# Dublin bus routes privatised.



## TheBigShort (10 Aug 2017)

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0810/896450-go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes/

Competition on the bus routes. Reducing the subsidy paid by taxpayers and increasing efficiency of the bus service.

This will no doubt result in reduced burden on public finances and result in cheaper fares for consumers.

Or will it?


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Aug 2017)

It's hard to know the numbers... it's such a small amount of the network that on its own it won't make much contribution one way or another?

How much cheaper was the Go Ahead bid I wonder?
Will Go Ahead be supplying smaller buses for some of these low volume orbital routes and therefore saving costs in that way?

Will the new service integrate with LEAP card system and RTPI? 
Will they be able to share bus stops with Dublin Bus?
If not, it will make linking these orbital routes with the Dublin Bus city centre routes challenging.
Hopefully NTA have thought about these things 

Why did the tenders have to commit to "operating a depot"? Presumably the other bidders who dropped out because of this would have had lower cost than Go Ahead or Dublin Bus. I understand the NTA laying down service level agreements, but this is possibly over restrictive specification?

I am also not sure full stop about some of these orbital routes as currently routed\timetabled, whether run by Dublin Bus or another operator, 90% of the time when I see a 104 bus it has less than 5 people on it!


----------



## Protocol (10 Aug 2017)

Nothing to do with fares.

All fare revenues on these routes goes to the NTA.

Same bus stops, new NTA bus stop design being rolled out. Bus stops should not be operator-specific.


----------



## Delboy (10 Aug 2017)

Go Ahead are supplying no buses. From what the NTA said on the radio earlier, they will take some buses back off Dublin Bus (that are already leased from the NTA) or lease some newly sourced vehicles out to Go Ahead directly.
Dublin bus staff not required to transfer across....they will be giving alternative work elsewhere in the company if they so wish.


----------



## thedaddyman (11 Aug 2017)

Leap card will be accepted by the supplier, it was a condition of the tender.

This isn't the big tender to watch out for, that will be in Waterford if Bus Eireann lose the right to run the city buses. Then the unions are going to go ballistic


----------



## MrEarl (11 Aug 2017)

Hello,

Are these routes going to have multiple operators on them, or just the new operator ?   If only the new operator, how exactly is it increasing competition ?

Supply and Demand will determine the size of buses, the frequency of buses etc. so I'm not sure how moving this from Dublin Bus to another operator will improve the frequency of service to be honest.  Perhaps they are hoping that the introduction of more frequent, smaller buses may help encourage more people to use the service or something ?

I'm generally in favour of privatisation and competition (unless there is a very good reason for the state to be involved in a service and perhaps have a monopoly), but I don't see any real logic to what has taken place here - other than to introduce the principal of removing Dublin Bus from certain routes.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> Are these routes going to have multiple operators on them, or just the new operator ?   If only the new operator, how exactly is it increasing competition ?



These orbital routes will just have the new operartor. The routes are not in competition with Dublin Bus routes. 
So there is no direct competition in the consumer marketplace, the competition is in the tendering process.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0810/896450-go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes/
> 
> Competition on the bus routes. Reducing the subsidy paid by taxpayers and increasing efficiency of the bus service.
> 
> ...



I don’t think this is about the cost to consumers but rather the subsidy by the State on the cost of running the service.

In the longer term it should also reduce the cost to the State of funding very generous defined benefit pensions for CIE group company employees.


I like the idea of the State regulating but not delivering as many public services as possible. The problem is that intimately the people doing the regulating will be unaccountable, unnameable and unsanctionable public servants and recent history tells us that our Public Service doesn’t have the skills, ability or backbone to regulate the Private Sector properly.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> Dublin bus staff not required to transfer across....they will be giving alternative work elsewhere in the company if they so wish.



bwahaha


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> I don't see any real logic to what has taken place here - other than to introduce the principal of removing Dublin Bus from certain routes.


 I agree, it hasn't been explained what it was that Go Ahead would provide in their tender application that Dublin Bus did not already provide.


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> So there is no direct competition in the consumer marketplace, the competition is in the tendering process.



If company A can provide the same service and standards cheaper than company B and ticket fares remain the same for consumers, who benefits from the reduced costs?


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If company A can provide the same service and standards cheaper than company B and ticket fares remain the same for consumers, who benefits from the reduced costs?



In theory, the Minister for Finance now has funds available for other purposes.

But, in practice, and I might be over-thinking this one... I have a suspicion\instinct that Dublin Bus might have been using this tender as a nice little earner to balance the books, as an indirect subsidy.
So my concern is that losing out on this, they will need further shoring up regardless...


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> I don’t think this is about the cost to consumers but rather the subsidy by the State on the cost of running the service.
> 
> In the longer term it should also reduce the cost to the State of funding very generous defined benefit pensions for CIE group company employees.



The cost to consumers v the cost to taxpayers. Invariably, they are the same people. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
I doubt if the consumer taxpayer will see any benefit by way of reduced taxes, or improved services or reduced prices.
Just my hunch.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> Dublin bus staff not required to transfer across....they will be giving alternative work elsewhere in the company if they so wish.


Priceless; Cost reduction State company style, "We are outsourcing your job but we'll keep paying you."


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The cost to consumers v the cost to taxpayers. Invariably, they are the same people. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
> I doubt if the consumer taxpayer will see any benefit by way of reduced taxes, or improved services or reduced prices.
> Just my hunch.


You are probably right but I do like the idea of people paying for the services they consume rather than things being funded through general taxation. People should pay the full cost for their bus and train journeys and not expect their neighbour to subsidise them.


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> You are probably right but I do like the idea of people paying for the services they consume rather than things being funded through general taxation. People should pay the full cost for their bus and train journeys and not expect their neighbour to subsidise them.



I couldn't disagree more. People who use public transport already pay their fares and subsidise those that choose to use private cars to transport to work. Public transport passengers reduce congestion on roads, reduce the likelihood of accidents, reduce carbon emissions and overall make a far greater contribution to the efficient running of the economy than any motorist does. 
The State should intervene to subsidise more public transport services in order to reduce reliance on congestive private transport.
A comment was made about a bus carrying only 5 passengers. But it wasn't stated how many passengers were being carried in the five cars (running 5 engines) that followed after the bus - perhaps only 5 passengers too.


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I am also not sure full stop about some of these orbital routes as currently routed\timetabled, whether run by Dublin Bus or another operator, 90% of the time when I see a 104 bus it has less than 5 people on it!



Do you think that a private operated service charging the same fares, providing the same service will increase passenger numbers?


----------



## Delboy (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I agree, it hasn't been explained what it was that Go Ahead would provide in their tender application that Dublin Bus did not already provide.


Cheaper yellow pack staff


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Do you think that a private operated service charging the same fares, providing the same service will increase passenger numbers?



If there is no change to timetabling or frequency or fares... I would not expect any increase or decrease in passenger numbers. Why would you?

Possibly the amount of coverage the routes are getting now in the press as a result of this might alert some people to the existence of these routes and lead to an increase in usage ... but that's a but nebulous.

I'm not sure what the threshold is in terms of passenger usage for cancelling a route \ continuing to provide a subsidy on it. But the 104 must be surviving by the skin of its teeth!

