BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

Dyr

embed a card reader in the rear of every headrest. Bish Bosh Bash

LionelNashe

devnull wrote: »

There would be way too much over-riding for this to be acceptable. A large number of people would simply always use the short hop validator so in order for this to work you'd have to massively increase the number of inspections which at the moment in Dublin Bus is just a single team. Be worth an evaders while of taking the chance, even if they're caught a couple of times a year they'll still be quids in.

re: 'way too much over-riding','a large number','massively increase the inspections' - I don't think it's possible to quantify the amount of fare evasion with a lot of certainty. I'd say there'd be some over-riding and evasion, and some more inspectors needed, but who can say how much? And if we had people boarding through front, centre and even rear doors, the dwell time could be down by enough to compensate for a small amount of evasion. Most supermarkets, for example, have done away with checkout operators without hiring more security guards (that I'm aware of), because they're willing to accept a small amount of thievery in exchange for efficiencies.

devnull wrote: »

It's going to be an expensive job to maintain and fit all of them

Yeah, I suppose it would be a pain to hook up every little bus-stop to the electricity supply and a network. It could still be done at the busy interchanges though and the busy city-centre stops, which is where it's needed most; so if there are 20 people waiting to get on a bus at Blanch, they'd be pre-validated and could board quicker.

devnull wrote: »

and then you have the downside of the fact that people will merely get off a bus at these stops when they see an inspector coming, this is what I've seen in other places where such a system is in place, and in Dublin where so many stops are close together, it'd probably happen.

I think this is quite easily done on the Luas, but not so easily done on a bus. It's not an insurmountable objection, though; for example, you could have plain-clothed inspectors like they have on the Munich underground, so you wouldn't see them coming so easily.

devnull wrote: »

The system that I would propose would be one where there is no such thing as a short hop fare. Instead I would have a single flat fare (of say €2.50) taken at time of boarding which gives a rebate of the difference between the flat fare and a short hop fare by tag-off when leaving the bus after a short journey.

Obviously this depends on the validators being smart enough to know roughly where they are in order to make this calculation, but it removes driver interaction as well as helping to prevent over-riding.

I had typed up a response to this that was very similar to BK's first response, above, but in addition, I think that people slowing down or queuing to tag-off would slow down the bus, and especially if they were disembarking at the front door. Maybe a cheaper, simpler, validator that only deals with tagging-off, attached to the bus stop, would work. It wouldn't need any connectivity to any network, and would just check the ticket to see when was the boarding time, or where was the boarding stop, and it would refund €1. People would have to get off the bus before they could use it, so there'd be no early-tagging-off or slow coaches. An issue I can see with this is, though, that I don't know if a non-connected validator is good enough, because I don't know if the card can be the sole repository for the balance/credit. And even if they're cheaper & easier than normal validators, there'd still be thousands of them.

Stephen15

I would support a flat fare it would be the easiest situation and be the best for dwell times. You are not costing the NTA or DB much less if you are going only a few stops over doing the full length of the route. The driver is not getting paid less if your arse is not on the seat and fuel is costing the same. The bus has to run from terminus to terminus no matter how little or many stops you travel.

LionelNashe

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what is the number of Luas ticket inspectors, and what size teams they work in, and how many tram journeys take place each week?

devnull

bk wrote: »

The danger though would be people tagging-off shortly after they begin the journey to get the short.

I agree that it is not perfect - however it's does eliminate the need of interaction with a driver as well as avoiding the obvious large scale fare evasion that would occur if people could simply choose between a short and long hop validator.

You will still need to increase ticket inspections over what there is now though - over-riding fraud is the biggest type of fraud I see on bus services right now, having a total flat fare would remove it, but it'll be politically unpopular unfortunately to have just one flat fare I would suggest.

devnull

LionelNashe wrote: »

re: 'way too much over-riding','a large number','massively increase the inspections' - I don't think it's possible to quantify the amount of fare evasion with a lot of certainty. I'd say there'd be some over-riding and evasion, and some more inspectors needed, but who can say how much? And if we had people boarding through front, centre and even rear doors, the dwell time could be down by enough to compensate for a small amount of evasion. Most supermarkets, for example, have done away with checkout operators without hiring more security guards (that I'm aware of), because they're willing to accept a small amount of thievery in exchange for efficiencies.

