€27m bill for the integrated ticketing project

maxheadroom

Originally posted by Floater

1) Single journey tickets don't need validation at all because they should have an issue and expiry time and date printed on them the moment they are issued.

What if I go to the bus stop and buy a ticket from an automated vending machine. It is stamped with the time of issue, valid zones, and an expiry time (say +90 minutes). I then wait 45 minutes for a bus to show up because this is Dublin (this happens regularly on my bus route when buses just don't show up when they should). Of my 90 minute transfer window, 45 have been used standing at the bus stop.

While I appreciate the need to emulate best practice from abroad, we also need to be realistic. On board validation is the only viable solution in the short to medium term.

BendiBus

Originally posted by Floater
What does validation do to stop fare evasion please? I have addressed this issue several times. If you wish to participate in this forum kindly read the thread first as a basic courtesy to everybody else.

Please stop wasting people's time with mischievous repetitive postings where the issues have already been dealt with.

Please stop wasting public money on needless validation technology.

Floater

"Customer" buys 10 journey ticket and does not validate it. Uses ticket several times before encountering ticket inspector. Says to inspector "Validator was broken". What does the inspector do?

I presume I am allowed to buy a multi-journey ticket at any location and carry it unused for several days before validating it on first use. So there is nothing on the ticket that can be used to prove I've been fare dodging for days.

Sorry if this seems repetitive, or mischievous but I just don't see the solution to a lot of these issues as being technical in nature. I note you have "addressed this issue several times". Thing is, I dont accept what you say!

And if you don't mind me saying it, I find your tone a little rude and arrogant. Please try to convince me rather than tell me what's best!

Victor

Originally posted by Floater
One can issue all sorts of tickets from ticketing machines to defray the cost and bring more people to use public transport. Book an event ticket over the phone and pay with your credit card and collect the tickets at your local tram or bus stop. Just insert the same credit card whose number you used in the booking and enter your PIN and out come the tickets.

I can see Schlumberger having multiple orgasms. Of course all this is dependant on having compatible printers / scanners. Does one go for paper (better for one off things like parking) or cardboard (better for multiple use) or plastic (best for very high usage, annual tickets, etc.) ....

Victor

Originally posted by BendiBus
"Customer" buys 10 journey ticket and does not validate it. Uses ticket several times before encountering ticket inspector. Says to inspector "Validator was broken". What does the inspector do?

Check his PDA and sees that that validator is working, calls your bluff and then doubles the fee.

Floater

Originally posted by maxheadroom
What if I go to the bus stop and buy a ticket from an automated vending machine. It is stamped with the time of issue, valid zones, and an expiry time (say +90 minutes). I then wait 45 minutes for a bus to show up because this is Dublin (this happens regularly on my bus route when buses just don't show up when they should). Of my 90 minute transfer window, 45 have been used standing at the bus stop.

While I appreciate the need to emulate best practice from abroad, we also need to be realistic. On board validation is the only viable solution in the short to medium term.

The objective of the overall exercise is to make bus travel more reliable.

If there are specific problems the expiry time can be extended to account for that.

Alternatively one can allow for two validations on a one trip ticket - the first one indicates the time of expiry based on the time of issue.

If a bus arrives materially late you shove it into the validator in the ticket machine when the bus comes into sight.

This action records the fact that the bus was late (because you can prove that you were still at the stop at the second validation time).

While I appreciate that it is easy to be cynical about on time arrival in the current environment, if you build the house of cards on negative assumptions it will just keep falling down and we will get nowhere.


Floater

Floater

Originally posted by BendiBus
"Customer" buys 10 journey ticket and does not validate it. Uses ticket several times before encountering ticket inspector. Says to inspector "Validator was broken". What does the inspector do?

I presume I am allowed to buy a multi-journey ticket at any location and carry it unused for several days before validating it on first use. So there is nothing on the ticket that can be used to prove I've been fare dodging for days.

Sorry if this seems repetitive, or mischievous but I just don't see the solution to a lot of these issues as being technical in nature. I note you have "addressed this issue several times". Thing is, I dont accept what you say!

And if you don't mind me saying it, I find your tone a little rude and arrogant. Please try to convince me rather than tell me what's best!

If the passenger doesn't validate the ticket s/he doesn't have a valid ticket.

S/he therefore has to pay the surcharged fare (eg EUR 30 + ticket cost) if they go and confess to the inspector the minute he comes on scene. If not it is an EUR 100 job + costs. etc. It is a numbers game designed to protect revenues while not having to do a 100% inspection all of the time. I have written at some length earlier in the thread about using statistical probability to determine how frequently to carry out inspections on different routes, times of day, modes of transport, etc.

While one wasn't intending to be rude, you might have detected a certain element of exasperation perhaps!

Floater

Floater

Originally posted by Victor
I can see Schlumberger having multiple orgasms. Of course all this is dependant on having compatible printers / scanners. Does one go for paper (better for one off things like parking) or cardboard (better for multiple use) or plastic (best for very high usage, annual tickets, etc.) ....

Schlumberget & cie are getting the business anyway as the bank cards in Ireland are finally dragged into the 21st century.

They public don't need special cards for annual or monthly travel tickets - just bring their ordinary Visa, MC, Laser, Mastercard etc. with them

Single trip tickets and similar items on paper (100gsm+)

More valuable tickets (eg event and multi trip) on board with security printing on the background and perhaps a bit of metalic stuff in the background too – probably 200gsm+.

People who have credit or debit cards don't really need annual or monthly tickets. They simply hand over their credit card to the inspector who swipes it in his PDA. The latter has a list of credit / debit card numbers who have valid travel e-tickets issued to them. It also has a hot list of stolen cards from the banksystem.