Your original question was: "This will no doubt result in reduced burden on public finances and result in cheaper fares for consumers."

In theory it will reduce the burden on public finances.
As to whether it will result in cheaper fares for the consumers, that is a question for the NTA and Department of Finance. 
If the NTA can reduce the subsidy by using GoAhead but provide the same service, then there is less pressure for fare increases, for example.
Alternatively, the Department of Finance might use the subsidy to pay for a helicopter in Galway.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If company A can provide the same service and standards cheaper than company B and ticket fares remain the same for consumers, who benefits from the reduced costs?






TheBigShort said:


> https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0810/896450-go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes/
> 
> Competition on the bus routes. *Reducing the subsidy paid by taxpayers* and increasing efficiency of the bus service.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If company A can provide the same service and standards cheaper than company B and ticket fares remain the same for consumers, who benefits from the reduced costs?





TheBigShort said:


> Do you think that a private operated service charging the same fares, providing the same service will increase passenger numbers?



According to the NTA:

_"Under the provisions of the tender, *not only will service levels on the routes in question be maintained, they will actually be increased by about 35pc*. So passengers in areas served by these routes have absolutely no reason to worry about this change. Matters such as fares, frequency and scheduling for the service will all be set by the NTA, and not the operator."_

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ntract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html

Perhaps you should ask them?


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> Cheaper yellow pack staff



Why the use of such a derogatory term? If Bus Eireann drivers were described as something in a similar vein there would be an out-cry.

Also, given that existing BE staff will not lose their jobs and "work elsewhere" in the company, surely those of a left-leaning persuasion should be delighted as more jobs are being created?


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The cost to consumers v the cost to taxpayers. Invariably, they are the same people. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.



Can you please explain this? The NTA has stated that services will either stay the same or be increase and fares will remain unchanged. Where is the cost of the consumer?


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I couldn't disagree more. People who use public transport already pay their fares and subsidise those that choose to use private cars to transport to work.


 Every fair is subsidised through the State subsidy of Dublin Bus. How do they subsidise those who use private cars? The road infrastructure is funded through general taxation and everyone benefit from it whether they use the road or not.




TheBigShort said:


> I Public transport passengers reduce congestion on roads, reduce the likelihood of accidents, reduce carbon emissions


 Are you sure about that? If our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then the emissions per passenger per Km travelled are 5 times higher for bus passengers than car passengers. Given the amount of road space given over to bus lanes I’m doubtful about how much busses reduce congestion. Again, I can’t find Dublin Bus data but in the linked article the average bus carried 2.3 passengers per Km travelled whereas the average car carried 1.2 passengers.




TheBigShort said:


> I and overall make a far greater contribution to the efficient running of the economy than any motorist does.


 Where did you get that from?




TheBigShort said:


> The State should intervene to subsidise more public transport services in order to reduce reliance on congestive private transport.


 Why not introduce a congestion charge in Dublin city centre? Motorists who use the M50 pay €2 each way to cross the Liffey. €5 to drive into the city centre would cause a bigger change in behaviour than an extra €0.50 subsidy on every bus journey.  




TheBigShort said:


> A comment was made about a bus carrying only 5 passengers. But it wasn't stated how many passengers were being carried in the five cars (running 5 engines) that followed after the bus - perhaps only 5 passengers too.


 Yea, but the bus has its own lane and if our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then on average during rush hour two cars = 1 bus.


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> Cheaper yellow pack staff


You mean staff being paid an open market rate?


----------



## jjm (11 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> You mean staff being paid an open market rate?


I think I read somewhere that wages would be the same to allow dublin bus drivers to transfer over ,


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Why not introduce a congestion charge in Dublin city centre? Motorists who use the M50 pay €2 each way to cross the Liffey. €5 to drive into the city centre would cause a bigger change in behaviour than an extra €0.50 subsidy on every bus journey.
> Yea, but the bus has its own lane and if our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then on average during rush hour two cars = 1 bus.



They don't need a new charge. Just have checkpoints checking every car coming into Dublin city centre for tax, insurance and NCT. You'll either see a drop off in traffic by 20% or a surge in revenues to the state coffers...


Maybe we should make the bus lane on key routes into the city centre 'car pool' lanes. 
If you have a passenger, you can use them?


----------



## Leo (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Can you please explain this?



I can only assume he meant what was going on before this change, robbing Peter the taxpayer to pay Paul the inefficient service provider.


----------



## Delboy (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Why the use of such a derogatory term? If Bus Eireann drivers were described as something in a similar vein there would be an out-cry.
> 
> Also, given that existing BE staff will not lose their jobs and "work elsewhere" in the company, surely those of a left-leaning persuasion should be delighted as more jobs are being created?


As anyone on here familiar with my posts over the years would confirm, I am certainly not of the 'left'!

I recall when the waste industry was carved up in Dublin and privatised, workers were guaranteed their Corpo wages etc. That lasted for a few years and then Greyhound cut wages/benefits to 'market rates'. Strikes ensued but Greyhound won out.
And from what I can now see of the bin lorries in my area of Sth Dub, the workers seem to be exclusively young Eastern Europeans on much lower wages. How many of those now working there require FIS to top up those wages? And how many of the ex workers are on benefits/FIS also of some sort, too old to get new jobs etc?
Meanwhile Greyhound are incorporated in the Isle of Man and we cannot see their accounts/profits!

I was always pro-privatisation and while it may deliver some short term benefits in terms of reduced subsidies etc, the longer term impact in terms of low wages which the State have to then support through the benefits system, has some what changed my mind on these matters. Also the importation of cheaper labour from abroad puts pressure on housing, schools etc that the Govt then has to resolve at great cost.
Not all industries are suitable to privatisation IMO.

FYI- I think your mixing up BE with Dublin Bus.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> And from what I can now see of the bin lorries in my area of Sth Dub, the workers seem to be exclusively young Eastern Europeans on much lower wages. How many of those now working there require FIS to top up those wages? And how many of the ex workers are on benefits/FIS also of some sort, too old to get new jobs etc?
> Meanwhile Greyhound are incorporated in the Isle of Man and we cannot see their accounts/profits!
> I was always pro-privatisation and while it may deliver some short term benefits in terms of reduced subsidies etc, the longer term impact in terms of low wages which the State have to then support through the benefits system, has some what changed my mind on these matters. Also the importation of cheaper labour from abroad puts pressure on housing, schools etc that the Govt then has to resolve at great cost.



While I share your concerns about bottoming of wages: 
(a) Not all Dublin Bus workers are Irish though... 
(b) If we are overpaying for bus drivers it will ultimately mean less money available for increasing the number buses\frequencies or fare reductions.


----------



## Delboy (11 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> While I share your concerns about bottoming of wages:
> (a) Not all Dublin Bus workers are Irish though...
> (b) If we are overpaying for bus drivers it will ultimately mean less money available for increasing the number buses\frequencies or fare reductions.


That's true but the current FG govt seems to want to get lower costs in public transport so as to reduce susbsidies, not to allow the companies to expand their timetables/fleets. Thats my reading of the current policies.

With regards to (a), yes that's true. But only a small % I would guess. I wonder how many in the waste industry today in Dublin are Irish?


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> As anyone on here familiar with my posts over the years would confirm, I am certainly not of the 'left'!



