College Green - the post mortem

gurramok

At 5:30pm yesterday, it was much better on Amiens St southbound like pre-bus gate times. But still very heavy for that right hand turn onto Georges Quay.

bmaxi

Even at 7p.m. it was heavy at the right turn on to George's Quay, with a resultant tailback around the Custom House on to Beresford Place, Abbey St. Gardiner St. and Butt Bridge. I'd say it is affecting buses in and out of Busaras.

BC

Found traffic very heavy mon, tue and wed evenings.
Compared to traffic last week going the quays rather than college green has added about 20 minutes on to the journey (passing through at approx 4.30pm).

techdiver

Traffic elsewhere in the city is inevitably going to be heavier. The main point of this is to clear the main bus corridor in the city. Public transport is given priority and rightly so. The 46A journey from O'Connell Street to Dun Laoghaire in some instances is reduced by 20 - 25 minutes as a result.

bmaxi

techdiver wrote: »

Traffic elsewhere in the city is inevitably going to be heavier. The main point of this is to clear the main bus corridor in the city. Public transport is given priority and rightly so. The 46A journey from O'Connell Street to Dun Laoghaire in some instances is reduced by 20 - 25 minutes as a result.

What about the buses operating from Lr. Abbey St. Eden Quay, Talbot St., Gardiner St. or is it only buses travelling southside that are priority?

lucernarian

There are northside buses that use college green too. E.g. the 83 and 16/a. The 16s are chronically crowded too, the 83 not much better.

markpb

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There are northside buses that use college green too. E.g. the 83 and 16/a. The 16s are chronically crowded too, the 83 not much better.

The 16, 16a, 746 and other cross city buses are dramatically improved from last week, the journey time has dropped by about half an hour or more in some cases. The 16A is still very crowded because they are still getting bunched up after sitting for half an hour at each stop.

bmaxi

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

There are northside buses that use college green too. E.g. the 83 and 16/a. The 16s are chronically crowded too, the 83 not much better.

Hardly the point. It is obvious that buses travelling through College Green are going to benefit. My post was in answer to the assertion that public transport as a whole is going to benefit. If buses travelling northside from other termini are going to be adversely affected then the operation as a whole is hardly a success.

markpb

bmaxi wrote: »

Hardly the point. It is obvious that buses travelling through College Green are going to benefit. My post was in answer to the assertion that public transport as a whole is going to benefit. If buses travelling northside from other termini are going to be adversely affected then the operation as a whole is hardly a success.

I haven't experienced any delays on northbound buses from the city centre. If traffic is heavy southbound from Amiens St turning right onto Georges Quay, it won't affect many buses except the 128, 151 and 90. All the other buses should remain unaffected.

bmaxi

markpb wrote: »

I haven't experienced any delays on northbound buses from the city centre. If traffic is heavy southbound from Amiens St turning right onto Georges Quay, it won't affect many buses except the 128, 151 and 90. All the other buses should remain unaffected.

I have to accept that as I haven't travelled on any northbound buses but my experience yesterday was, right turning traffic at Georges Quay caused a tailback right back around the Custom House. I can't see how this cannot affect traffic from Eden Quay, Gardiner St. and Abbey St.

spacetweek

Walked through College Green yesterday evening during the evening rush. Very pleasant. Gardai enforcing the ban. All was as it should be.

Are we running this city for the benefit of cars, or people? Need to keep asking that.

Cookie_Monster

bmaxi wrote: »

Even at 7p.m. it was heavy at the right turn on to George's Quay, with a resultant tailback around the Custom House on to Beresford Place, Abbey St. Gardiner St. and Butt Bridge. I'd say it is affecting buses in and out of Busaras.

That's pretty bad if its affecting Busaras. I presume if there are big delays that BE will object to it sooner or later?

techdiver

spacetweek wrote: »

Walked through College Green yesterday evening during the evening rush. Very pleasant. Gardai enforcing the ban. All was as it should be.

Are we running this city for the benefit of cars, or people? Need to keep asking that.

We should be running it for people and public transport should be given top priority everywhere. I only wished they introduced a congestion charge in Dublin and that would hopefully improve things further or at the very least raise more money that could be pumped into public transport.

NedNew

techdiver wrote: »

We should be running it for people and public transport should be given top priority everywhere. I only wished they introduced a congestion charge in Dublin and that would hopefully improve things further or at the very least raise more money that could be pumped into public transport.