All I will say is this - I once worked in a multi-national company which employed a lot of people and those who were not cheating the DART or the Bus with very much in the minority and when I used the bus daily, I saw well into double figures daily over-riding and that was nothing compared to the amount of conditional validation evasion that is happening on the DART which Irish Rail seem to be in denial about as they seem to think that evasion doesn't exist outside of the city centre.

The only reason that the CIE companies think fraud is so low is their revenue protection efforts are pathetic so they don't detect it, although admittely the new free travel pass and student LEAP has reduced two of the other top categories of fraud to the point where over-riding on the bus is going to be by far the biggest type of fraud via that mode.

I think this is quite easily done on the Luas, but not so easily done on a bus. It's not an insurmountable objection, though; for example, you could have plain-clothed inspectors like they have on the Munich underground, so you wouldn't see them coming so easily.

I was on the Underground last year and a guy wearing a polo shirt and a pair of shorts and Sunglasses pulled out an ID badge and started asking everyone for their tickets. To say that some people were shocked to see him was very much an understatement!

bk

Ok, so thinking about it more, the "best" * solution is probably a variant of what was mentioned above.

* In terms of balancing, cost, technology, and reducing fare evasion, non of these are really great.

Two validators at the front door, non at the rear. The normal right hand tag-on validator and a new, special tag-off only validator next to the driver (not the usual drivers ticket machine, a new dedicated one).

Tag-on when boarding on the right hand, charged the full fare. Most people exit via the rear door.

If someone wants to try for a "short ticket" to try at the special tag-off validator next to the driver. It only gives them a refund if the distance the bus has travelled is under the short.

The advantages are:
- Quick boarding and exit time for most people
- No driver interaction for any people, most likely faster then interacting with a driver for a short.
- The driver can keep an eye on people trying to tag-off and then not getting off.
- No more people lying to the driver for a shorter journey, which we all know happens frequently at the moment. You only get a short if entitled to it. Would actually reduce the fraud compared to the moment.

Disadvantage:
Ideally you don't want people exiting via the front door. The ideal flow is enter via the front, exit via the rear. But hopefully most wouldn't bother with the short.

Not ideal, but on balance probably ok. Unless you could figure a reasonable way to stop people from tagging off early at the rear and not exiting.

Perhaps just suffer the lose in money at a rear validator for tag-off (which they do in Amsterdam) or perhaps just bite the bullet and go for a completely flat fare.

bk

devnull wrote: »

I was on the Underground last year and a guy wearing a polo shirt and a pair of shorts and Sunglasses pulled out an ID badge and started asking everyone for their tickets. To say that some people were shocked to see him was very much an understatement!

Very much the mainland European approach. They'll even pull out a mobile credit card machine for you to pay the fine there and then. A great approach IMO.

LionelNashe

Stephen15 wrote: »

I would support a flat fare it would be the easiest situation and be the best for dwell times. You are not costing the NTA or DB much less if you are going only a few stops over doing the full length of the route. The driver is not getting paid less if your arse is not on the seat and fuel is costing the same. The bus has to run from terminus to terminus no matter how little or many stops you travel.

I'm just googling around to see how it's done elsewhere, and Vancouver, while it has a 3-zone system for its public transport, only charges one-zone pricing on the bus and doesn't require tagging off. After 6.30 pm, and on weekends, holidays etc., the other transport modes only charge a one-zone fare also. It's $2.95 CAD, about €1.90.

devnull

bk wrote: »

Ok, so thinking about it more, the "best" * solution is probably a variant of what was mentioned above.

* In terms of balancing, cost, technology, and reducing fare evasion, non of these are really great.

Two validators at the front door, non at the rear. The normal right hand tag-on validator and a new, special tag-off only validator next to the driver (not the usual drivers ticket machine, a new dedicated one).

Tag-on when boarding on the right hand, charged the full fare. Most people exit via the rear door.

If someone wants to try for a "short ticket" to try at the special tag-off validator next to the driver. It only gives them a refund if the distance the bus has travelled is under the short.

The advantages are:
- Quick boarding and exit time for most people
- No driver interaction for any people, most likely faster then interacting with a driver for a short.
- The driver can keep an eye on people trying to tag-off and then not getting off.
- No more people lying to the driver for a shorter journey, which we all know happens frequently at the moment. You only get a short if entitled to it. Would actually reduce the fraud compared to the moment.

