Bus dwell times are already abysmal, making everyone use one queue instead of two and interacting with the driver is going to make them so bad you will just end up driving people back to their car, which will do the bus drivers stock no good when they next put a pay claim in.
I understand why you have your idea and where drivers would come from with it but ultimately if such thing would come to pass it would have too great effect on the bus passengers on what is after all, a public service.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dublin Bus dwell times are already abysmal, making everyone use one queue instead of two and interacting with the driver is going to make them so bad you will just end up driving people back to their car, which will do the bus drivers stock no good when they next put a pay claim in.
I understand why you have your idea and where drivers would come from with it but ultimately if such thing would come to pass it would have too great effect on the bus passengers on what is after all, a public service.
How though it works in London.
Why we couldn't follow same model and actually work it much better.
Things as they are are way too slow.
Sure with the increase and decrease I'm having loads giving out to me and the way they speak is shocking.
It's 10 cent get over yourselves....0 -
punisher5112 wrote: »How though it works in London.
London has a completely different bus system though, a completely different fare system, a completely different revenue system, a fairly different operating environment, better technology and generally London bus is used for much shorter trips on average than a bus passenger in Dublin because of the coverage of a widespread train, tram, underground and DLR network.Things as they are are way too slow.
That I think we will both agree on, the thing is though there are no real quick perfect fixes to the current problems because any of the solutions would involve revenue risk, large operational change, fare systems where some people are going to lose out heavily which will be politically unacceptable, widespread re-training of staff, massive infrastructure costs, the list goes on and on sadly.
That being said it's clear that the lack of inspectors for Dublin Bus is laughable. The idea that they don't need any more because almost nobody is evading fares, which is often the line trotted out about Irish Rail is also highly amusing. We both know, whilst evasion is not as bad as it was a few years ago due to the student loophole being closed, there is still a fair amount of it going on and the lack of inspectors just encourages it because the chance of getting caught is almost zero and even if you do you'll still save money.Sure with the increase and decrease I'm having loads giving out to me and the way they speak is shocking. It's 10 cent get over yourselves....
Seen it myself pretty much every fare switch-over, do feel sorry for you guys when someone goes on a rant about how much of a disgrace it is and has an argument with a driver holding everyone up.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
Exactly I can't why older or disabled people might use a bus for these types of trips who have a pass anyway and can use the right hand validator. One example Ile use is I see people getting on the bus on York Road to travel to Dun Laoghaire which is about a 10 minute walk.
I suspect they are doing this to avoid too many complaints in the media from getting rid of the short fare. It would be a big jump from the short fare (1.55) to the likely new flat 90 minute fare of €2.30 or 2.40.
Hopefully it will be around for just a few years, until people get use to the flat fare and they will then gradually do away with it by increasing it each year until it matches the flat fare.
Devnull's idea of tagging-off to get the short fare is a very nice idea, I like it, but I suspect it won't be implemented that way, probably will need to do driver interaction to get the short fare unfortunately.
Tagging-off would require an extra tag-off validator at the rear doors and risks people tagging-off early to get the short fare.0 -
Devnull's idea of tagging-off to get the short fare is a very nice idea, I like it, but I suspect it won't be implemented that way, probably will need to do driver interaction to get the short fare unfortunately.
Tagging-off would require an extra tag-off validator at the rear doors and risks people tagging-off early to get the short fare.
No reason you can't use the same validator, they can certainly be programmed to do that, the same hardware has done similar things in other cities with the relevant programming, so there's not going to be anything other than very minor expense.
I'd force them through the front door since it acts as part of a deterrent - I know it's not ideal but is there really a better solution? As I said before, no solution is perfect, there's always going to have to be a trade-off to some degree sooner or later. Middle door would be abused as you say.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
No reason you can't use the same validator, they can certainly be programmed to do that, the same hardware has done similar things in other cities with the relevant programming, so there's not going to be anything other than very minor expense.
I'd force them through the front door since it acts as part of a deterrent - I know it's not ideal but is there really a better solution? As I said before, no solution is perfect, there's always going to have to be a trade-off to some degree sooner or later. Middle door would be abused as you say.