Hi Delboy,

I didn't mean to infer you were of the left, it was just a general post aimed at those who were. The rest of your post is excellent, however without the facts to back it up one can only estimate the cost benefits on a macro scale.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVLjHE5NpzI

Released Aug 2nd too !


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> I can only assume he meant what was going on before this change, robbing Peter the taxpayer to pay Paul the inefficient service provider.



I'm not sure. I took it that this is suggested would happen now that the routes have been privatised.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

@TheBigShort

The following is from an article in the Irish Times:

_The National Transport Authority has gone to great pains to stress that the handover of 24 bus routes to British company Go-Ahead isn’t privatisation. The service would remain under NTA control, it would set fares and determine schedules, and the fleet would remain in State control.

It says nothing has been sold, services are not being deregulated, but rather a competitive public procurement process had resulted in “Meat” – or the Most Economically Advantageous Tender being chosen which, whatever unions may fear, doesn’t – the NTA says – pave the road to privatisation._

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/con...ahead-getting-on-board-dublin-buses-1.3182936

Should you consider editing the title of this tread accordingly as according to the NTA, nothing has been privatised?


----------



## jjm (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> @TheBigShort
> 
> The following is from an article in the Irish Times:
> 
> ...



35 post later and the penny drops at last,NTA wasting money and making jobs for there own we all know who will finish up paying for all the regulation involved in supervising this change,


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> As anyone on here familiar with my posts over the years would confirm, I am certainly not of the 'left'!
> 
> I recall when the waste industry was carved up in Dublin and privatised, workers were guaranteed their Corpo wages etc. That lasted for a few years and then Greyhound cut wages/benefits to 'market rates'. Strikes ensued but Greyhound won out.
> And from what I can now see of the bin lorries in my area of Sth Dub, the workers seem to be exclusively young Eastern Europeans on much lower wages. How many of those now working there require FIS to top up those wages? And how many of the ex workers are on benefits/FIS also of some sort, too old to get new jobs etc?
> ...


The logical conclusion to your argument is to pay people above the market rate and keep them in jobs that are unnecessary so that they don't claim welfare.
The social safety net shouldn't be funded by businesses other than through the taxes they pay.


----------



## jjm (11 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> As anyone on here familiar with my posts over the years would confirm, I am certainly not of the 'left'!
> 
> I recall when the waste industry was carved up in Dublin and privatised, workers were guaranteed their Corpo wages etc. That lasted for a few years and then Greyhound cut wages/benefits to 'market rates'. Strikes ensued but Greyhound won out.
> And from what I can now see of the bin lorries in my area of Sth Dub, the workers seem to be exclusively young Eastern Europeans on much lower wages. How many of those now working there require FIS to top up those wages? And how many of the ex workers are on benefits/FIS also of some sort, too old to get new jobs etc?
> ...



I would agree with Delboy , We need to be Questining more the managing of  public services we pay top doller to the managers so the services should be superb,most front line services are superb it is the managing of our services with no responsibilty where we fall down,


----------



## Leo (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I'm not sure. I took it that this is suggested would happen now that the routes have been privatised.



True. Then perhaps it's robbing Peter the overpaid Dublin Bus employee to pay Paul, the taxpayer.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

Leo said:


> True. Then perhaps it's robbing Peter the overpaid Dublin Bus employee to pay Paul, the taxpayer.



Ah I wouldn't worry about Peter...he' won't lose out. He'll be deployed elsewhere in the company and probably get a few bob for his troubles.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I am also not sure full stop about some of these orbital routes as currently routed\timetabled, whether run by Dublin Bus or another operator, *90% of the time when I see a 104 bus it has less than 5 people on it!*



That's very interesting....it's an old argument held by those against the liberalising of transport routes that the unprofitable / quieter routes would lose out!!


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Every fair is subsidised through the State subsidy of Dublin Bus. How do they subsidise those who use private cars? The road infrastructure is funded through general taxation and everyone benefit from it whether they use the road or not.
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? If our occupancy rates are similar to the UK then the emissions per passenger per Km travelled are 5 times higher for bus passengers than car passengers. Given the amount of road space given over to bus lanes I’m doubtful about how much busses reduce congestion. Again, I can’t find Dublin Bus data but in the linked article the average bus carried 2.3 passengers per Km travelled whereas the average car carried 1.2 passengers.
> ...



Purple you're quoting research carried out by a pro-car lobby group that is based on reports from 2 councils in the UK. Emissions calculated on UK buses with EURO 3 vehicles, Dublin Bus have mostly EURO 5 vehicles with newer buses EURO 6 - these are the buses that will be used by Go Ahead. Essentially that report is rubbish.

No one here seems to have a problem with LUAS, this is the exact same model as used for LUAS. Go Ahead have stated what they can provide the service for, the fare box goes to the NTA, all fares are decided by the NTA. Go Ahead are providing the service for less money than Dublin Bus, that's a saving for the taxpayer.

As for your ludicrous statement that the full fare should be paid without subsidy, you really should think that through. How would our cities work without public transport? It has to be subsidised. Essentially only those that can afford cars would be able to get to work at any place distant to their homes and it would take forever to do so if there was no subsidy for fares. You usually talk some degree of sense but not on this occasion.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> That's very interesting....it's an old argument held by those against the liberalising of transport routes that the unprofitable / quieter routes would lose out!!



I think outside of the times when you'd expect students to be coming to \ from DCU, you could replace it with a 'black cab'.
One of the quietest - if not the quietest - bus route in Dublin.
I don't think anyone would be running the route for profit with a bus - it would only be done as part of a tender \ subsidy \ package of routes.


----------



## Firefly (11 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't think anyone would be running the route for profit with a bus - it would only be done as part of a tender \ subsidy \ package of routes.



Those who would like to see the market opened up usually make this argument, i.e. package the "good" and "bad" routes and put the lot out to tender with strict service level agreements. I think what's being proposed is about the best middle ground. I would however like to see the scheme expanded to routes going into the city centre. I would imagine the taxpayer could get a big windfall on the tenders for these.


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Aug 2017)

Slowy slowy catchy monkey


----------



## Purple (11 Aug 2017)

dereko1969 said:


> Purple you're quoting research carried out by a pro-car lobby group that is based on reports from 2 councils in the UK. Emissions calculated on UK buses with EURO 3 vehicles, Dublin Bus have mostly EURO 5 vehicles with newer buses EURO 6 - these are the buses that will be used by Go Ahead. Essentially that report is rubbish.


 Those are the same EURO standards that VW got such great results on? There's bugger all difference between EURO 3 and EURO 5 emissions levels and as Dublin Bus don't release statistics for passenger per Km traveled we just don't know what their CO2 and NOx levels are. The level to which engines are maintained has a huge impact on the amount they pollute so quoting emissions levels for new buses, which could well have be falsified anyway, tells us very little. I don't think behaviour patterns in a city in the UK and a city in Ireland will be greatly different.  



dereko1969 said:


> No one here seems to have a problem with LUAS, this is the exact same model as used for LUAS.


 The LUAS is electric and much of it's lines are not on public roads.


dereko1969 said:


> Go Ahead have stated what they can provide the service for, the fare box goes to the NTA, all fares are decided by the NTA. Go Ahead are providing the service for less money than Dublin Bus, that's a saving for the taxpayer.