Disadvantage:
Ideally you don't want people exiting via the front door. The ideal flow is enter via the front, exit via the rear. But hopefully most wouldn't bother with the short.

Not ideal, but on balance probably ok. Unless you could figure a reasonable way to stop people from tagging off early at the rear and not exiting.

Perhaps just suffer the lose in money at a rear validator for tag-off (which they do in Amsterdam) or perhaps just bite the bullet and go for a completely flat fare.

The other disadvantage is by having two different types of validator you risk confusing people and also you risk people tagging a validator when they don't need to. The problem with two types of validator is it adds complexity.

devnull

LionelNashe wrote: »

I'm just googling around to see how it's done elsewhere, and Vancouver, while it has a 3-zone system for its public transport, only charges one-zone pricing on the bus and doesn't require tagging off. After 6.30 pm, and on weekends, holidays etc., the other transport modes only charge a one-zone fare also. It's $2.95 CAD, about €1.90.

I agree that a flat fare is a way to go - however I don't think you're going to be able to politically sell the fact that those on the lowest fare now are going to have to pay the same for a short hop as someone on a very long one, since the vast majority of fares right now are not short ones.

You could then just reduce the flat fare further to try and stop that kind of outrage, but the problem is you're going to lose far more revenue from further discounting the long journeys than you gain from the smaller increase you give to the short trips.

bk

devnull wrote: »

The other disadvantage is by having two different types of validator you risk confusing people and also you risk people tagging a validator when they don't need to. The problem with two types of validator is it adds complexity.

Yes, but tough, they lose out on €1, not such a big deal IMO.

Actually a slightly better variant on this. Allow both validators at front to tag-on, faster flow for people boarding, but only the validator next to the driver allows for the tag-off.

Or have both front validators allow for the tag-off, but make the tag-off a really noticeable loud noise that the driver and everyone else would clearly notice. Actually if you do above, you could do it just with the existing right-hand validator. But I'd rather add a second validator as it would increase speed of boarding flow.

Another idea, if you did install a rear optional tag-off validator and use that approach. First of all it only works when the bus stopped at stop, second loud annoying noise if you tag-off and finally a camera that shows the person tag-off to the driver, so the driver could check that they actually leave the bus. If they don't then stop the bus and ask the person to leave over the intercom and say your not going anywhere until they do. Do that a few times and people would quickly get the idea not to try their hand at this.

I think either of the above could be a good workable approach and much better then the current approach.

Of course I'd much prefer the Luas approach, off bus ticketing, exit/entry through any door, three or more doors, lots of ticket checkers. That would give us the lowest dwell times and thus fastest journey times. But perhaps too far outside DB's comfort zone. One of the above would probably be the best compromise for them or just flat ticketing.

bk

LionelNashe wrote: »

I'm just googling around to see how it's done elsewhere, and Vancouver, while it has a 3-zone system for its public transport, only charges one-zone pricing on the bus and doesn't require tagging off. After 6.30 pm, and on weekends, holidays etc., the other transport modes only charge a one-zone fare also. It's $2.95 CAD, about €1.90.

The following are the different approaches I've experienced around the world. BTW they are all much better then Dublin Bus, DB's approach has to be the worst of any major city I've experienced.

- The Luas Model - Experienced in Poland, Austria and Germany. Three or four doors, entry/exit through any door, no driver interaction, validate ticket at multiple validators on board. Flat fare, usually time based. Today you validate with a smart card, but they have been operating this approach for 50 years using pre-bought book of tickets that you validate by pushing into a machine and it prints a date and time on it. System enforced by frequent under cover ticket checkers. By far the fastest model with amazingly low dwell times.

- Flat fare - Experienced in London, Atlanta. Board via front door, validate there, flat fare, exit via rear door. A good system, but not quiet as fast as the above.

- Amsterdam model. Tag-on at front door, optionally tag-off at the rear door. You are charged the max when you tag-on and based on distance travelled you are refunded when you tag-off. Slowest approach of these three, but still much faster then DB. I don't know how they stop people tagging-off early and not getting off, I assume the drivers just keep an eye on it.

LionelNashe

bk wrote: »

Another idea, if you did install a rear optional tag-off validator and use that approach. First of all it only works when the bus stopped at stop..