I know you could use the same hardware. But I disagree with forcing them through the front door. It defeats the whole purpose of having the middle door, trying to improve passenger flow and would just slow things down and cause confusion IMO.
I wonder how they enforce the tag-off at the middle doors in Amsterdam? That is a similar tag-off at middle door model. I assume it just comes down to ticket inspectors.
Really that is the solution to this whole mess. Adequate numbers of, no messing ticket inspectors and high on the spot fines like you get in Europe.
You are right, I don't have a better solution.
Perhaps go all in on the London Bus model. €1.70 across the board flat fare + higher subsidy, tag-on by the driver, just exit via middle door.
Of course it would need a much higher government subsidy to make up for the much lower fare. But could be worth it if it drives lots of more people out of their cars and onto buses.
A nice simple, easy to understand model, which would work well with the type of buses and number of doors we have. The need for more subsidy is the only downside really.
Instead I suspect we will just require driver interaction for the short fare and increase the price each year until it eventually goes away.
Not ideal, but most people will be flying by on the right hand validator and getting rid of cash would be a big win too.
Of course my ideal would be triple door buses, entry/exit through any door, zero driver interaction with lots of ticket inspectors. The Luas/European model. But that would require radical change. New fleet of buses etc. Probably cheaper just to subsidise the London Bus model.0 -
Advertisement
-
Devnull's idea of tagging-off to get the short fare is a very nice idea, I like it, but I suspect it won't be implemented that way, probably will need to do driver interaction to get the short fare unfortunately.
Tagging-off would require an extra tag-off validator at the rear doors and risks people tagging-off early to get the short fare.[/quote]
Rear door tagging off combined with front entry only is an excellent system any time I've used it, very little dwell time. Albeit stage based fare and all vehicles designed for that system.
Would be delighted with quicker stop times over here if it could work with future flat/90min fare.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »Rear door tagging off combined with front entry only is an excellent system any time I've used it, very little dwell time. Albeit stage based fare and all vehicles designed for that system.
Would be delighted with quicker stop times over here if it could work with future flat/90min fare.
I'd agree, it works very well in Amsterdam where I experienced it. Very fast and even works inconjunction with tram and Metro. You pay per km travelled, very fair IMO.
Needing to buy extra validators for the middle door and possibly people sneaking an early tag-off are the only downsides IMO. But might be worth it.
So here is my preference of ticketing systems in order of preference:
1) Luas/German model. 3 to 4 doors, entry/exit through any door, no driver interaction ticketing, lots of ticket inspectors
2) Tag-on front door, tag-off middle door, pay per km (e.g. Amsterdam)
3) London Bus flat fare of €1.70/1.80 + higher subsidy, no tag-off.
4) NTA proposed system, tag-off for short fare at middle door, otherwise 90 minute fare.
5) NTA proposed model, short fare via driver, 90 minutes fare via tag-on at right hand validator.
Unfortunately I suspect we will end up with the worst option. Though it is still a lot better then the current model. Though definitely taking the "safe", least effort, option.0 -
I know you could use the same hardware. But I disagree with forcing them through the front door. It defeats the whole purpose of having the middle door, trying to improve passenger flow and would just slow things down and cause confusion IMO.
I agree that is a particular downside but on the flip-side if you allowed people to tag off without any supervision whatsoever you'll be letting yourself in for a lot of fare evasion - if people do conditional leap validation on the DART (IE, never tag on or off unless challenged at barrier when leaving station by staff and then use non tagged on Leap to work the gates and take a €4.70 hit rather than a fine) they will tag off early on the bus. It would make it even easier to evade than it is on the bus now.Perhaps go all in on the London Bus model. €1.70 across the board flat fare + higher subsidy, tag-on by the driver, just exit via middle door.
But how high would that subsidy have to be. You can bet your life that an operator would be pushing for as much as possible and saying you'll cover the subsidy from a sudden, massive revenue affecting exercise, whatever it costs, is almost like offering a blank cheque at the end of the day.Of course my ideal would be triple door buses, entry/exit through any door, zero driver interaction with lots of ticket inspectors. The Luas/European model. But that would require radical change. New fleet of buses etc. Probably cheaper just to subsidise the London Bus model.