If the inspector has any suspicions about the credit card given to him he has the alternative of doing a chip read and asking the card holder to enter their PIN to authenticate the card and the cardholder. He might also be prompted / forced to get their PIN in certain circumstances - eg when someone orders a yearly ticket online or via a call centre. This would close the security loop for card theft for valuable tickets.

While one could also add a photo to the credit card I don't think it is necessary with PIN based credit cards.

If you don't have a credit card, the integrated ticketing office would probably issue a credit card like thing to the customer who wants a monthly or annual ticket. Both types of card could have their travel periods renewed online or with a phone call to a call centre.


Floater

Floater

Roles (In addition to transport ticket issuing):

1) A secure printer (almost) at the bottom of the garden for instantly getting tickets and other documents for events that you have ordered online (either Web or phone).

2) A coupon issuing device for money-off offers. These could be issued in conjunction (automatically) with bus tickets or specifically because you have visited a company website and they have made you a money off offer which requires a coupon. Example: You buy a travel ticket to zone 65 where Blanchardstown Shopping Centre is located and would be issued for one or more coupons for use in that centre. They might even be coupons for another shopping centre (Liffey Valley) which might make you think twice about going to Blanchardstown and head for Liffey Valley instead! The coupon might even make your zone 65 ticket valid for Liffey Valley even if it was further zones away!

3) A source of change for small retailers – eg hairdressers, newsagents, etc. They ring the automated call centre and can find out automatically if there is surplus change in the ticket machines on their street or road. They will have already registered their Laser card number against their phone number so the answering system will know who they are and what laser card number they will be using from the phone CLI. They specify the change they want and the system tells them which machine number to go to with their Laser card. Enter the PIN and out comes the change – using the same mechanism as it would use to provide change to a ticket purchaser. This would give the machine the “cashback effect” that retailers benefit from keeping their holding of cash low and reducing the need to collect from ticket machines on a regular basis.

With a view to making the blank ticketstock in the machines useless to anyone who managed to get their hands on same, 2D barcodes could be printed on the ticket form. These would operate like mobile phone top up numbers. (ie a huge range of possible numbers and only a small proportion are valid). More difficult to break than winning the lottery. Easily validated at events with a barcode reader.

Floater

Floater

A picture of a 2D barcode for anyone unfamiliar with them

F

Floater

One further weakness of a “validate on-board tram” ticket system occurred:

Fare dodger buys a single ticket or updates his contactless smart card with 10 or 20 trip credits. Call him “valuestretcher”.

Assume a one in ten chance of an inspector coming on board.

Valuestretcher gets on board and stands by the door near a validator each day as he commutes to and from work on a busy tram. Doesn’t validate because no ticket inspector in sight. Should an inspector(s) come on the scene he does a quick “oh my goodness forgot to validate” job, whips his card out and does the needful, saving himself from being caught. Even more discretely done if he keeps the CSC in his back pocket and bumps off the reader. Valuestretcher makes a ten trip ticket worth 100 trips on average.

Similarly a one trip ticket might get him ten trips if it has to be validated on board rather than having an expiry time printed on it at the time of issue at the stop.

In Montpellier there are about 8 CSC/mag stripe validators on board each tram convenient to the doors. A tram is a big long vehicle offering plenty of opportunity for Valuestretcher types to operate.

If Valuestretcher was obliged to pre-validate at the tram or bus stop before hand, he could not play this game with the system – because everything would be “black and white”. Instead he would be stuck with having to pay a EUR 30 surcharge* + the fare (say 2) for not having a valid ticket.

If he succeeded in dodging the fare on 9 trips – “saving” himself” 9 * 2 = EUR 18, he’d have to pay EUR 32 for the tenth trip making the public transport system kitty better off by EUR 14 than if he behaved honestly.


Floater

* +Higher penalties for persistent defaulters.

Yoda

Cheats are cheats. Just because there are cheats doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a fare system that treats people as though we were good, law-abiding citizens. It's insulting now that we have to pay exact-change cash on entering the bus and that the back doors are never opened to allow exiting, ostensibly because cheats might slip in while it is open.

Floater

Originally posted by Yoda
Cheats are cheats. Just because there are cheats doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a fare system that treats people as though we were good, law-abiding citizens. It's insulting now that we have to pay exact-change cash on entering the bus and that the back doors are never opened to allow exiting, ostensibly because cheats might slip in while it is open.

Absolutely - customer service must come first or public transport will fail to deliver and the city will remain clogged ad infinitum. The travelling public will do everything in their power to escape the inconvenience of the system.

Open access, lots of doors and random inspections are the only way to operate any public transport system. Once the cheats learn that it costs more to cheat than buy the ticket, they stop cheating and fewer inspections are required to keep the system functioning optimally.

I was asking a neighbour yesterday how long I should allow to get to a particular town (where she happens to come from). She began her response with "Pour voyager en toute tranquillité" a concept surely unknown to the CIE group!

Floater

---

An item from Monday's Irish Times:

Train commuters suffer more stress, study finds
Gordon Deegan

Workers who commute to Dublin's International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) by train suffer more stress than those who use different forms of travel, a new study reveals.

Commuters said cramped and dirty carriages and longer transit times were two of the factors that significantly add to what is already a demanding journey, the report said.

The Dublin City University (DCU) study found that 85 per cent of all commuters surveyed felt some level of stress as a result of their morning commute to work. Those who walk to work suffer the least amount of stress.

The study, of 187 employees based in the IFSC in Dublin and carried out last spring, also found that commuting to work proved to be more stressful for women than men.