All routes should be franchised out to private operators. Dublin bus should have to compete. Dublin Bus should be broken up and the remnants made into a private company.

That would massively improve the bus service but maybe thats for another thread or for a decent government to take on.

techdiver

NedNew wrote: »

All routes should be franchised out to private operators. Dublin bus should have to compete. Dublin Bus should be broken up and the remnants made into a private company.

That would massively improve the bus service but maybe thats for another thread or for a decent government to take on.

I'm all for privatisation in general, but in the case of Dublin Bus I'm not so sure. They run the service at a loss that is filled by the government. The loss is made due to the fact that they operate off peak services on non-profitable routes. I can't see a private company doing the same to be honest.

Carawaystick

techdiver wrote: »

I'm all for privatisation in general, but in the case of Dublin Bus I'm not so sure. They run the service at a loss that is filled by the government. The loss is made due to the fact that they operate off peak services on non-profitable routes. I can't see a private company doing the same to be honest.

If a proper subvention was given to run a proper service, it wouldn't matter who actually ran the bus services like in Berlin or London. People wouldn't actually know (or care) what company ran the bus.

techdiver

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a proper subvention was given to run a proper service, it wouldn't matter who actually ran the bus services like in Berlin or London. People wouldn't actually know (or care) what company ran the bus.

OK, I see your point, my only worry would be that some services would suffer as a result of privatisation. If it was run correctly perhaps it would be a runner.

bmaxi

I saw a TV programme recently about privatised bus routes in either Manchester or Liverpool, I can't remember which. Absolute chaos, with buses racing to beat one another to stops, buses double parked at termini etc. pure mayhem. Could you imagine, given Dublin's record of regulation and traffic law enforcement, what would happen here.
Public transport systems are fine if they are run properly but sadly this is not the case with Dublin Bus or any of the CIE companies. I worked for Dublin Bus in the 1970's and from what I can see very little has changed in the overall scope of things since then. Top heavy management, union dominated depots, general couldn't care less attitude from all sectors.

monument

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a proper subvention was given to run a proper service, it wouldn't matter who actually ran the bus services like in Berlin or London. People wouldn't actually know (or care) what company ran the bus.

Have you seen the subvention rates in other countries?

...from Deloitte's Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Review January 2009

Public Sector Obligation (PSO)

Government PSO payments including capital payments to both companies are relatively low.

In 2007, Dublin Bus received €80.1m operational subvention to cover its PSO. Bus Éireann received €36.6m operational subvention to cover its services. Operational subvention is designed to meet the shortfall between the cost of operating PSO services and the revenue generated from such services.

In recent years the subvention PSO payments have been increasing at a rate of c.5% per annum with further increases applying where new services have been introduced.

The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.29% of total revenue. Grants and subsidies to other comparable bus operations outside Ireland vary greatly. In Europe, levels of operational subvention are generally higher (% of revenue):

• 68% in Brussels
• 57% in Zurich
• 62% in Amsterdam
• 79% in Lyon
• 38.5% in London (regulated, excluding network management costs)

The Bus Éireann PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.12% of total revenue. In addition Bus Éireann has been using its own resources, generated from its commercial services, to subsidise PSO services. In 2007 the retained surplus from commercial and school transport amounted to €8m. It is more difficult to identify comparable operators for Bus Éireann given their mix of services. When compared to the PSO received by the national operators in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the subsidy received by Bus Éireann is low:

• Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%
• Car Postal/Post Auto (Switzerland): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 51%
• EC (Walloon region, Belgium): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 78%

PSO payments in 2008 are forecast by management to be €85.8m for Dublin Bus and €36.9m for Bus Éireann.

In addition to the annual PSO payment, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive capital grants to partially fund the purchase of buses for PSO services or the upgrading of infrastructure for PSO services. These capital grants have the effect of lowering the annual PSO compensation requirement of the companies. This is due to the fact that the grant payments for buses and facilities are amortised on the same basis as assets are depreciated. Without the capital grants, the net depreciation charge for the companies would be higher.

In 2007, the amortised capital subvention amounted to €13.4m and €5.9m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively. This compares to an operational PSO payment of €80.1m and €36.6m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.

Now, which is going to cost the tax payer more, a low subsidised Dublin Bus (with reform needed, yes) or privatisation, which is apparently a magic wand?

parsi

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a proper subvention was given to run a proper service, it wouldn't matter who actually ran the bus services like in Berlin or London. People wouldn't actually know (or care) what company ran the bus.