I really don't like anything that increases the dwell time. I want to be part of a double-line of people who are skipping off the bus like parachutists jumping out of a plane, through the centre doors, not be holding my card up, waiting for the beep, or even worse, standing behind one or two other people who're doing the same thing.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

I agree that a flat fare is a way to go - however I don't think you're going to be able to politically sell the fact that those on the lowest fare now are going to have to pay the same for a short hop as someone on a very long one, since the vast majority of fares right now are not short ones.

You could then just reduce the flat fare further to try and stop that kind of outrage, but the problem is you're going to lose far more revenue from further discounting the long journeys than you gain from the smaller increase you give to the short trips.

You see the main cost of public transport is wages then fuel. It's not costing DB a whole lot more to transport a person on a core route going a short distance versus going a few stops. The bus isin't using anymore fuel and the driver isin't getting paid because someone gets on and then gets off again.

I think people going very short distances should be discouraged unless they are elderly/disabled and have an FTP. I see able bodied getting the 46a, 75 or 63 on York Road going to DL paying a fare not FTP. This journey should not be done by bus or car it should by foot it's only about a 10 minute walk max.

LionelNashe

bk wrote: »

The following are the different approaches I've experienced around the world. BTW they are all much better then Dublin Bus, DB's approach has to be the worst of any major city I've experienced.

- The Luas Model - Experienced in Poland, Austria and Germany. Three or four doors, entry/exit through any door, no driver interaction, validate ticket at multiple validators on board. Flat fare, usually time based. Today you validate with a smart card, but they have been operating this approach for 50 years using pre-bought book of tickets that you validate by pushing into a machine and it prints a date and time on it. System enforced by frequent under cover ticket checkers. By far the fastest model with amazingly low dwell times.

I think this is the approach I prefer, especially if we had buses with front, centre, and rear doors. I would also have validators at the bus-stops at the busiest interchanges, and when narrow-band Internet-of-things technology gets cheaper over the next few years, I'd have validators at every stop.

(Edit: Except for the flat fare bit. I wouldn't fancy paying the same for a short journey as for a long one.)

As for fare evasion, DB had customer revenue of €252 million last year, and it's not hard to see it continuing to rise, especially if this overhaul works. If evasion is even 1%, you'd think they could justify teams of inspectors on every spine and still break even.

Dravokivich

For buses they are better off continuing in simplifying the fares to the extent that higher usage is accounted for through fare capping.

No point in messing with extra validators. That can easily be gotten around by someone going up to the second validator and annulling the fare.

@headrest validators. It's a no go. It's hard enough to maintain current stock. Each validator needs to have every potential fare or ticket explicitly defined on it locally. All it takes is for one out of date list to cause issues with passengers being charged incorrectly.

bk

LionelNashe wrote: »

I think this is the approach I prefer, especially if we had buses with front, centre, and rear doors. I would also have validators at the bus-stops at the busiest interchanges, and when narrow-band Internet-of-things technology gets cheaper over the next few years, I'd have validators at every stop.

Me too, but it would take at least 10 years to get to a fleet of 3/4 door buses. But worth doing.

This is what was planned for Swiftway. BRT buses, 3/4 doors, off bus ticketing. Pity it looks like not happening.

Validators could easily enough added to RTPI signs, already power and internet connection there for RTPI. Bus shelters too, they all have power, internet connection via 3G/4G like the buses themselves.

For simple bus poles, maybe you could get away with solar powered + battery + 3G/4G, would save on civils + planning that is required for power + internet solutions.

Still would be a maintenance nightmare across such a large network.

Dravokivich wrote: »

No point in messing with extra validators. That can easily be gotten around by someone going up to the second validator and annulling the fare.

Well not if the validators are right next to the driver, it would be very obvious and a person would have to have a tick neck to try. I'm not saying it would never happen, but I can guarantee that it would happen far less then the current lying that happens all day, every day.

AlekSmart

Dravokivich wrote: »

For buses they are better off continuing in simplifying the fares to the extent that higher usage is accounted for through fare capping.

No point in messing with extra validators. That can easily be gotten around by someone going up to the second validator and annulling the fare.

@headrest validators. It's a no go. It's hard enough to maintain current stock. Each validator needs to have every potential fare or ticket explicitly defined on it locally. All it takes is for one out of date list to cause issues with passengers being charged incorrectly.