Those who felt stress by driving their car to work cited congestion as the largest contributor.

Co-author of the study, Mr Brendan O'Regan, said train commuters spend an average of 50 minutes in transit as opposed to an average of 41 minutes. They also travel the farthest distances to work.

The results of the report titled Psychological Effects of Commuting in Dublin were outlined by Mr O'Regan at the 34th annual Psychological Society of Ireland conference at Bunratty yesterday.

Mr O'Regan conducted the research with Dr Finian Buckley.

Victor

Originally posted by Floater

Train commuters suffer more stress, study finds
Gordon Deegan

Workers who commute to Dublin's International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) by train suffer more stress than those who use different forms of travel, a new study reveals. Commuters said cramped and dirty carriages and longer transit times were two of the factors that significantly add to what is already a demanding journey, the report said. The Dublin City University (DCU) study found that 85 per cent of all commuters surveyed felt some level of stress as a result of their morning commute to work. Those who walk to work suffer the least amount of stress. The study, of 187 employees based in the IFSC in Dublin and carried out last spring, also found that commuting to work proved to be more stressful for women than men. Those who felt stress by driving their car to work cited congestion as the largest contributor. Co-author of the study, Mr Brendan O'Regan, said train commuters spend an average of 50 minutes in transit as opposed to an average of 41 minutes. They also travel the farthest distances to work. The results of the report titled Psychological Effects of Commuting in Dublin were outlined by Mr O'Regan at the 34th annual Psychological Society of Ireland conference at Bunratty yesterday. Mr O'Regan conducted the research with Dr Finian Buckley.

What horse poo. (a) the sample is tiny (b) it doesn't compare like with like - it compares train commuters who, they admit, live further away with other commuters who live nearby :rolleyes: (c) they fail to mention that those who walk/run/cycle are actually working off stress (exercise counters nonadrenilin caused by stress).

Floater

Originally posted by Victor
What horse poo. (a) the sample is tiny (b) it doesn't compare like with like - it compares train commuters who, they admit, live further away with other commuters who live nearby :rolleyes: (c) they fail to mention that those who walk/run/cycle are actually working off stress (exercise counters nonadrenilin caused by stress).

While I would agree that exercise works off stress and walk/run/cycle is a better solution where available it is surely a reflection on the outdated transport infrastructure which doesn’t allow a seat for everybody and doesn’t allow them to bring their bikes on board so that they can cycle at either end of their train journey?

Frank McDonald has an article in today’s Times entitled “Emissions double as cars multiply”. The real reason for the increase in emissions is because of the increase in car use rather than the number of cars.

This will continue as long as public transport fails to compete with the car alternative, resulting in more physical and mental health problems, poorer work performance and a less competitive economy.


Floater



Emissions double as cars multiply
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

The surge in car ownership in recent years has been a big factor in boosting Ireland's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to more than double their 1990 levels, according to a new report on energy efficiency in the transport sector.

It said transport now accounts for 30 per cent of the State's energy consumption, up from 22 per cent in 1990. Private cars are responsible for 40 per cent of the total, with other road vehicles, such as trucks, accounting for a similar proportion.
The report, published by Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI), reveals that up to 441,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions could be avoided if the average annual mileage in private cars was reduced from 20,000 kilometres to 18,000.

"Measures that could be introduced to achieve such a reduction could include incentives for teleworking [working from home, or remote working\], parking tax and congestion charges. Of course, such measures would need to work hand in hand with improved public transport options."

The report says transport has been by far the fastest-growing energy end-use sector in Ireland over the period 1990-2001, with average annual growth of 7.1 per cent. It also accounted for 26 per cent of CO2 emissions - up from 17 per cent in 1990.

Under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, Ireland's target is to limit annual greenhouse gas emissions to 13 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.
However, it is projected that, unless action is taken, transport-related CO2 emissions will rise to 180 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.

SEI's chief executive, Mr David Taylor, said: "While we have seen substantial growth in Ireland's energy use over the last decade, trends in transport are giving the greatest cause for concern. The most significant single influence has been the activity level of the economy."

This had led to an increase in the number of cars on the road, from 0.8 million in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2001. There was also a significant move during the 1990s towards larger cars that consume more energy, offsetting improvements in energy efficiency.

Noting that an EU directive now required new cars to be labelled for fuel economy and CO2 emissions, the report says such emissions could be reduced by up to 53,000 tonnes if even 10 per cent of car buyers shifted to more energy-efficient models.

antoinolachtnai

Going back to the original topic, I would point out that the best reason for using a contactless smart card system rather than some other system (such as paper cards) is to reduce 'dwell-time' for buses.

Dwell-time is the time a vehicle spends at a stop. Longer than necessary dwell-time leads to 'headway' problems and to a reduction in the overall number of stops a given bus can service.

('Headway' is the term for the amount of time between buses, so if a bus catches up on another bus on the same route, the headway management might be said to be poor.)

There are other reason for going with a system like this. It reduces maintenance (paper ticket machines need to be overhauled every few hundred thousand cycles.) You can collect a higher quality of statistics and introduce more nuanced fare schemes. You can also divide revenue between operators more equitably.

One disadvantage that has not really been pointed out is that realistically you will need to operate a paper ticket system in parallel with the smart card system to provide disposable tickets to one-off users of the system.

Obviously, there is a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out to decide the best system for a particular situation. I understand that some form of analysis of the type of system required for Dublin has already been carried out.

On a point of information, there is in fact a light-rail system in operation in London, under TfL's auspices (there's one in Croydon, and one somewhere else, I think.) The Oyster card is valid for use on it. You don't have to validate when you board.