What companies are in Berlin other than BVG ?

dazberry

The first couple of days were more or less as normal for me but Thursday was pretty bad with traffic backed up to James St - which although not uncommon, is unusual for this time of the year. It added about 10 minutes to the bus journey. Not in work today

D.

cyclopath2001

It's been pretty good. I found the absence of private cars and motorbikes has made it easier to get around this busy area by bicycle, especially in the morning.

But, this evening, there was gridlock northbound. Private cars coming around from d"Olier street, heading for the left-lanes in Westmoreland Street were blocking anyone using the right-hand two lanes in Westmoreland Street, trapping traffic at the 2-lane junction outside the BoI. This stupidity ran all the way to the O'Connell monument.

AlekSmart

Parsi asked..

What companies are in Berlin other than BVG ?

My undestanding is that BVB is the regulatory and administrative entity governing ALL Public Transport in the Berlin region.
I would imagine that it has virtually TOTAL control over it`s remit which includes ALL Public Transport Infrastructure.

This is also the case with Londons TfL.

However the cost base analysis of these Total Control systems will show that their level of high quality,high frequency and universally available services come with a SERIOUS price tag.

Whilst it is acceptable to use such Cities as examples of all that Good Public Transport Systems CAN be,there has to be a realization that the inhabitants of these Cities are PAYING for it in ways which would cause a coronary to the average Irish person.

Local Taxation.
Sales Taxes.
Property Taxes.
Utility Charges and of course PENALTIES such as the TfL "C" congestion charge.

Dublin CAN have these services IF we,the People,are willing to pay for them and it is that as much as anything else that remains the unanswered question.

As the Deloitte Report demonstrated the CIE Road Transport entities have performed well above their station in supplying a broad-based universally available level of services financed by a single funding source.

It is notable that few of the many Consultants reports into Dublins Bus Market have actually recommended full privatization as a means to improve or broaden the scope of such services.

That is largely due to a realization that full privatization can do many things but what it will NOT achieve is the maintainance of current general service levels without actually INCREASING the subvention.

What it CAN do,of course,is to maintain or even increase Service Levels on selected profitable corridors at selected profitable times at the expense of the other less financially atractive "dross".

There IS great scope for further expansion of Private Sector supplied services in the Dublin Bus market BUT only within the frame work of a strong Regulator and that is not something which currently appeals to either sector at the moment.

A shining example of our current confusion is the appearance on Dublin`s Nassau St of yet another new Bus Stop....standing proud in the middle of a line of Bus Atha Cliath`s busiest stops is a brand new lurid Green Pole for Collins Coaches Tours serving Wicklow,Wexford and KILKENNY.....The pole itself has been cemented into the kerb adjacent to a receptacle for the new-tech Bus Atha Cliath aluminium standards so presumably Bus Atha Cliath have been elbowed off that spot....

Evidence of a vibrant private sector perhaps,but equally solid evidence of pixx-poor regulation or planning on the part of ....well...God only knows who IS actually responsible for these things in modern Dublin any more.....:o

cyclopath2001

AlekSmart wrote: »

This is also the case with Londons TfL.
Utility Charges and of course PENALTIES such as the TfL "C" congestion charge.

The London congestion charge gives a 90% discount to people who live within the controlled area. I think it's a good idea to encourage people to live in cities, live near where they work and commute less.

KC61

bmaxi wrote: »

What about the buses operating from Lr. Abbey St. Eden Quay, Talbot St., Gardiner St. or is it only buses travelling southside that are priority?

All of the routes operating along North Strand and Amiens Street have bus lanes along those streets already.

Gardiner Street is only used outbound by buses.

antoinolachtnai

The figures in that report are incorrect, or at the least, likely to give a wrong picture. The subsidisation of regular Dublin Bus services was far more than 29 percent.

Deloitte apparently came up with this figure by dividing the subsidy (82m) over the total operating costs of dublin Bus (EUR 286m)

This doesn't give a very clear picture. You have to factor in the capital subsidy (2007: 20m cash, 13m on the P+L) the cross-subsidy from other areas of the business (2007: 7m). All numbers below refer to the 2007 accounts. (See http://www.dublinbus.ie/PageFiles/2430/English%20Annual%20Report%202007.pdf .)