 Not if the old drivers are wondering around various depots around Dublin with nothing to do but drawing the same wage.



dereko1969 said:


> As for your ludicrous statement that the full fare should be paid without subsidy, you really should think that through. How would our cities work without public transport? It has to be subsidised. Essentially only those that can afford cars would be able to get to work at any place distant to their homes and it would take forever to do so if there was no subsidy for fares. You usually talk some degree of sense but not on this occasion.


Last year Dublin Bus carried 125 million passengers and received nearly €100 million in subsidies (€57 million to cover the Public Service Obligation and the rest in other payments to buy new buses etc. That means there is a subsidy of €0.80 per journey. For someone using the bus to get to work each day that's an extra €4.00 per week. 
Do you really think that would cause society to break down or push people  to buy cars when the average cost of running a car is over €200 a week? 

Really?


Really?


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.


----------



## TheBigShort (11 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> According to the NTA:
> 
> _"Under the provisions of the tender, *not only will service levels on the routes in question be maintained, they will actually be increased by about 35pc*. So passengers in areas served by these routes have absolutely no reason to worry about this change. Matters such as fares, frequency and scheduling for the service will all be set by the NTA, and not the operator."_
> 
> ...



Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty.
It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty. It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.



I should also point out that East Point business park has 5000+ staff and has no public bus route serving it.
(There is a free shuttle bus from Clontarf DART station to it but you have to get to the DART station first...)
East Point is 2.5 kms from the 104 route.

This is my roundabout way of saying I think the current routes we have are far from optimal.

I think it is a missed opportunity that in the tender process there doesn't seem to be any scope for Go Ahead to expand the routes (as long as they don't overlap with the stops of other routes).


----------



## TheBigShort (12 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Can you please explain this? The NTA has stated that services will either stay the same or be increase and fares will remain unchanged. Where is the cost of the consumer?



If services and prices stay the same, then presumably Go Ahead will need a state subsidy to make any sort of profit? Either that, or they will have to cut costs. How will they cut costs?


----------



## Protocol (13 Aug 2017)

There is huge overstaffing in many CIE services.

I am friendly with a retired BE bus driver.  He tells me of the waste / poor rostering / excessive driver numbers.

All this came out during strikes.

[I know of two porters in UCHG who do nothing but watch videos after manager leaves at 4:30.]

So costs need to be cut, yes, but wages don't.

Pay the same wage, but hire less staff.

Strikes have shown us how many excessive BE drivers there are.


----------



## Protocol (13 Aug 2017)

There are 62 payroll offices in the HSE, another example of massive overstaffing and inefficiency.

We overspend on health, and yet have massive waiting lists.


----------



## Protocol (13 Aug 2017)

The Go-Ahead fee may be more than the fare-box revenue, yes, so of course there may be a subsidy.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If services and prices stay the same, then presumably Go Ahead will need a state subsidy to make any sort of profit? Either that, or they will have to cut costs. How will they cut costs?



They are probably more efficient and have less waste and so can offer the same services for a lower price.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that's all very positive. But another posted claimed that the 104 service is 90% of time almost empty.
> It's hard to marry the two views. One would suggest increasing capacity for passengers, the other would suggest that the service shouldn't even exist.



Well that's up to the new company to determine. It has been stated that existing services will stay the same and so to will prices. If the new company were happy to bid for this business it just goes to show how they think they can make money on such quieter routes.


----------



## Firefly (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
> None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.



I agree with all that, however I fail to see the relevance to this thread. The same services are being maintained with the same price to the customer.


----------



## Purple (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
> None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.


That argument can be made to provide any public service or utility free at the point of consumption.
Every Irish water customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for water. Every ESB/Energy company customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for energy. 

How about motorists; they are tax payers, should they get their petrol/diesel for free or heavily subsidised?  
While we are giving people water for free why not give everyone food as well? Not just a set amount they need to live on but as much food as they want. Sure isn't food essential for life? It's a human right!
Same goes for houses; the government should just give everyone a house too, not just anywhere though, it will have to be where they want it to be or else they will move out, say they are living in their car with their kids and RTE and the tabloids will run sob-stories about them...

If you want to subsidise public transport then fine but please don't trot out the same old BS about everyone being tax payers as a justification.


----------



## newirishman (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The 125 million passengers, being taxpayers themselves, contribute in equal measure to the subsidy through their taxes as non-passengers do.
> None of us know who, or when, or how many times any one of us will use or never use the public transport system. My kids, when they grow up, may move to Dublin and need to use public transport. That's why I'm happy to contribute a relatively miniscule amount to ensure a continued vital service in our capital city.



You are missing a couple of points here. First, the number of (income) taxpayers (excluding VAT for the moment) is shockingly low in Ireland. Second, the number of passengers _actually paying_ for using public transport is probably leven lower.

"Minuscule amount" must clearly be a joke I am not getting. Monthly / annual tickets are insanely expensive for what you get, compared with similar sized European cities. I guess somebody must pay for all the free travel passes.

In Vienna, for example, the yearly ticket covering all available modes of public transport costs 365 euro. 
Yes, 1 euro per day for unlimited travel on any public transport system in all of the city (into some suburbs). That is all tubes, trams, busses, trains. 

Stuttgart, to use another example, has some zone based systems but has yearly tickets starting at around 650 euro. Again, *all vailable* public transport types.

Paris: 827 euro for the most expensive one.

In Dublin, if you want / need a ticket for bus / luas / dart it will set you back 2180 euro. 2.5 times more expensive than Paris. And that is for a service that is essentially really bad.


----------



## MrEarl (14 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I couldn't disagree more. People who use public transport already pay their fares and subsidise those that choose to use private cars to transport to work.......



It would take a hell of a lot of bus journeys to cover the cost of my annual road tax for my car - so I don't think you are correct about anyone subsidising me.  Actually, I would suggest that indirectly, I am subsidising them, when you consider the cost of running my car.

Bring in a public transport system that is reliable, efficient, takes me where I want to go and when and I'd be happy to use it more.  As things stand, I use the bus when it suits, but it doesn't always suit.  Unlike some of the good people in South Dublin, I don't have the option of a Luas and Dart within minutes of my house, so perhaps you might like to consider that myself (and others who don't have those services nearby) are actually subsidising those individuals.  Then there's the cyclists, that pay nothing and yet benefit from the roads, cycle lanes, traffic control and safety measures (which half of them sadly ignore !) etc.


----------



## Delboy (15 Aug 2017)

newirishman said:


> In Dublin, if you want / need a ticket for bus / luas / dart it will set you back 2180 euro. 2.5 times more expensive than Paris. And that is for a service that is essentially really bad.


And if your paying tax at the higher rate, you'll save half the cost of that ticket. So €1,110 is the true cost.
That 2,180 also includes commuter rail which you forgot to mention!


----------



## newirishman (15 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> And if your paying tax at the higher rate, you'll save half the cost of that ticket. So €1,110 is the true cost.
> That 2,180 also includes commuter rail which you forgot to mention!



Commuter rail - of course! The saviour of the public transport commuter in Dublin.  My apologies for lumping it in with the DART services.