To declare all my interests, I act or have acted in the past as:

- an IT consultant

- a transport consultant (though not in this country, and not currently)

- an electronic payments consultant (though never for a transport company)

- a transport infrastructure vendor (currently, though in the real time information area, not the payment systems area)

- a consultant in PR/marketing related areas (though not in the transport sector and not currently)

Floater

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
Going back to the original topic, I would point out that the best reason for using a contactless smart card system rather than some other system (such as paper cards) is to reduce 'dwell-time' for buses.

Dwell-time is the time a vehicle spends at a stop. Longer than necessary dwell-time leads to 'headway' problems and to a reduction in the overall number of stops a given bus can service.

We have gone through the dwell time issues already. By removing the ticket validation and sale from the vehicle there is no ticket induced delay affecting the movement of buses.

There are other reason for going with a system like this. It reduces maintenance (paper ticket machines need to be overhauled every few hundred thousand cycles.) You can collect a higher quality of statistics and introduce more nuanced fare schemes. You can also divide revenue between operators more equitably.

The only tickets that need validation with a bus/tram stop system are multi-trip tickets. This puts a low overhead on the validation device. There is nothing to stop one putting a CSC validator on the ticket machine if it is more economic in terms of maintenance. Which I doubt given the extra cost of issuing smart cards to passengers. I would challenge the assertion of "higher quality" statistics using a CSC system. If 15% of people getting on board don't bother validating their ticket to save money - that puts your statistics and pot sharing out by 15% immediately. In contrast relatively small samples collected by inspectors using PDA type devices when they are roaming on ticket checking exercises, can produce results with very high confidence levels (eg 95 to 99%). One doesn't want to drown in large quantities of statistics, particularly when there is so much room for inaccuracy.

The best public transport networks in the world have operated integrated ticketing across multiple independently owned systems for decades without smart cards or similar technology.

Floater

antoinolachtnai

OK, one other thing to consider, which I have left out - enforcement.

The smartcard system allows the driver to be sure that everyone boarding using a smartcard has a valid ticket without having to check individually. This is a great advantage over the current system where there is often only a cursory visual check. This means that much fewer inspectors are needed.

There is a culture issue here. The culture in some countries is that you assume everyone has a valid ticket, and then mount inspections to root out the evaders.

The culture in Ireland is not like this. Every ticket is checked here. That's just the way it is, and it's the same in most countries in the world. Admittedly this culture will be changed somewhat by the procedures on the tram.

I'm not saying that an inspections based system is a bad idea, or impossible but that it isn't really realistic to change over to such a system in Dublin in the short-term.

I think that an inspections-based system would be really hard to implement on the entire transport system unless there were a compulsory national identity card. It would be impossible to positively identify offenders and collect the fines without one.

There are also public order issues brimming below the surface. Ireland has serious public order problems relating to public transport which northern European countries do not. I do not think that drivers would want to allow passengers onto the bus unless they have a valid ticket or have paid the fare, because of the fear of assault. Equally inspectors would be unwilling to confront people who had not paid the appropriate fare in some circumstances. The driver would prefer to deal with them by denying them access to the bus in the first place. (Whether these fears would be grounded or not, I don't know.)

If these problems were dealt with, then maybe what you are proposing would be reasonable.

However, suppose you won the argument and we all agreed that Dublin should have an inspection-based regime. There would still be a case for offering a smartcard system to allow the customers to pay their fares more rapidly before they boarded the buses.

A smartcard system implemented as you are proposing would cost far less than the RPA's proposed system, because it would not require equipment on every vehicle. So an argument for an inspections-based system (which you are making very well) is not necessarily an argument against a contactless smartcard system.

Also, if we wanted the system to be multi-stage or multi-zone, the smartcard system would make things much easier (because customers could pay the full fare before they boarded, then get a refund of any unused portion as they left the system.)

Antoin.

Floater

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
OK, one other thing to consider, which I have left out - enforcement.

Imagine living in a housing estate with a bus stop outside your gate. Mr Murphy is your next door neighbour. While you both work in the same office building in town, you have different employers and are on different floors.

When you are shaving in the morning you often see Mr Murphy waiting at the bus stop - he starts work earlier than you. You also take the No 567 bus, which brings you to the DART station and you travel by DART to the office.

You occasionally bump into Mr Murphy in the evenings on the way home from work, usually either walking to the DART station or on the platform waiting for the train. One evening you saw his annual commuting ticket while an inspector was doing the rounds and you noticed the expiry date was 31.12.2004.

You can make the following assumptions about Mr Murphy and his travel plans – even though you only see him occasionally.

1) He takes the No 567 bus probably twice every weekday.
2) He takes the DART to the city centre and back every weekday.
3) His ticket is valid today and will remain so until Dec 2004.

You have a detailed knowledge of this person’s weekday public transport usage from randomly sampling his travel patterns. Not unlike a ticket inspector – although the inspector’s samplings will be for the most part anonymous.

Would you increase the accuracy of your knowledge of Mr Murphy’s travel patterns and ticket validity by running down to the bus stop in your dressing gown every morning and demanding to see Mr Murphy’s ticket as he is about to board the bus? Then hopping in your car, and overtaking the bus so as you get to the DART station before Murphy to again check the validity of his ticket as he makes his way to the platform?

You could keep a little notebook with the date and time of each inspection, his ticket number, the number of the bus he got on, the time he arrived at the station, the destination of the train, the serial number of the carriage he got on, etc. After a few years you would be drowning in data with very little intelligence to glean from it.

As far as Mr Murphy is concerned, he might be forgiven for thinking that his neighbour is some sort of retard! Anyone with practical experience of open access public transport will probably have similar views about cities that still waste so much time with 100% validation exercises on public transport vehicles and the delays they contribute to.