This comes out at a total of

82m + 13m (capital subsidy) + 7m (profit from commercial activities) = 102m

To calculate the percentage subsidy, you divide this number by the total amount spent on regular bus routes (excluding commercial routes). This is 277m.

102m/277m = 37 percent subsidy. This is around the same as London.

Additionally, Dublin Bus made a profit. This is extra money, that could have been ploughed into the service.

Further still, the company has large reserves, and earned interest of 2.5m.

When you take that altogether, the total subsidy is 109.5m

109.5m/277m = 40 percent subsidy.

There are also other issues with the accounts. Dublin Bus depreciates its buses faster than the last 44 to Eglinton Road, and this results in the profits being somewhat depressed.

Anyhow, comparing the Dublin service to other cities is a bit hopeless for lots of reasons. Cities are all different. Many of these cities have complex rail systems for which the buses act as feeders, and this changes the profitability model considerably. Also, the population density is different.

Different cities have different levels of fare. For example, bus fares in London are generally lower than here. This means that a bigger subsidy is required to provide the same per-trip or per-mile funding.

Most importantly, different cities have different levels of service. For example, the London bus service is of a generally higher standard than the Dublin one, in my experience.

Deloitte gave no source for their findings about subsidies in other cities. I would be concerned as to whether these figures are really calculated correctly.

AlekSmart

Anyhow, comparing the Dublin service to other cities is a bit hopeless for lots of reasons. Cities are all different. Many of these cities have complex rail systems for which the buses act as feeders, and this changes the profitability model considerably. Also, the population density is different.

Different cities have different levels of fare. For example, bus fares in London are generally lower than here. This means that a bigger subsidy is required to provide the same per-trip or per-mile funding.

Most importantly, different cities have different levels of service. For example, the London bus service is of a generally higher standard than the Dublin one, in my experience.

Deloitte gave no source for their findings about subsidies in other cities. I would be concerned as to whether these figures are really calculated correctly.

Antoin`s points re the Accounting practices of Bus Atha Cliath are all very interesting.
However given the long running association and interaction with the State`s own Financial Accounting systems ( ) we (de People) are somewhat powerless to unravel what is undoubtedly a complex set of accounts.

However,that complexity and the fact that specific elements of the CIE/State Accounting practice do not endear themselves to us does not of itself make them wrong,per se,just less acceptable to our particular viewpoint.

I would also agree that direct comparisons with any other Cities is largely a counterproductive process.
This can be for a variety of reasons from Infrastructural to Sociological any one of which may render the exercise meaningless.

I`m not so certain about describing London`s Busfare as "Lower" than Dublins.
It most certainly is IF one uses a pre-paid Oystercard but if one clings,as do 50% of Dublin Bus paying passengers,to Cash then our Fares offer substantially lower cost.
The current London Cash Fare is £2 which equates to €2.25 today.
I would be lynched if I dared to demand this from a "€1.15 there bud" customer.

The only lesson worth taking from London on this issue is that ANY universal pre-paid or smart-card system MUST be incentivized to encourage wider useage.

The point re General Level of Service is also a valid one,not least because very shortly Dublin is going to experience a decidedly severe reduction in it`s mainstream Bus Service Levels.

The nature and extent of cutbacks in the near to mid term will make the last "Survival Plan" appear very small beer indeed.

London,on the other hand has a variety of sound reasons for maintaining its comprehensive Public Transport system,not least being its self-regard as a CAPITAL City,something which has never really occupied the minds of Dublins proponents.

The other issue which is giving Londons Public Transport users some breathing space is the upcoming Olympic Games,which have a far reaching effect on the provision and cost of basic public services such as Transport.

The final point re the veracity of the Deloitte report is frankly in the realms of how long is a piece of string ?
There is an increasing realization that Accountancy is one VERY obscure and deviant science.
The current Irish domesday situation with Builders,Developers and Financial Institutions is proving this on an hourly basis as we (de Peeple) learn of massive Financial Impropriety even AFTER all of the Financial Accounting hoops were superficially complied with.

So basically it comes down to Deloitte saying one thing and Antoin saying "I don`t believe you".....A real Mexican Standoff I reckon

antoinolachtnai

These points are not about DB accounting practices. The DB accounts have a few interesting twists, but they are really not all that complicated.

I am not really commenting about the accounts themselves.