+100% on the validator non-issue.

The NTA has already signed a new contract with Parkeon(Wayfarer) for TIM's and with IniT for AVL equipment.

There is also a small line in the Document regarding the new fare arrangement,which outlines how the 90 Min "All Modes" fare will be Leapcard based to begin with,whereas the CASH fare will be single journey only and not valid on any other mode.

The intention I presume,is to persuade the rump of dedicated cash Payers to cop-on,by making it more expensive AND less flexible than the Cashless option.

The Public,particularly in mass transit situations,can be incredibly dozy....I'm still rolling my eyes heavenwards at the blank looks I get from "Yoots" stuffing cash into the vault...when they could be travelling Free,Gratis and for Nothing for a fortnight,across ALL modes in Dublin :eek:.....at a certain point,one simply has to say..."I give up" and leave it to the education system.....:o

Removing the cash option completely would allow,even the current Wayfarer TGX,to perform far better (faster),but our National preoccupation with facilitating studied non compliance with commonsense remains in the way....:)

Stephen15

AlekSmart wrote: »

+100% on the validator non-issue.

The NTA has already signed a new contract with Parkeon(Wayfarer) for TIM's and with IniT for AVL equipment.

There is also a small line in the Document regarding the new fare arrangement,which outlines how the 90 Min "All Modes" fare will be Leapcard based to begin with,whereas the CASH fare will be single journey only and not valid on any other mode.

The intention I presume,is to persuade the rump of dedicated cash Payers to cop-on,by making it more expensive AND less flexible than the Cashless option.

The Public,particularly in mass transit situations,can be incredibly dozy....I'm still rolling my eyes heavenwards at the blank looks I get from "Yoots" stuffing cash into the vault...when they could be travelling Free,Gratis and for Nothing for a fortnight,across ALL modes in Dublin :eek:.....at a certain point,one simply has to say..."I give up" and leave it to the education system.....:o

Removing the cash option completely would allow,even the current Wayfarer TGX,to perform far better (faster),but our National preoccupation with facilitating studied non compliance with commonsense remains in the way....:)

I thought the aim was to have all buses cashless by 2020. Will the 90 minute leap fare be implemented before then.

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

The NTA has already signed a new contract with Parkeon(Wayfarer) for TIM's and with IniT for AVL equipment.

New ticket machine from Parkeon? Wayfarer 200 or Wayfarer 6?

At last, about time to update this. Any chance of the internal next stops signs on BE buses in Cork making their way to Dublin? They are great, vastly superior to the DB ones.

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is also a small line in the Document regarding the new fare arrangement,which outlines how the 90 Min "All Modes" fare will be Leapcard based to begin with,whereas the CASH fare will be single journey only and not valid on any other mode.

Yes, during the DCC presentation the NTA person specifically said that the T90 will be leap card only and cost between the €2.15 and €2.60 fare.

He said cash will be single ticket only.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The intention I presume,is to persuade the rump of dedicated cash Payers to cop-on,by making it more expensive AND less flexible than the Cashless option.

During the same presentation, he mentioned that Leap is up to 80% usage. As you say hopefully this will push up usage.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I thought the aim was to have all buses cashless by 2020. Will the 90 minute leap fare be implemented before then.

I though the aim by then was to have contactless cars and mobile rolled out. I suspect going full cashless is longer term.

Obviously I'd love to see cash gone, but they probably want to make sure the network redesign gets done first.

They would also want to get the 90min ticket and contactless card and mobile ticketing rolled out first and in wide use for a year or two, before trying to go cashless. At least that is what happened in London.

dashcamdanny

Stephen15 wrote: »

You see the main cost of public transport is wages then fuel. It's not costing DB a whole lot more to transport a person on a core route going a short distance versus going a few stops. The bus isin't using anymore fuel and the driver isin't getting paid because someone gets on and then gets off again.

I think people going very short distances should be discouraged unless they are elderly/disabled and have an FTP. I see able bodied getting the 46a, 75 or 63 on York Road going to DL paying a fare not FTP. This journey should not be done by bus or car it should by foot it's only about a 10 minute walk max.