I’m not suggesting that every bus in the city switches over to open access the day the first Luas trams come into service. I am saying that:

1) The only efficient way to operate trams is with open access and where validation is required, it takes place at the stop.

2) When the benefits of this system are observed in practice (i.e. short stop dwell times, more on time arrivals, leading to impressed customers who increasingly use the tram rather than their car) the next logical step must surely be to run the bus system on the same basis. Tram users will have learned that it is much cheaper to have a ticket before they board than having to pay an say EUR 30 penalty on top when buying it from the inspector. That public learning curve and advertising spend can easily be leveraged on bus and other public transport users.

3) There is no point therefore in investing a huge sum of money installing new ticket equipment on buses in the meantime. Tickets issued on buses can be used on trams to complete a journey once they have been “zoneized”. There is no point in installing ticketing equipment on trams because inspection and penalty charges are the only way to ensure compliance. Every tram stop should have at least one well engineered ticket machine incorporating a validator, and the same system should be suitable to roll out at bus stops in phase II. There is no point in using CSCs at all unless an economic case can be made in terms of maintenance costs, which I doubt.

You don’t need a compulsory ID card to make inspections work. You can go into a supermarket without an ID card. If you shop lift and are caught the police are called. Not being able to pay the fare + penalty as akin to shop lifting. And the penalty increases if you can’t/won’t pay to perhaps EUR 100 + costs. Any time I have seen someone caught without a valid ticket they pay up the EUR 30 surcharge. The only time I saw someone saying they had no money, they ended going over to an ATM accompanied by a the inspector. Assuming the inspectors were issued with special PDAs this would not be necessary as they should be able to charge the amount directly to the individual’s Laser or credit card on the spot.

There is another analogy between public transport and shops too. Years ago all the merchandise used to be kept behind the counter and the customer had to ask the shopkeeper for each item. The supermarket brought self service and business volumes grew as a result because the customer preferred it. Open access buses are self service and are part of the initiative necessary to drag public transport into the 21st century - SO IT CAN COMPETE AND WIN AGAINST THE CAR, against which it has been losing market share for decades.

Ticket inspectors can operate in teams and this allows them to more quickly work through the vehicle, supporting each other, and move on without any real increase in labour costs. This is surely a far safer strategy than putting the driver on the front line to deal with undesirable characters, and drive the bus at the same time. Police can be brought on with inspectors in extreme cases should the need arise, with costs thereof being charged to evaders who refuse to pay and behave in a difficult manner.

Floater

antoinolachtnai

Fair enough, good points.

But you are assuming a homogeneous zoned system with a small number of operators. We may not have that (current plan from my reading of all the documentation is that we probably won't.) I can see why the government might want to incorporate some flexibility to allow for a possible future change of plan.

You still need some way to purchase tickets on the bus for medium frequency bus users. So you need to deploy all that equipment anyway.

I agree with you on not having validators on the actual tram. That's a pretty dumb idea.

I don't agree with your analogy about chasing out after my neighbour. After all, it's not my bus, so I have no reason to chase after him. It is the bus driver's bus, so it is not surprising that he might want to check on things. Besides, there's no bus stop outside my gate.

I think you underestimate the size of the problem of delinquency and abuse of drivers. Lone drivers are very vulnerable and are afraid of groups of youths boarding the bus. Whether this is a perceived or a real problem, it has to be dealt with.

If the passenger doesn't have a valid ticket and has no money there is very little the authorities can do about it in Ireland, other than tell you to go to the transport office and pay. If you don't pay, it is very difficult indeed to convict you, because it will be extremely difficult to prove your identity in court. The bus inspector doesn't have powers of arrest. It is extremely unlikely that Gardai will be any more available available to provide more hard-line policing of recalcitrant fare evaders (although there probably should be if you want my opinion).

There are perfectly good transport systems all around the world (for example Singapore) where every ticket is verified on entering the system, other than on trams. Although there may be some advantages to the other system, I hardly think it's a make-or-break issue.

If the biggest concern is over the cost issue, then I agree, there are big questions to be asked as to why a couple of thousand ticket validator machines are going to cost the guts of 30 or 40 million Euro.

Antoin.

an_taoiseach

Will the tram drivers agree to open any doors behind them ? ( Dublin Bus drivers make a big issue about not doing this ).

If not, where does that leave Dwell Time

If they will, could it lead to a change in the way the Dublin Bus operate their doors ( heres hoping )

An T

Victor

Originally posted by Floater
There is another analogy between public transport and shops too. Years ago all the merchandise used to be kept behind the counter and the customer had to ask the shopkeeper for each item. The supermarket brought self service and business volumes grew as a result because the customer preferred it. Open access buses are self service and are part of the initiative necessary to drag public transport into the 21st century - SO IT CAN COMPETE AND WIN AGAINST THE CAR, against which it has been losing market share for decades.

Not a perfect analogy - it depends on your accounting method. If you take a loaf of bread from the supermarket, then it has actually cost the supermarket in terms of buying the bread and having someone put it on the shelf. If you don't pay your tram fare, the only extra cost to the tram operator is the tiny amount of **extra** electricity that is needed to transport you (maybe 70kg out of 50,000kg).

One thing spain does is attach your claim agianst the transport operator's insurance to your ticket. No ticket, no payout (for passengers).

embraer170

Will the tram drivers agree to open any doors behind them ? ( Dublin Bus drivers make a big issue about not doing this ).

I presume the LUAS will be open access.

Victor

Originally posted by embraer170
I presume the LUAS will be open access.

generally yes, I don't know what inspection / enforcement régime will exist.