My points are about the means by which Deloitte apparently calculated the percentage subsidy. The method by which they calculated it is simply wrong. They made three fundamental mistakes:

- they didn't include all the money that the government paid.

- they didn't include internal cross-subsidies

- they didn't take account of the fact that 2 percent of the company's income comes from unsubsidised sources.

These appear to be simply mistakes. I am pretty sure I am right, but I am open to correction.

You can't simply say that 'well, there's accountants for you.', or if you do, you have to really discount the Deloitte figures altogether. In any case, the Deloitte report was not done by accountants. It was done by transport consultants.

The London fare - the average fare per journey or per mile that a punter pays getting on the bus in london is less than the average fare per journey or per mile that a punter pays in Dublin. I do not have the figures for this, but surely that is undeniable at this stage? (As a result of them doing what you rightly say DB should do, i.e., have a large differential between the cash and smartcard fare).

I would say that there are many other things to learn from the London experience of buses. (Organization, brand, marketing and communications, vehicles, drivers' conditions, etc.)

Unfortunately, you are probably right about the prospects of further cuts in the DB service. But there is really no need for it.

I am pretty confident I could replicate the 2007 level of service (the last year for which there are accounts) for around 225m per year, even paying 2007 prices for goods and services. That would be 50m less than what it cost DB.

This saving would allow the opportunity to vastly improve the level of service over the 2007 level.

I also think that the drop in carryings could be arrested at the 2008 level.

AlekSmart

You can't simply say that 'well, there's accountants for you.', or if you do, you have to really discount the Deloitte figures altogether. In any case, the Deloitte report was not done by accountants. It was done by transport consultants.

The London fare - the average fare per journey or per mile that a punter pays getting on the bus in london is less than the average fare per journey or per mile that a punter pays in Dublin. I do not have the figures for this, but surely that is undeniable at this stage? (As a result of them doing what you rightly say DB should do, i.e., have a large differential between the cash and smartcard fare).

You are correct in the distinction between the Deloitte report compilers and it`s principals,however the two tend to get quite intertwined in terms of Irish useage of what their reports reveal.

My Dublin/London comparison is similistic in extremis as it refers to me,as a driver,seeking €2.35 froma cash-fare passenger rather than the €1.15 commonly tendered.
It would be immaterial were I able to prove that this represented a lower per km or per hour or whatever fare...my passengers tend to be base-line payers and to have a marked preference for Cash...largely due to the continued reluctance to incentivize the Pre-Paid alternative,which of course might entail some form of central subvention or marketing assistance ?

Unfortunately, you are probably right about the prospects of further cuts in the DB service. But there is really no need for it.

I am pretty confident I could replicate the 2007 level of service (the last year for which there are accounts) for around 225m per year, even paying 2007 prices for goods and services. That would be 50m less than what it cost DB.

This saving would allow the opportunity to vastly improve the level of service over the 2007 level.

I also think that the drop in carryings could be arrested at the 2008 level.

Now this is indeed an interesting set of claims and one`s which I hope may be put to the test,as they represent probably the ONLY positive viewpoint of Public Transport which I have heard recently.

I do actually believe that there is much common ground which could be used to make Public Bus Services far more atractive and readily available in Dublin.

However,I also see little enthusiasm within the Irish Public Administrative sector for any real change or improvement..just witness the long and protracted gestation of the Dublin Transport Authority...(Transport for Dublin ?) and the as yet unspecified Actuality of it`s remit and operational powers.....God Save Ireland...Indeed ??

antoinolachtnai

I appreciate where you are coming from with the issue about fares! The reality is that everybody has to change, however, and that includes the passengers too (although this has to be done in the right way).

The only reason I mentioned it is because of the possibility that part of the reason why the subsidy might just be higher in london could possibly be that the fare is lower! That's all.

There's a lot of bureaucracy and systems to be set up with the DTA. The way it's set up, it will not really be anything like TfL. For instance, it will not be able to competiitvely tender routes.

But that's not really here or ther. What the whole thing actually needs is a vision to move it forward.

The biggest obstacle to bus transport, congestion looks like it is going to be greatly reduced for the next few years. It really is a great opportunity.

It is looking extremely unlikely that my claim will be put to the test!

But I do have numbers behind it (based on the SE annual PVR (6), compared to the 2007 DB PVR (1032) and adding a pretty big allowance for extra shifts to allow for longer running into the evening).