Taxsaver is only available for you if your company signs up for it. Not all do. And of course this is of great help for someone on a minimum wage (or close to it). The less you earn, the more you pay for your public transport ticket. There's a great idea right there.

Apart from that, € 1,110 is still about 20% more expensive than Paris. Or more than three times as expensive as Vienna.


----------



## dereko1969 (15 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> It would take a hell of a lot of bus journeys to cover the cost of my annual road tax for my car - so I don't think you are correct about anyone subsidising me.  Actually, I would suggest that indirectly, I am subsidising them, when you consider the cost of running my car.
> 
> Bring in a public transport system that is reliable, efficient, takes me where I want to go and when and I'd be happy to use it more.  As things stand, I use the bus when it suits, but it doesn't always suit.  Unlike some of the good people in South Dublin, I don't have the option of a Luas and Dart within minutes of my house, so perhaps you might like to consider that myself (and others who don't have those services nearby) are actually subsidising those individuals.  Then there's the cyclists, that pay nothing and yet benefit from the roads, cycle lanes, traffic control and safety measures (which half of them sadly ignore !) etc.


Very few cyclists don't also have a car.


----------



## Firefly (15 Aug 2017)

newirishman said:


> Apart from that, € 1,110 is still about 20% more expensive than Paris. Or more than three times as expensive as Vienna.



Yeah, but you not comparing like with like, I mean, those in Paris and Vienna must be green with envy when they see the transport systems we have in place!


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Yeah, but you not comparing like with like, I mean, those in Paris and Vienna must be green with envy when they see the transport systems we have in place!


LOL!


----------



## dereko1969 (15 Aug 2017)

just in relation to subvention, you couldn't remove subvention for buses solely without removing it for trains. The subsidisation for trains is much more per journey than buses. Can anyone provide an example of a functioning city where there is no subsidy of public transport?


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2017)

dereko1969 said:


> just in relation to subvention, you couldn't remove subvention for buses solely without removing it for trains. The subsidisation for trains is much more per journey than buses. Can anyone provide an example of a functioning city where there is no subsidy of public transport?


There is a good argument for buses, both Dublin Bus and regional buses. There may be an argument for a subsidy (though to suggest that those who avail of that subsidised bus service are somehow subsidising motorists is laughable) but there is absolutely no argument for running any trains in this country.


----------



## MrEarl (16 Aug 2017)

dereko1969 said:


> Very few cyclists don't also have a car.




Whether they do or do not is completely irrelevant.

If someone has a car and a motorbike, they pay road tax for both.  If someone has a car and a van, they pay road tax for both.  Same principal - if you use the road network and it's related resources, then you need to pay for the use of it just like everyone else 

If anything, those purchasing bicycles should be made pay a premium given the amount of financial resources the city of Dublin is pumping into bicycle lanes, special markings on the roads etc. and that's before you consider the impact on the wider economy with slowing other modes of transport down across the city to facilitate cyclists (although I am prepared to offset that in general terms, against the benefits to the environment, for the purpose of this conversation )


----------



## Delboy (16 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> ... there is absolutely no argument for running any trains in this country.


I know I shouldn't ask but I can't resist ...why is that?


----------



## jjm (16 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> I know I shouldn't ask but I can't resist ...why is that?


We once had the 2nd best train system in the world it is called shortsighted planning and use of resources and tunnel vision all rolled into one,


----------



## Leo (16 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> If someone has a car and a motorbike, they pay road tax for both.



They don't, they pay motor tax which is levied based on engine capacity or CO2 output. This tax goes to the Local Government Fund, only a fraction of which goes towards roads infrastructure. 



MrEarl said:


> consider the impact on the wider economy with slowing other modes of transport down across the city to facilitate cyclists



The more cyclists that are present on a route, the faster the lower volume of cars moves at. Take all those cyclists off their bikes and many of them end up in private cars causing further gridlock.


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2017)

2015 Motor tax = 1.12 bn, paid into Local Government Fund

Regional and Local roads grants from the LGF = 356m

NB: central govt exp on national roads is separate


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> I know I shouldn't ask but I can't resist ...why is that?


Here's an old ERSI report but it's a good one.
One of the real doozies is that Irish Rail spent €1.2 billion to reduce rail fatalities. The average fatality rate was 8 per decade so the cost per life saved is €150 million, assuming that it was 100% successful.
The upgrade of the Sligo-Cork line would have revenues of €13.4 million but would incur capital costs of €572 million and an annual operating cost of €35.3 million in excess of its revenues.
Basically rail is massively expensive and an utter waste of money as a much cheaper alternative service can be provided;


> The Dublin-Galway route was served by one bus a day in each direction, via Mullingar (which is not the most direct route), in 1980 under monopoly. By the summer of 2001, following the development of the route by independent operators, opposed by both CIE and the regulating department, there were 21 buses a day, on the direct route, in each direction. The operators were Bus Éireann, owned by CIE, Nestors, Burkes, and so-called auxiliaries, or independents not licensed by the Department of Transport but subcontracted by CIE. The SRR examines the expenditure of €238 million on the Dublin-Galway railway line by 2002 in order to “Stay in the Game” and a further €160 million in a “Going for Growth” scenario. However, the SRR does not deal with the optimum market share of traffic on this route between the rail, bus and air modes.



The ticket cost of a train journey only cover about half the cost of that train journey. In every case there is a cheaper option, usually including a privately operated bus which receives no subsidies.


----------



## Delboy (16 Aug 2017)

So no rail at all, including DART or commuter services into Dublin or Cork?


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> So no rail at all, including DART or commuter services into Dublin or Cork?



There's no way the DART *should* be losing money.


----------



## jjm (17 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> So no rail at all, including DART or commuter services into Dublin or Cork?


or Belfast to Dublin will the train stop and turn back at the invisible border,I suppose we could rename it Belfast to EU 27 sounds good,


----------



## dereko1969 (17 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> There's no way the DART *should* be losing money.


well it doesn't get the all-day numbers that LUAS does, it's very busy at rush-hours but not so much in between.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> So no rail at all, including DART or commuter services into Dublin or Cork?


From the NTA 2016 Report;
Subvention Per Passenger Journey €  Route
< €1 Dart
€1 to €5 
Kildare Suburban
Northern Suburban (Dublin – Dundalk)
Western Suburban (Dublin – Longford)
€5 to €10 
Dublin - Galway
Cork Commuter
Dublin - Belfast
€10 to €20 
Dublin - Waterford
Dublin - Tralee
Dublin - Limerick
Dublin - Sligo
Dublin - Cork
€20 to €30 
Dublin - Rosslare
Dublin - Westport/Ballina
€44 
Limerick - Galway
€362
Limerick  Junction - Waterford
€552
Limerick - Ballybrophy

Dublin - Belfast; cost per passenger to the State between €5 and €10.
Dublin - Cork; cost per passenger to the State between €10 and €20.

There are excellent roads with non-subsidised Buses providing cheaper services on both routes. Is maintaining trains to provide the same service at higher prices to the consumer a good use of public money?


----------



## Leo (17 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> €552
> Limerick - Ballybrophy



Wow! The state could save ~€400 per passenger sending each of them in their own taxi!!