BuffyBot

Will the tram drivers agree to open any doors behind them ? ( Dublin Bus drivers make a big issue about not doing this ).

The drivers will be employed by Connex, not CIE (unlike DB) so I can't see them having the same problems as CIE have had with unions etc...but see my point below anyway...

Dublin Bus drivers make a big issue about not doing this

I think this is a bit of an urban myth - while it started out that way many years ago when double doors were brought in and the unions were uptight about their operation, I don't think it really is the case now. From what the non-usage comes down to:

a) Some drivers don't bother/want to use them
b) Some drivers try but the passengers still clamber out the front/don't bother with rear door
c) People obstructing the doors

This is apprently why Dublin Bus have all but given up on buying dual-door buses :rolleyes:

Floater

Originally posted by antoinolachtnai
[

But you are assuming a homogeneous zoned system with a small number of operators. We may not have that (current plan from my reading of all the documentation is that we probably won't.) I can see why the government might want to incorporate some flexibility to allow for a possible future change of plan.

I am assuming a totally open system of integrated ticketing covering any number of operators involving bus, tram, mainline rail, DART, boat, balloon, whatever comes on stream.

My model is based on the www.zvv.ch system

ZVV is the Zurich region transit authority.

The participating service providers are listed at http://www.zvv.ch/partner.asp

Please see my earlier postings where I outlined how the pot of integrated ticketing fare money can be divided among the participating service providers on the basis of passenger km capacity * average load factors (as observed by the ticket inspectors and input to their PDAs).

It seems to me that whoever is planning the ticketing system urgently needs the services of a public transport revenue statistics expert – someone who has or is working with an efficient open access, multi-mode regional urban transport system.

You still need some way to purchase tickets on the bus for medium frequency bus users. So you need to deploy all that equipment anyway.

Why? You phase in the new system of get your ticket before you board and dump the old on board bus driver kit at the same time on a route by route basis.

Start with Luas and self service operation with ticket machines at tram stops.

Next convert the so called QBCs to bus stop integrated ticket machines.

Finally roll out the system on the rest of the bus network, DART, and other regional rail systems.

I don't agree with your analogy about chasing out after my neighbour. After all, it's not my bus, so I have no reason to chase after him. It is the bus driver's bus, so it is not surprising that he might want to check on things. Besides, there's no bus stop outside my gate.

The Mr Murphy story was intended to highlight the folly of the current system. Mr Murphy is a microcosm of a population of transport users. The message I am trying to get across is that there is no need to look at his ticket every time he gets on board. You can come to statistical conclusions about behaviour from sampling it.

Mr Murphy could equally be a drug addict who has superman delusions and who believes that he is above having to buy a ticket. That doesn’t matter in terms of the system because every time you (the statistical observer) are sitting next to him on the train and an inspector comes along, your first reaction will probably be something like “Oh no! Here we go again” because you know Murphy won’t have a ticket, as usual. In this case the financial model protects the system because Murphy will have to pay EUR 30 or more plus the fare. They only have to catch him about one in ten or fifteen times and the system is still in profit.

The system is effectively charging Murphy in bulk for his fare dodging (using a rough measure) to save the cost of trying to catch him every time.

THIS IS A CORE ISSUE OF OPEN ACCESS PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND CAN’T BE IGNORED. Let’s say Dublin has a fleet of 1,000 buses for simplicity to meet peak time demand. It is similar to electricity generation providing generating capacity for the peak demand is very expensive because it requires expensive generators that are not in use for the rest of the day.

Let’s say that at peak time each bus is stopped for 20% of the time as people board through the one and only door and are either paying the driver or validating their ticket. (As previously indicated in this thread, French experience would tend to indicate that five years after CSC validators are installed on buses only about 20-25% of passengers have a CSC.)

Therefore 20% of your thousand buses are engaged in ticket processing exercises at peak time rather than doing the job they were designed to do – ie move people.

200 buses costing the best part of EUR 200k each = EUR 40 million sitting idle + 200 drivers labour costs as he does something that a ticket machine could have done automatically before he reaches the stop – say another 10 million in recurring payroll costs.

Add to that the customer time wasted as the minutes tick by with a bus full of people held up while people boarding the vehicle deal with ticketing formalities.

Add to that the lost revenue from people who have a choice and could have taken public transport but won’t because it is so slow, unreliable and inefficient. A key driving factor behind this slowness is the on board ticket crap and the vicious circle of car users in traffic who won’t use public transport because if its inefficiency.

I think you underestimate the size of the problem of delinquency and abuse of drivers. Lone drivers are very vulnerable and are afraid of groups of youths boarding the bus. Whether this is a perceived or a real problem, it has to be dealt with.

I don’t. I’m saying that the driver should have nothing to do but drive. In a locked bullet proof cab if Dublin is as bad as you paint! Ticket sales and cash handling is a machine’s job – you don’t have parking wardens selling parking authorization stickers in Dublin – a street side machine does it. Why should bus tickets be any different?

If the passenger doesn't have a valid ticket and has no money there is very little the authorities can do about it in Ireland, other than tell you to go to the transport office and pay. If you don't pay, it is very difficult indeed to convict you, because it will be extremely difficult to prove your identity in court. The bus inspector doesn't have powers of arrest. It is extremely unlikely that Gardai will be any more available available to provide more hard-line policing of recalcitrant fare evaders (although there probably should be if you want my opinion).

If the authorities want to clear the transportation crisis in Dublin there is no other way than facilitating penalty fares or on board surcharges – whatever you like to call them. The system needs an advertising campaign to make people aware combined with posters at the stops warning of the penalties. During the first few weeks the inspectors might have discretion to charge a small penalty – say double the fare and give the passenger a don’t do it again leaflet and warning letter. After that the system goes into full operation.