Realistically any good system that doesn't involve a massively increased presence of revenue inspection will have to be flat fare and any multiple fare system that relies completely on honor and is fully efficient relies on a vastly souped up revenue protection system with bigger punishments and patrols that cover all routes, all times of day and 7 days per week.
Any other system is going to have to have a trade-off somewhere, whether that is efficiency, fare evasion, greater driver interaction or increased costs.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
I agree that is a particular downside but on the flip-side if you allowed people to tag off without any supervision whatsoever you'll be letting yourself in for a lot of fare evasion - if people do conditional leap validation on the DART (IE, never tag on or off unless challenged at barrier when leaving station by staff and then use non tagged on Leap to work the gates and take a €4.70 hit rather than a fine) they will tag off early on the bus. It would make it even easier to evade than it is on the bus now.
Again, the question would be how is it done in the likes of Amsterdam with tag-off systems. Surely they have solved this issue somehow?
Perhaps when a person tags off, a loud bing is heard in the driver cab and the driver can watch CCTV from the middle door to check the person actually exits.
You could also have the middle door tag-off validator emit a loud noise, so everyone around knows you have tagged off and would know you are cheating if you didn't exit. Perhaps that would be enough social pressure to stop all but the most brazen people from trying it.
If the gap between the short fare and the 90 minute is less then €1, how much fare would you really be losing anyway? I wouldn't expect it would be much more then is already lost to people brazingly asking the driver for a short and then travelling far. We all know this is happening anyway.
At least this way minimises the dwell time and impact to passengers. This should be what the priority is, I think we over focus on the odd folks that are going to cheat either way.
Also with this model, you could force people to tag-on by the drivers machine like in London, which might help reduce adults using child leap cards and cards not working. So you might actually reduce that fraud. At least you'd be getting a €1.55 short, rather then a €1 child fare from a cheating adult, so 55cent more.
Actually now that I think of it, this model is probably the best within the context of current fare levels, subsidies and available vehicles.
Having thought more about this, after discussing it with you. I strongly feel this is the best way to do it. I hadn't thought of the tag-off for short fare.
So how it would ideally work:
- Tag-on by the driver at front door. 90 minute fare charged
- Exit by middle door for 90 minute fare
- Try tag-off at middle door if you think it might be a short fare.
I think that system would actually work quite well. Of course not perfect, but the best option with the buses we have. Most people wouldn't tag-off anyway. Cheaters going to cheat anyway, no different to today. Minimises dwell time, pretty simple system. I like it.But how high would that subsidy have to be. You can bet your life that an operator would be pushing for as much as possible and saying you'll cover the subsidy from a sudden, massive revenue affecting exercise, whatever it costs, is almost like offering a blank cheque at the end of the day.
I'd assume it would be an increase to the same levels (per bus) that London gives * I wouldn't say it would be a blank cheque, you'd still have tendering etc.
* In case it wasn't obvious, the reason why I mentioned €1.70 as the flat fare, is because the 60 minute flat fare on London Bus is £1.50 which is about €1.63, should obviously it is possible, if we were willing to pay for it.
It should be relatively easy to figure out based on current fare data, what the increase in subsidy would be needed for this level of reduction in fare. It would require more subsidy, but certainly wouldn't be a free for all.Realistically any good system that doesn't involve a massively increased presence of revenue inspection will have to be flat fare and any multiple fare system that relies completely on honor and is fully efficient relies on a vastly souped up revenue protection system with bigger punishments and patrols that cover all routes, all times of day and 7 days per week.
Any other system is going to have to have a trade-off somewhere, whether that is efficiency, fare evasion, greater driver interaction or increased costs.
Of course, each of the systems I listed would have pros and cons and trade-offs in terms of increased costs, but improved dwell times too.
- Luas/European model. Cost 400 million for new fleet of 3/4 door buses + big increase in inspectors (though maybe self financing with high enough fines).
Pro: Big improvement in dwell times and reduction in bus journey times. More efficient use of buses (empty space down the back that often goes unused).