----------



## Delboy (18 Aug 2017)

Take away DART and commuter services to Dublin....how many more buses would be required per hour on already congested roads to cater for the passenger numbers?
Or are you suggesting the rail lines be ripped up and replaced with tarmac for the buses only, which could work?


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> Take away DART and commuter services to Dublin....how many more buses would be required per hour on already congested roads to cater for the passenger numbers?


No, DART could and should be run without a loss.
Commuter train services can and should be run without making a loss. 



Delboy said:


> Or are you suggesting the rail lines be ripped up and replaced with tarmac for the buses only, which could work?


 Irish Rail handles 42 million passenger journeys a year and get nearly 5 times that in State subsidies. That is excluding funding for infrastructure. 
There is no economic case for an intercity rail service in this country.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> No, DART could and should be run without a loss.
> Commuter train services can and should be run without making a loss.
> Irish Rail handles 42 million passenger journeys a year and get nearly 5 times that in State subsidies. That is excluding funding for infrastructure.
> There is no economic case for an intercity rail service in this country.



I hadn't seen the subsidy statistics painted so starkly... 

I just wonder is there anything those stats could be missing... are those intercity rail lines used for cargo \ goods transport? If so, do they pay their own way or are they subsidised also?


----------



## Delboy (18 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> No, DART could and should be run without a loss.
> Commuter train services can and should be run without making a loss.



So you are for running some trains and have backtracked somewhat on your quote from a couple of days ago 


Purple said:


> ...but there is absolutely no argument for running any trains in this country.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2017)

Delboy said:


> So you are for running some trains and have backtracked somewhat on your quote from a couple of days ago


Only if they can be run without a State subsidy for day to day costs.
I strongly suspect that bus services in Dublin could also be run without a State subsidy for day to day costs.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Aug 2017)

The figures between rail and bus subsidies are slightly misleading because the rail subsidies include the cost of the rail line, but I expect that the bus subsidies do not include the (harder to quantity) cost of bus lanes.
Bus lanes are not exclusively used by buses e.g. out of hours cars use them or at junctions, and emergency vehicles. But I think their current primary function is economically beneficial to Dublin Bus.

This would not be a "day to day cost" therefore I think it still reasonable for you to argue that bus services in Dublin could be run without a State subsidy for day to day costs.
Further - it should be used as a counter argument if people respond that the State is abandoning public transport.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> The figures between rail and bus subsidies are slightly misleading because the rail subsidies include the cost of the rail line, but I expect that the bus subsidies do not include the (harder to quantity) cost of bus lanes.
> Bus lanes are not exclusively used by buses e.g. out of hours cars use them or at junctions, and emergency vehicles. But I think their current primary function is economically beneficial to Dublin Bus.
> 
> This would not be a "day to day cost" therefore I think it still reasonable for you to argue that bus services in Dublin could be run without a State subsidy for day to day costs.
> Further - it should be used as a counter argument if people respond that the State is abandoning public transport.


No, the rail line (Capital) subsidy is separate. It's an extra €26 million last year and €11 million this year.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> They are probably more efficient and have less waste and so can offer the same services for a lower price.



Like I said, they will have to cut costs. You assume they are already more efficient. Do you know how so?


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> Well that's up to the new company to determine. It has been stated that existing services will stay the same and so to will prices. If the new company were happy to bid for this business it just goes to show how they think they can make money on such quieter routes.



You are avoiding the question. It was alleged, that on this particular route that buses were near empty 90% of the time.
Yet you quoted the NTA stating that service's will increase under this tender.
Between Go Ahead, NTA and your good yourself, how does it make any sense to increase services on a route that is, apparently, near empty 90% of the time?
I also ask that question in the same context if Dublin Bus had been awarded the tender and also planned to increase services.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> That argument can be made to provide any public service or utility free at the point of consumption.



Except Dublin Bus passengers don't get the service for free, do they?
Along with the taxes that they pay, like everyone else, they pay additional to that in bus fares, isn't that right?



Purple said:


> Every Irish water customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for water



Anyone who pays taxes (basically everyone, bar children), pays for the water system. 
The 30% net contributors? Excuse my French, WTF?



Purple said:


> Every ESB/Energy company customer is also a tax payer (although only 30% are net contributors) so they shouldn't have to pay for energy.



Why shouldn't they pay? As a reminder, Dublin Bus passengers pay their taxes AND pay for consumption of the service. Who is getting anything for free?



Purple said:


> How about motorists; they are tax payers, should they get their petrol/diesel for free or heavily subsidised?



Not for free, no. Is there a point to this?



Purple said:


> While we are giving people water for free why not give everyone food as well?



You are wishing for an ideal world where everything is free. I'm afraid that is not the reality. 



Purple said:


> Not just a set amount they need to live on but as much food as they want. Sure isn't food essential for life? It's a human right!



It certainly is a human right. Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as decided, agreed and declared by...humans.



Purple said:


> Same goes for houses; the government should just give everyone a house too



Yes.



Purple said:


> not just anywhere though, it will have to be where they want it to be or else they will move out, say they are living in their car with their kids and RTE and the tabloids will run sob-stories about them...



No. If you are fussy about where and how big your house should be, then you should pay for it. 
Notwithstanding legitimate cases of family and social cohesion.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Aug 2017)

newirishman said:


> You are missing a couple of points here. First, the number of (income) taxpayers (excluding VAT for the moment) is shockingly low in Ireland. Second, the number of passengers _actually paying_ for using public transport is probably leven lower.



...and I'm still missing the point (if any)?



newirishman said:


> "Minuscule amount" must clearly be a joke I am not getting. Monthly / annual tickets are insanely expensive for what you get, compared with similar sized European cities. I guess somebody must pay for all the free travel passes.



The miniscule amount referred to taxpayers subsidy. Those that subsidise the service but don't use it. A figure of €100m was mentioned. Some 3m taxpayers, in one form another = €33 a year for a public transport service in the capital city.



newirishman said:


> In Vienna, for example, the yearly ticket covering all available modes of public transport costs 365 euro.
> Yes, 1 euro per day for unlimited travel on any public transport system in all of the city (into some suburbs). That is all tubes, trams, busses, trains.



Yes, those services receive a much greater subsidy from taxpayers than public transport in Ireland does. A good example of a public transport system derived through socialist policy.



newirishman said:


> Stuttgart, to use another example, has some zone based systems but has yearly tickets starting at around 650 euro. Again, *all vailable* public transport types.



Socialism at work.



newirishman said:


> Paris: 827 euro for the most expensive one.



Yes, I've used the Paris subway, excellent service.



newirishman said:


> In Dublin, if you want / need a ticket for bus / luas / dart it will set you back 2180 euro. 2.5 times more expensive than Paris. And that is for a service that is essentially really bad.



I know, it's very expensive. We need to upgrade the services, but we are not willing to pay the taxes for it.


----------



## TheBigShort (19 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> old ERSI report but it's a good one.
> One of the real doozies is that Irish Rail spent €1.2 billion to reduce rail fatalities. The average fatality rate was 8 per decade so the cost per life saved is €150 million, assuming that it was 100% successful.



But of course that report assumes that the only fatalities are those that have happened and (8) and doesn't consider the fatalities that will happen if safety is not kept up to high standard.
Do we have to wait for a train derailment before we invest in safety?