ID cards are irrelevant because people won’t carry them or pretend they don’t have one with them. Should the need arise, a few high profile cases in court against people who refuse to pay the penalty will make hard liners think twice. The scale of penalties and allowable costs can be set to make it economic for garda resources to be committed if it comes to it.

The cost of bus stop ticket machines is more than self financing if you take into account the efficiencies outlined above – ie getting more passenger kms from the same fleet of buses and drivers and the money saved on the current proposed EUR 27 million ill conceived ticket machine "system".


Floater

Floater

Originally posted by Victor
Not a perfect analogy - it depends on your accounting method. If you take a loaf of bread from the supermarket, then it has actually cost the supermarket in terms of buying the bread and having someone put it on the shelf. If you don't pay your tram fare, the only extra cost to the tram operator is the tiny amount of **extra** electricity that is needed to transport you (maybe 70kg out of 50,000kg).

That element of the anology was only intended to show that people don't need to carry ID cards to be effectively prosecuted!

While the fare dodger "stealing a fare" is far less cost to the bus or tram operator than someone stealing merchandise from a shop let's not get deviated into marginal costing alleyways!

Floater

John R

Originally posted by an_taoiseach
Will the tram drivers agree to open any doors behind them ? ( Dublin Bus drivers make a big issue about not doing this ).

If not, where does that leave Dwell Time

If they will, could it lead to a change in the way the Dublin Bus operate their doors ( heres hoping )

An T

You may not have noticed but all the buses purchased in the last 3 years (the wheelchair accessable lowfloor double deckers ) have no rear doors.

John R

Originally posted by Floater

Let’s say that at peak time each bus is stopped for 20% of the time as people board through the one and only door and are either paying the driver or validating their ticket. (As previously indicated in this thread, French experience would tend to indicate that five years after CSC validators are installed on buses only about 20-25% of passengers have a CSC.)

Let's NOT say that each bus is stopped for 20% of the time as people board because it is a ridiculously high figure plucked out of your head.



If the authorities want to clear the transportation crisis in Dublin there is no other way than facilitating penalty fares or on board surcharges – whatever you like to call them. The system needs an advertising campaign to make people aware combined with posters at the stops warning of the penalties. During the first few weeks the inspectors might have discretion to charge a small penalty – say double the fare and give the passenger a don’t do it again leaflet and warning letter. After that the system goes into full operation.

ID cards are irrelevant because people won’t carry them or pretend they don’t have one with them. Should the need arise, a few high profile cases in court against people who refuse to pay the penalty will make hard liners think twice. The scale of penalties and allowable costs can be set to make it economic for garda resources to be committed if it comes to it.

The cost of bus stop ticket machines is more than self financing if you take into account the efficiencies outlined above – ie getting more passenger kms from the same fleet of buses and drivers and the money saved on the current proposed EUR 27 million ill conceived ticket machine "system".


Floater [/QUOTE]

And what about the time taken trying to deal with an uncoperative fare dodger, how much time is wasted dealing with just one. For it to be effective the threat of penalty fares have to be backed up with enforcement, to deal with an individual who refuses to pay, give a name or get off the vehicle the guards have to be called, wasting lots of people's time.

Floater

Originally posted by John R
You may not have noticed but all the buses purchased in the last 3 years (the wheelchair accessable lowfloor double deckers ) have no rear doors.

An efficient single deck bus has three sets of doors – front, middle and rear. Twice as many on the articulated variety. It has a totally flexible suspension system to allow floor levels to be lowered and the entire vehicle to be angled to get past tight situations (eg double parking) avoiding damage to the vehicle. Scratched and battered buses put people off using them and cost money to repair.

A triple door bus pulls into the stop. Doors at the front, middle and rear open immediately. People get on and off in a few seconds. The bus moves off. Anything less than that in terms of access, and you are designing in delays into the system.

Delays that compound at peak times. The consequences - more buses are needed to provide the same service levels.

There is less timetable reliability.

It involves longer journey times for everybody.

A higher capital investment than if the job was done properly.

Higher wage costs to pay drivers to sit in traffic and deal with ticketing formalities that should have no part of the job of driving a bus. This leads to frustrated drivers who are forced to deliver a sub standard service to the people they have to meet face to face day in, day out.

Double deck buses are a designer made bottleneck. They are only suitable for tourists and should have nothing to do with an urban transit network.

The stairs are a bottleneck.

There can’t be any doors for the upstairs passengers to enter or exit via.

Downstairs it would appear that Dublin Bus are proud of the fact that they have neither three nor two sets of doors. Just one!

You then go on in a subsequent posting to question my estimate that approx 20% of Dublin Bus’s fleet and driver man hours is wasted through access delays!

Open access to the public transport systems essentially requires two things:

1) A well thought out public communications exercise to bring the public on board – ie by showing them the benefits of compliance in terms of having a more on-time public transport service, freedom of interchange en route across all modes of transport, without having to purchase new tickets, and less cost for the government in providing a better infrastructure.