- Tag-on/tag-off Amsterdam model.
Pro: Could be done with mostly our current fleet. Good dwell times, not as good as above, but much better then current. Pretty fair in terms of you pay per distance, more you travel more you pay.
Cons: Cost of 1000 extra middle door validators. Some fair evasion, but I don't think it would be much different then the current cheats.
- London Bus model, €1.70 flat fare
Pro: Could be easily done with current fleet. No need for extra validators. Eliminates cheating from early tagging off. Might reduce cheating with child cards if you have to tag-on next to the driver. Very simple to understand and use. Low price would attract lots of new users.
Con: Need to increase subsidy to match lost fares.
- Tag-on by driver for 90 minute, tag-off at middle door for rear
Pro: Could be done with current fleet. Good dwell times, not as good as Luas model, but much better then current and even possibly better then Amsterdam model.
Cons: Cost of 1000 extra middle door validators. Some fair evasion, but I don't think it would be much different then the current cheats. Possibly unfair that people travelling relatively short distance are paying as much as long distance.
- Tag-on by driver for 90 minute, tag-off at front door for short
Pro: Could be done with current fleet. Better dwell times then current. No extra validators needed. Harder to do early tag-off
Cons: People trying to squeeze out the front door to tag-off, getting in the way of people getting on. I don't think dwell times would be reduced as much as the above approaches with middle door use.
BTW this model, probably best to get people to tag-on by the driver, right hand validator only tag-off. A reverse of the current setup.
- Tag-on at right hand side for 90 minute ticket, interact with driver for short.
Pro: Could be done with current fleet. Better dwell times then current. No extra validators needed. Very similar to current model, so easy to understand.
Cons: Slower then tagging off at middle door. People can still lie to drivers and ask for short. Easier for people with child cards to sneak by on the right hand validator.
So yeah, all different pros and cons and different costs. Do you spend more money on new buses, or more ticket checkers, or more validators or more subsidy or more possible far evasion or longer dwell times.
They all have costs. I can't say which is better cost. It would be something a financial person would need to model knowing the fare levels, cost of new buses/validators, fare evasion levels, etc.
Having said that, any of these options is better then the current mess.
I quite like the middle door tag-off for short or Amsterdam given our current fleet.
However I suspect we will just get the driver interaction one for a few years.
I suspect that drivers will still be taking cash fares for a few years until it is phased out, so what they will do is have them also take the short fare. Then increase the short fare each year over say 5 years until it matches the 90 minute fare. Then also get rid of cash at the same time completely (with support for contactless payments already well in place) and perhaps move to a 90 minute flat fare from the drivers side.
That would likely to be the least costly and least troublesome transition option. If not necessarily the nicest for a few years as it happens.0 -
I agree that is a particular downside but on the flip-side if you allowed people to tag off without any supervision whatsoever you'll be letting yourself in for a lot of fare evasion - if people do conditional leap validation on the DART (IE, never tag on or off unless challenged at barrier when leaving station by staff and then use non tagged on Leap to work the gates and take a €4.70 hit rather than a fine) they will tag off early on the bus. It would make it even easier to evade than it is on the bus now.
Tbh any almost every system bar a flat fare with drivers making sure people pay it is open to abuse even that is if you include fraudulent passes etc. Even if you have tag off by the driver that is open abuse especially on busy buses when people are standing up as far as the white line it also creates a safety risk as the drivers attention could be taken away from the road unless the system is disabled while the bus is motion.But how high would that subsidy have to be. You can bet your life that an operator would be pushing for as much as possible and saying you'll cover the subsidy from a sudden, massive revenue affecting exercise, whatever it costs, is almost like offering a blank cheque at the end of the day.
I think that the passenger expierence should come before the revenue of an operator.0 -
I think that the passenger expierence should come before the revenue of an operator.
Tbh I can't see them being tremendously worried about fare revenues considering we have two intensively used tram lines which are completely open and whose ticket inspectors have no real method of verifying identities. I've often seen people throw their fine slip away once they get off the tram.0 -
I think that the passenger expierence should come before the revenue of an operator.