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Like I said, they will have to cut costs. You assume they are already more efficient. Do you know how so?



I don't know, nor do I care. They have come in with a lower tender and thus lower cost to the taxpayer to provide the same or more frequent service. For what's it's worth my money would be on that they have lower costs to begin with and rather than having to cut cost they are probably just operating as normal.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You are avoiding the question. It was alleged, that on this particular route that buses were near empty 90% of the time.
> Yet you quoted the NTA stating that service's will increase under this tender.
> Between Go Ahead, NTA and your good yourself, how does it make any sense to increase services on a route that is, apparently, near empty 90% of the time?



I quoted an article that in turn quoted the NTA. If the NTA are saying that the service will increase then you should really ask them. At a minimum services will stay the same and prices too. All with a lower cost to the taxpayer. 

All you have done thus far is ask questions but you are clearly against this development. Care to outline why????


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Except Dublin Bus passengers don't get the service for free, do they?
> 
> Along with the taxes that they pay, like everyone else, they pay additional to that in bus fares, isn't that right?



If they are getting more back in social transfer than they pay in taxes then no, they aren’t paying for anything.




TheBigShort said:


> Anyone who pays taxes (basically everyone, bar children), pays for the water system.
> 
> The 30% net contributors? Excuse my French, WTF?



Only the top 30% of earners are net contributors to the exchequer. The rest of us get more back than we pay in. You have posted on threads about that very topic. Did you forget or did you not understand the discussion?




TheBigShort said:


> Why shouldn't they pay? As a reminder, Dublin Bus passengers pay their taxes AND pay for consumption of the service. Who is getting anything for free?


 If you are part of the “It’s my right” brigade then everything is an essential service and nobody other than “the rich” should pay for anything.




TheBigShort said:


> Not for free, no. Is there a point to this?


 Should they get it heavily subsidised?




TheBigShort said:


> You are wishing for an ideal world where everything is free. I'm afraid that is not the reality.


 No I’m not. I’m pointing out the absurdity of such notions but having these discussions with a socialist is like talking to a creationist about evolution.




TheBigShort said:


> It certainly is a human right. Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as decided, agreed and declared by...humans.


 Sure, so how come the “It’s my right” brigade don’t want it given to everyone for free, just like water?




TheBigShort said:


> Yes.


 Yes? Excellent! Where do I sign up? I think I’ll quit my job too and get my food, water and transport for free because “It’s my right”.




TheBigShort said:


> No. If you are fussy about where and how big your house should be, then you should pay for it.
> 
> Notwithstanding legitimate cases of family and social cohesion.


 For the sake of my family and social cohesion I need a house just like the one I’m in now in the same area. Just get “The Rich” to pay for it.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> But of course that report assumes that the only fatalities are those that have happened and (8) and doesn't consider the fatalities that will happen if safety is not kept up to high standard.
> Do we have to wait for a train derailment before we invest in safety?


The program wasn't about train derailment, it was about people getting hit by trains.
We spent €1.2 billion of fences and signs...
Of course you can't criticise and public body or unionised workforce. I understand that.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> I quoted an article that in turn quoted the NTA. If the NTA are saying that the service will increase then you should really ask them. At a minimum services will stay the same and prices too. All with a lower cost to the taxpayer.
> 
> All you have done thus far is ask questions but you are clearly against this development. Care to outline why????



Fri 11, Irish Times, NTA Chief is reported as saying that she was not in a position to reveal how much Go Ahead would be paid for the service.

I have no objection to a private operation providing the service providing quality of service is maintained and improved, and the standards of working conditions are not adversely affected. 
I am somewhat skeptical that that will be the case, but I stand to be corrected in due course.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> If they are getting more back in social transfer than they pay in taxes then no, they aren’t paying for anything.



How do you know if they are or are not getting back more than they pay in taxes? You would have to have knowledge of each of their personal finances! Absurd.



Purple said:


> Only the top 30% of earners are net contributors to the exchequer. The rest of us get more back than we pay in. You have posted on threads about that very topic. Did you forget or did you not understand the discussion?



Yes we have been through this nonsense before. We spend some €50bn a year, if we balance the books then the 3m or so taxpayers would have to contribute some €17,000 each per annum. Do you think that is feasible? I don't. A minimum wage job would have to increase to about €37,000. Not feasible.
So we have implemented a progressive income tax system to facilitate low tax on low income. We also have VAT, motor tax, property tax, bus fares etc.
You can go into the merits, or not, of the tax system. But low income tax rates on low incomes facilitate employers wanting competitive wage rates.





Purple said:


> If you are part of the “It’s my right” brigade then everything is an essential service and nobody other than “the rich” should pay for anything



The "rich" have same rights. Nobody has suggested anything like that in this thread. You are the only one peddling this nonsense.



Purple said:


> Should they get it heavily subsidised?



That is a policy decision. Certainly I see the merits in subsidising a public transport system that carries over 300,000 people to their place of work, school, college, shops etc every day.



Purple said:


> No I’m not. I’m pointing out the absurdity of such notions



Yes it is absurd. Why are you peddling it then?



Purple said:


> Sure, so how come the “It’s my right” brigade don’t want it given to everyone for free, just like water?



Water isn't free, it is paid out of general taxation, income tax, VAT, motor tax etc.



Purple said:


> Yes? Excellent! Where do I sign up? I think I’ll quit my job too and get my food, water and transport for free because “It’s my right”.



Why would you quit your job?



Purple said:


> For the sake of my family and social cohesion I need a house just like the one I’m in now in the same area. Just get “The Rich” to pay for it.



You can apply to the Dept of Housing. I think you are mistaking a "right" as something that is automatically afforded to a person upon demand. The State has the authority to determine the criteria to which it affords an entitlement to an individual.
For instance, my 10yr old, has a right to vote in democratic elections. He also has a right to a childhood free from political persuasion or coercion. The State sets the criteria, through age, to limit his right to vote until he turns 18.



Purple said:


> The program wasn't about train derailment, it was about people getting hit by trains.
> We spent €1.2 billion of fences and signs...
> Of course you can't criticise and public body or unionised workforce. I understand that.



In fairness I didn't read the full report and if what you are saying is correct, then I stand corrected. But I doubt €1.2bn was spent solely on fences and signs.


----------



## newirishman (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes we have been through this nonsense before. We spend some €50bn a year, if we balance the books then the 3m or so taxpayers would have to contribute some €17,000 each per annum. Do you think that is feasible? I don't. A minimum wage job would have to increase to about €37,000. Not feasible.
> So we have implemented a progressive income tax system to facilitate low tax on low income. We also have VAT, motor tax, property tax, bus fares etc.
> You can go into the merits, or not, of the tax system. But low income tax rates on low incomes facilitate employers wanting competitive wage rates.