The major fuel costs are pulling away from stops, I was told they can use as much as half a litre on a hill from one stop. So picking up frequent short hop fare evaders actually cost a fortune. What im saying is that the same route can vary greatly of fuel cost depending on how they are driven and how many time the bus has to stop.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

New ticket machine from Parkeon? Wayfarer 200 or Wayfarer 6?

At last, about time to update this. Any chance of the internal next stops signs on BE buses in Cork making their way to Dublin? They are great, vastly superior to the DB ones.

Yes, during the DCC presentation the NTA person specifically said that the T90 will be leap card only and cost between the €2.15 and €2.60 fare.

He said cash will be single ticket only.

During the same presentation, he mentioned that Leap is up to 80% usage. As you say hopefully this will push up usage.

I though the aim by then was to have contactless cars and mobile rolled out. I suspect going full cashless is longer term.

Obviously I'd love to see cash gone, but they probably want to make sure the network redesign gets done first.

They would also want to get the 90min ticket and contactless card and mobile ticketing rolled out first and in wide use for a year or two, before trying to go cashless. At least that is what happened in London.

The bolded part illustrates the somewhat unreal aspect of the current situation.

We are all aware of the limitations of the TGX,as in limited memory and the requirement to constantly switch between Secure and Non-Secure modes.

The instant we achieved a 50/50 split between Cash & Card the machines needed to be defaulted to Card mode.

Currently,EVERY transaction begins as Cash,even during successive Leap transactions,the machine will always try to re-enter cash mode,which,if a parallell SCV (Reader) transaction is occurring,will cause the machine to freeze and belatedly give a corrupted read error to the Driver.

At busy Stops,the Driver has NO chance of recalling the effected passenger,as the natural flow will have brought them to the Stairwell.

Thos passengers who have,long ago, made the transition to Card,should be rewarded and further encouraged,rather than inconvienced and delayed due to some deeply held attachment to the Money changing in the Temple principle.

The NTA maintains that it is committed to Cashless & Account Based Ticketing for Dublins Bus Services,but it's actions continue to demonstrate a decided LACK of committment.

Irrespective of the Big-Ticket Busconnects plans,ensuring that the TGX defaults to Card would bring IMMEDIATE and noticeable improvements for Customers (and Drivers).

howiya

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think people going very short distances should be discouraged unless they are elderly/disabled and have an FTP. I see able bodied getting the 46a, 75 or 63 on York Road going to DL paying a fare not FTP. This journey should not be done by bus or car it should by foot it's only about a 10 minute walk max.

Who pays for the shortfall in revenue if we discourage this type of usage?

gmisk

From looking at this proposal it looks like a disaster from where I am based.
I can now get the 79 79a and fly into town in 15 minutes. It now looks like I would have to change bus and it would wind through Inchicore, killmainham, and Thomas Street which is always jammed... So will take an absolute age to get to city centre! Where is the logic in that?

AlekSmart

gmisk wrote: »

From looking at this proposal it looks like a disaster from where I am based.
I can now get the 79 79a and fly into town in 15 minutes. It now looks like I would have to change bus and it would wind through Inchicore, killmainham, and Thomas Street which is always jammed... So will take an absolute age to get to city centre! Where is the logic in that?

That is assuming the Inchicore,Kilmainham,Thomas St routeing remains as it currently is ....?

LionelNashe

dashcamdanny wrote: »

The major fuel costs are pulling away from stops, I was told they can use as much as half a litre on a hill from one stop. So picking up frequent short hop fare evaders actually cost a fortune. What im saying is that the same route can vary greatly of fuel cost depending on how they are driven and how many time the bus has to stop.

That's interesting. Now that you mention it, the straighter routes with less slowing down for corners, and the increased traffic signal priority so less stopping at lights, should help with fuel consumption for the same reason.

murphaph

howiya wrote: »

Who pays for the shortfall in revenue if we discourage this type of usage?

And short journies (or more precisely legs thereof) will be much more commonplace if BusConnects is implemented as outlined.

Stephen15

howiya wrote: »

Who pays for the shortfall in revenue if we discourage this type of usage?

Passengers going short distances I'm sure some will continue to go short distances. There won't be a shortfall in revenue as long distance passengers will pay less and short distance passengers will pay more so it will all even out.

murphaph

Honestly if this is implemented they need to really make bringing a car inside the canal rings very awkward. There's only so much you can achieve in the city centre with bus lanes.