Dublin Bus is a company that is dependent on fare revenue.
Saying that you just forget about how it is financed, which effects if they are able to pay staff or the costs of actually running the bus service, will not end well and no directors of a company would find it acceptable to operate in an environment.
No company will sign up for anything in a big bang change that has such level of risk to their ability to trade in a financially sensible manner unless there are very significant safeguards put in place to ensure that the company does not find itself in financial difficulty or the potential of being unable to meet it's obligation.
And honestly, the NTA are not simply going to say they'll cover everything either, because that essentially is saying to DB be as inefficient as you like, we'll hand over however much you want because its just asking for trouble.
In an ideal world nobody would be depending on revenue and were all just getting a fixed fee as all the contracts would be competitively tendered - but that's not going to happen in Dublin for the foreseeable future and like it or not, operators who are dependent on farebox revenue are not going to accept a high level of revenue risk.
I agree that we need to place the convenience of passengers first, but you can't just forget the financial side of things, if you do you may end up in a position where you are unable to meet your obligations or unable to pay your staff or start asking them to take massive cuts for instance.0 -
Tbh I can't see them being tremendously worried about fare revenues considering we have two intensively used tram lines which are completely open and whose ticket inspectors have no real method of verifying identities. I've often seen people throw their fine slip away once they get off the tram.
The LUAS model is completely different to that of Dublin Bus though, Dublin Bus are significantly dependent on passenger revenue from fares whereas Go-Ahead and Transdev are not.0 -
Flat fee of €2.50 is on the way.
Good. The majority of short journey takers have FTP or may have to suck it up. Such is life.0 -
In fairness, why would DB defer to those on a short journey anymore now, most of them are on FTP anyway.
Will love the day that cash fares and interraction with driver will be gone.
I'd say the driver will agree too!0 -
Advertisement
-
Spanish Eyes wrote: »In fairness, why would DB defer to those on a short journey anymore now, most of them are on FTP anyway.
Will love the day that cash fares and interraction with driver will be gone.
I'd say the driver will agree too!
Unfortunately those who are paying the short journeys would tend to be the kind of people who would turn up at meetings organised by some of our left leaning politicians and would be holding placards and you can be sure that the local politicians will be making a scene about how the vulnerable are facing a stealth increase to their bus fares.
Also 3 stages isn't necessarily a very short journey, for most routes yes but for some routes it can be a few km, which isn't going to be possible for everyone to walk.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »In fairness, why would DB defer to those on a short journey anymore now, most of them are on FTP anyway.
Will love the day that cash fares and interraction with driver will be gone.
I'd say the driver will agree too!
It's not really that those journies should be deterred it's more so that a simpler easy to enforce fare structure is preferable to one which is open to abuse and increases dwell times for other passengers.
Change dosen't happen overnight we will probably have a short distance fare and flat fare for everthing else in two or three years time aswell as cash payments being done away with for once and for all. The short distance fare could then be scrapped fairly swiftly unceremoniously in a similar to the way city centre fare was scrapped.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
Change dosen't happen overnight we will probably have a short distance fare and flat fare for everthing else in two or three years time aswell as cash payments being done away with for once and for all. The short distance fare could then be scrapped fairly swiftly unceremoniously in a similar to the way city centre fare was scrapped.
Yep, that is how it will likely go. It isn't ideal, I do feel this is all happening too slow, but that is the way things work here.
- Two fares introduced next year, short fare and 90 minute.
- Short fare from the driver, 90 minute for most people from the right hand validator.
- Introduce contactless payments in the next year or two.
- Once contactless introduced, start increasing cash fares each year to push it away.
- Cash removed completely within 5 years.
- Over that 5 years period, increases the short by 10 cent each year until in 5 years or so it is the same as the 90 minute and then get rid of it.
- Finally no cash fares and a flat fare. All done next to the driver so that s/he can keep an eye on it.0 -
Unfortunately those who are paying the short journeys would tend to be the kind of people who would turn up at meetings organised by some of our left leaning politicians and would be holding placards and you can be sure that the local politicians will be making a scene about how the vulnerable are facing a stealth increase to their bus fares.