Nonsense? You numbers aren't correct.
Here's some details:
http://finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170104 Appendix I - Tax Receipts - end December 2016_0.pdf

Income Tax receipts for 2016: €19 billion (roughly) - that means a contribution of 6300 euro for the 3m or so taxpayers if everybody would pay.
Of course, the "bottom" 50% of earners contribute only 2.8%
[broken link removed]

VAT? Most Food stuff is zero rated, the rest (non-essential stuff!) is 13.5% . Children's clothing is zero rated.  (OK - clothing for adults has VAT).
You get pretty far in this country without paying any significant amount of tax. And I'd say that many get more than that back via things like free travel passes, children's allowance, medical cards, etc 
Taxation for people earning less than 35K (that is industrial average!) is close to non-existent in Ireland.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> In fairness I didn't read the full report and if what you are saying is correct, then I stand corrected. But I doubt €1.2bn was spent solely on fences and signs.


 Read the link.


That example speaks to my issue with the whole discussion we have about Public Services and Taxation. We waste billion every year through waste, theft, duplication of services and gross inefficiency. I listened to a Hospital Consultant on the radio this morning. He agreed that Doctors unions, Nurses unions and public sector unions in general were at the heart of the problem in the health service. He said that they have to be tackled in order for things to be fixed.

We now see Dublin Bus outsourcing routes but not getting rid of any drivers. The end result of all of that waste is poverty, hardship and death and yet you and others like you, as well as the unionised media, will not brook any criticism of the people and organisations at the heart of our public services but instead look at everything from an ideological perspective, glibly defending the indefensible and attacking the same vague targets.

We as a State have been going around in circles for 30 years.

The bottom line is that public services should be run for the benefit of the public. Nothing else.  


I don’t mind paying half my income in taxes. I resent the hell out of how little the people who take my hard earned money value it.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

newirishman said:


> Nonsense? You numbers aren't correct.
> Here's some details:
> http://finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170104 Appendix I - Tax Receipts - end December 2016_0.pdf
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about tax receipts, I was talking about government expenditure. And I stated "if we were to balance the books" then it equate to €17,000 a year for the 3m or so taxpayers.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Read the link.
> 
> That example speaks to my issue with the whole discussion we have about Public Services and Taxation. We waste billion every year through waste, theft, duplication of services and gross inefficiency. I listened to a Hospital Consultant on the radio this morning. He agreed that Doctors unions, Nurses unions and public sector unions in general were at the heart of the problem in the health service. He said that they have to be tackled in order for things to be fixed.
> 
> ...



Yes, and you no doubt have serious issues about how the public service is run. But you cannot conflate every single issue in the public service, everytime, something you see something you disagree with.
We are talking about a specific tender to outsource Dublin Bus transport routes. You have diverted it to talk about Irish railways, the health service , the media, and whatever else you fancy having.

Nobody is disputing that there are numerous examples of public service efficiencies that could be improved. But as I have stated before, the argument to privatize any public service, purely on the basis that it can be done cheaper by someone else, is wholly inefficient (the irony)reason in itself.
I can give you examples of Gardaí, Judges, Prison Officers, Healthcare professionals, Teachers, Professors, etc...In each case, the job can be done by cheaper by someone else. However, driving down wages will lead to increased inefficiencies, decreased morale (in many, not all cases), open the door to corruption and overall deteriorate the welfare of the state to such a point as to increase poverty, hardship and death.
You are prepared to highlight inefficiencies, fair enough, but you stand at a point that ALL public services are inefficient. You broadstroke the whole public service with your generalisations. Thus your arguments continually fail.

The issue is about the outsourcing of Dublin Bus routes. I am skeptical that it will provide any discernable improvement to the consumer and/or to the working conditions to those that provide the service.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I have no objection to a private operation providing the service providing quality of service is maintained and improved, and the standards of working conditions are not adversely affected.



It's interesting that the cost to the consumer and taxpayer is not listed with your other two caveats.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Fri 11, Irish Times, NTA Chief is reported as saying that she was not in a position to reveal how much Go Ahead would be paid for the service.



Why don't you ask her then?


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

newirishman said:


> Nonsense? You numbers aren't correct.
> Here's some details:
> http://finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/170104 Appendix I - Tax Receipts - end December 2016_0.pdf
> 
> ...



For God's sake man, will you stop posting facts to this poster


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> The bottom line is that public services should be run for the benefit of the public. Nothing else.



Amen to that.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and you no doubt have serious issues about how the public service is run. But you cannot conflate every single issue in the public service, everytime, something you see something you disagree with.
> We are talking about a specific tender to outsource Dublin Bus transport routes. You have diverted it to talk about Irish railways, the health service , the media, and whatever else you fancy having.
> 
> Nobody is disputing that there are numerous examples of public service efficiencies that could be improved. But as I have stated before, the argument to privatize any public service, purely on the basis that it can be done cheaper by someone else, is wholly inefficient (the irony)reason in itself.
> ...


Any organisation which cannot efficiently reallocate resources cannot be efficient. Therefore any organisation which cannot reduce staff numbers depending on demand and need is inefficient. That applies to every Public Sector and heavily Unionised body.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> It's interesting that the cost to the consumer and taxpayer is not listed with your other two caveats.




???
One of the reasons that I'm skeptical about this outsourcing insofar that it will provide improved services to the consumer is on the basis that I doubt if the consumer will see anything in the range of reduced ticket prices.
As for the taxpayer, it has been stated that the NTA will pay Go Ahead to provide the service. It remains to be seen, how much is to be paid, and what benefit to the taxpayer there will be (if any).


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> Any organisation which cannot efficiently reallocate resources cannot be efficient. Therefore any organisation which cannot reduce staff numbers depending on demand and need is inefficient. That applies to every Public Sector and heavily Unionised body.



The NTA has stated that there is no requirement for job losses due to increased number passengers. As well as that, the option to move over to Go Ahead to work as drivers seems to be on the table also.
Why reduce numbers?


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> As for the taxpayer, it has been stated that the NTA will pay Go Ahead to provide the service. It remains to be seen, how much is to be paid, and what benefit to the taxpayer there will be (if any).



The NTA must be confident that any subvention to Go-Ahead will be less than that paid to Dublin Bus..


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The NTA has stated that there is no requirement for job losses due to increased number passengers. As well as that, the option to move over to Go Ahead to work as drivers seems to be on the table also.


 If there is no net saving to the State then it shouldn't be done.
If the proposal included a reduction in numbers (and a saving to the State) the unions would have stopped the whole thing.



TheBigShort said:


> Why reduce numbers?


To save taxpayers money and spend it where it will be of greater benefit to the State.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

Firefly said:


> The NTA must be confident that any subvention to Go-Ahead will be less than that paid to Dublin Bus..



True. But it still remains to be seen how much is being saved (if anything at all). It then remains to be seen if the employee's terms of employment are maintained or enhanced. It is of course possible that additional employment opportunities arise from this.
But if employee wages are reduced, to what they would of got in Dublin Bus, then it remains to be seen where the savings go. Will they go to providing cheaper fares for consumers, or additional profits for shareholders? My understanding is that Go Ahead is broadly based in the UK. If savings go to shareholders, then that is income leaving this country.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> NTA Chief is reported as saying that she was not in a position to reveal how much Go Ahead would be paid for the service.





Firefly said:


> Why don't you ask her then?



Because



TheBigShort said:


> NTA Chief is reported as saying that she was not in a position to reveal how much Go Ahead would be paid for the service.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If savings go to shareholders, then that is income leaving this country.



That's the nature of free trade in the EU. Which does beg the question, what will happen post-Brexit? I've no idea.


----------