2) A simple low cost infrastructure to manage the implementation of integrated ticketing might include –

a) Personal digital assistants for the ticket inspectors that can read tickets and process debit and credit card payments online.

b) An off the shelf database to record the “shapshots of usage” gathered by the roaming inspectors on their PDAs.

c) An off the shelf data mining software package to analyse usage. Among other things this would

i) Provide a basis of apportionment of fare revenue among any number of service providers

ii) Provide a statistical basis for the allocation of ticket inspection staff to the most productive targets based on route, fare zone, time of day, day of week, special events, public holidays, and other criteria.

iii) Measure performance of service providers and inspection staff and provide intelligence on where additional public transport resources are required or where resources are being wasted for the benefit of service providers and planners.

v) An open ended information base to track travel patterns based on detailed surveys of actual usage. While the theory is similar to the that employed in say electoral opinion polls, it is far more accurate because it is based on ticket sampling – ie no electorate changes of mind are involved, no lying about voting intentions in possible etc. It produces a more accurate apportionment of revenue than a validation based system which will invariably be distorted by fare evasion.

You paint a picture of a lawless city. The vast majority of public transport users who keep the system going are anything but. The vast vast majority of Irish people don’t want to dodge fares. THEY JUST WANT TO GET HOME AND GET TO WORK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. The inspection based system is far better attuned to dealing with the odd bastard than a bus driver on his own with a cashbox full of money. Inspection intensity can be varied like a volume control on a radio - anything from full inspection of every passenger on a vehicle to zero - depending on what is necessary at any point in time to ensure compliance.

Irish people are the least worried about money or cost in Europe. The country has one of the lowest crime rates. No other government I know of has to run adverts to tell the population to shop around to save money! Wake up and smell the coffee. People just want to get from A to B efficiently with a minimum of hassle. You can’t let a perceived tiny minority dictate an inefficient public transport system on everybody else.

Fares need to be rebalanced. Charge higher fares for one off ticket purchasers to cover the high cost of servicing one-off users and help fund bus stop ticket machines. Reduce the fares to people who buy period or multi-trip tickets and promote them heavily - particularly at bus stops!

Integrate ticketing with everything else – intercity rail – even air travel. Get people more committed to the system. Remove silly conditions forcing people to use multi-fare tickets within a specified time period.

Why not behave as if you were trying to run a business in a competitive environment and please the customer, instead of sticking your head in the sand a la the CIE group in the 1960s.

Floater

John R

Originally posted by Floater
[EDIT: Blah Blah Blah]

Complete rubbish, without any sources to back any of it up.

Victor

Bus Éireann claim they already have an integrated ticketing system (with who!).

antoinolachtnai

I believe that the system they have is specified such that it _can_ be integrated with the integrated ticketing scheme in the future, whenever the scheme is finished. I suspect that Dublin Bus has more or less the same plan. Of course the assumption is that this system will be contactless smartcards. (So the discussion above is really moot.)

Floater

Open access with shorter stop dwell times could be likened to Ryanair’s fast turnaround of aircraft (boarding and deplaning using the front and back doors) – allowing the aircraft to carry more passengers every day by squeezing in extra flights with the same equipment investment.

The e-ticket, another airline industry innovation, could also be implemented for weekly, monthly and annual ticket holders using buses, trams and trains – including inter-city.

Purchase your ticket online or via a call centre, using your credit card. When the ticket inspector comes along he just swipes the card into a special PDA, which has an encrypted list of valid card numbers and their related travel entitlements stored in flash memory.

On regional transport services the system will tell him that the holder of the card with this number has a valid e-ticket for zones x, y and z. People without credit cards can avail of the same e-ticket benefit by getting a special card from the transport authority – which could last indefinitely and be credited with travel entitlements (e.g. weekly, monthly, annual etc) via phone or www with the cost being direct debited to the matching bank account. A phone top-up type system could be used for people who don’t have a bank account or credit card (eg buy a EUR 10 or EUR 20 voucher, call an automated voice server, enter your card number, your PIN and the top up voucher number) and the value is transferred to your e-ticket account.

On inter-city services, the PDA would indicate the number of passengers paid for, the starting and end-point of the journey, the seat numbers reserved, the urban zones at the origin and destination cities that can be used by the card holder to connect with the train, etc.

Integrated ticketing is all about minimalism. Instead of three or four tickets to complete a journey you need just one or even none.

It is also about minimalisation of bureaucracy and customer inconvenience. It doesn’t matter what legacy systems are used on buses or trains. From day-one, people who start their journey with inter-city, DART, Arrow, or Dublin bus tickets could complete their journey on Luas or any other mode by showing their ticket if/when required.

It is a matter of a change in the regulations, primarily incorporating a zone system that is fair for both customers and service providers irrespective or origin and destination, rather than a €27 million spend on a smart card system that most people won’t be bothered with.

As people who use the occasional bus or train discover that services have got more punctual, journey times have become shorter and the system more user-friendly (the doors open, you sit down and off it goes) they will use it more, and a virtuous circle takes effect with more people using public transport more of the time.

The focus should be on making the travel experience as close as one could get to having a chauffeured car waiting for the customer virtually outside their door. This is the only way one can reverse the never ending growth in vehicle use, and its related pollution, congestion, parking problems, and help put a stop to the mushrooming respiratory health issues in Ireland.

While this may sound like a tall order, they have achieved it in Zurich, a city of similar size to Dublin which has a far higher level of vehicle ownership than any Irish city.

Anything less than this is surely not acceptable given the traffic situation and the large investment that is in the process of being made in the network over the next five to ten years?

Floater

Victor

Originally posted by Floater
Open access with shorter stop dwell times could be likened to Ryanair’s fast turnaround of aircraft (boarding and deplaning using the front and back doors) – allowing the aircraft to carry more passengers every day by squeezing in extra flights with the same equipment investment.

Yeah, I hate airlines that insist on everyone boarding by the one door and then loading the passengers nearest that door first, so that subsequent passengers then need to fight their way past people standing in the aisle to put their hand luggage in the overhead compartments. All so business class can "go first". Muppets.

But thats a different days argument.