Also 3 stages isn't necessarily a very short journey, for most routes yes but for some routes it can be a few km, which isn't going to be possible for everyone to walk.
It's something that could be done overnight but it's not something which could be done after a new fare system is introduced a few years later when the huffing and puffing has blown over. There's been a few small changes to the fare system recently all of which have managed to get the go ahead such as the removal of change tickets and the very recent fare revison.
All it will take is now is one more year for the €2.25 to be increased by another 10 cent and the €2.50 fare to be reduced by another 10 cent and then they more or less meet in the middle so a flat fare for anything more than 3 stages which will likely work out at around the €2.40 mark.
I see three main steps to the removal of driver interaction on Dublin buses.
1. Introduction of a flat fare for above 3 stages which is likely to come this time next year with the next fare revision
2. Removal of cash if you go by the NTA's timeline that will likely be late 2020 or early 21
3. Removal of the under 3 stage fare which would likely be a year after the removal of cash so late 2021 or early 22.0 -
Yep, that is how it will likely go. It isn't ideal, I do feel this is all happening too slow, but that is the way things work here.
- Two fares introduced next year, short fare and 90 minute.
- Short fare from the driver, 90 minute for most people from the right hand validator.
- Introduce contactless payments in the next year or two.
- Once contactless introduced, start increasing cash fares each year to push it away.
- Cash removed completely within 5 years.
- Over that 5 years period, increases the short by 10 cent each year until in 5 years or so it is the same as the 90 minute and then get rid of it.
- Finally no cash fares and a flat fare. All done next to the driver so that s/he can keep an eye on it.
In addition to that they should be looking to discourage Leap card usage once they start accepting contactless payments. The costs of Leap are increasing every year and participating transport operators who have to pay for Leap could surely put this money to better use.0 -
In addition to that they should be looking to discourage Leap card usage once they start accepting contactless payments. The costs of Leap are increasing every year and participating transport operators who have to pay for Leap could surely put this money to better use.
I think we'll focus on removing cash and driver interaction before we start thinking about the removal of Leap. That's more goes with the whole cashless society argument those who prefer to pay by card can pay by contactless and those who prefer to pay by cash can do so by paying by Leap.0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 22063
In addition to that they should be looking to discourage Leap card usage once they start accepting contactless payments. The costs of Leap are increasing every year and participating transport operators who have to pay for Leap could surely put this money to better use.
Contactless is Leap.
The physical Leap card is just the tip of the iceberg, most of the cost would be all the infrastructure underneath. Ticket machines, wifi/3G, back office account systems, servers, websites, etc.
You'd still need all that even with contactless payments. Contactless cards would simply act as a sort of virtual leap card. When you tag-on with a contact-less card, you wouldn't be immediately charged, after all things like daily and weekly capping still get worked out by the Leap accounting systems, etc.
And of course you'd still need Leap cards for child/student cards, Free Travel Cards, Monthly/Annual taxsaver cards, etc.0 -
I think we'll focus on removing cash and driver interaction before we start thinking about the removal of Leap. That's more goes with the whole cashless society argument those who prefer to pay by card can pay by contactless and those who prefer to pay by cash can do so by paying by Leap.
The post I quoted already mentioned cash being removed. I started my post with in addition... :rolleyes:0 -
Removal of leap or leap-like cards is unrealistic. There are many people who can't use contactless: besides the members of tinfoil society there are tourists, kids, customers of less sophisticated banks, etc.0
-
Advertisement
-
The post I quoted already mentioned cash being removed. I started my post with in addition... :rolleyes:
Yes but Leap Cards can be topped up using cash. It's basically moving the point of cash sale from the bus to a spar or centra shop. Cashless buses in many cities across Europe long in many cases long pre-date the advent of contactless cards and NFC payments they are not exactly a new phenomenon in many cities on the continent.
In a lot of cities it used to work where you went into a newsagent and bought a ticket usually valid for 90 mins across buses, trams, metro and suburban rail and got on the bus or tram and stamped in the validator. Many of these types of system have been done away with in favour of smart cards aswell as contactless but some do still exist.0
Advertisement