I welcome Mr. David Hearn, Mr. Paul Turner and Mr. Lorcan O'Connor. We will hear a presentation by Mr. Hearn which will be followed by questions and answers. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Hearn to make his presentation.
Bus Services: Discussion with Deloitte and TAS Partnership.
Mr. David Hearn
I thank the Chairman. I am responsible for this report. My colleague, Mr. O'Connor, is also from Deloitte, while Mr. Turner represents the TAS Partnership, one of the companies which worked with us as part of the consortium. I thank the committee for inviting us to present our report. I will make a short presentation and be happy to take questions and give answers.
To set out the terms of reference given to us by the Department for the report, we were asked to assess whether the resources available to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann were used in the most effective and efficient way possible to deliver services. In particular, we were asked to look at the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services used by the two companies, to assess the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann and to identify any issues and make recommendations. Our terms of reference excluded commercial operations and the school bus operations of Bus Éireann. The work was carried out by a consortium consisting of Deloitte, the TAS Partnership and Colin Buchanan & Partners Limited. Our approach was to take into account and review previous reports, including the report of this committee, and to engage in extensive consultation within the two companies and with their key stakeholders. We engaged in extensive analysis of ticket data and conducted observations on buses and at depots in forming our conclusions.
The next part of the presentation gives a brief overview of some key points on the bus sector. One of the most important points is that the overall numbers using bus services have been increasing for the past few years, although, given the economic downturn, they are, unfortunately, decreasing. Over the same period the actual market share of public transport by bus has been falling. Through a period of very strong economic growth, while overall numbers are up, market share is down. On the positive side, there has been a major investment in quality bus corridors and in the intercity motorway network and very significant investment in the two bus fleets. There are modern buses in both bus fleets and they are of a relatively young age.
The public service obligation payments and funding to the two bus companies are not high. They are relatively low when compared to other similar organisations around Europe. The increase in fuel prices, combined with falling passenger numbers, has put significant financial pressure on the two companies, which I will illustrate later.
The next couple of slides in the documentation illustrate that graphically. If members look at the Dublin Bus passenger analysis slide, the blue line shows overall passenger numbers while the green line shows the growth. Members will see that over the past number of years, it has been fairly steady at approximately 150 million people. There was a slight dip a few years ago when the Luas was introduced and now it is moving into a period of decline.
The Bus Éireann passenger analysis slide shows a more steady increase over a period of about six years but similar to Dublin Bus, it is now going into a modest decline with the economic downturn.
I refer to the slide illustrating the financial situation facing both companies. There has been a modest surplus in both companies over a period of years but last year and this year, it is heading into quite a significant deficit. Even taking into account the increase in PSO payments to the two companies, which had led to this modest surplus, both companies face significant deficits.
I turn to operational efficiency, part of our terms of reference. We found that generally speaking both bus companies are efficient when compared to the comparator organisations around Europe. Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer groups, fleet management costs are in line with industry norms and the administrative and back-office expenses are in line with benchmarks. There were no big surprises there.
When one looks at the effectiveness of that, some key principles to bear in mind are that effectiveness should be focused on customer-focused services, which was part of our brief. We believe network design and scheduling of drivers should be led predominantly by the requirements of the passengers. Passengers should come first. That means services should be integrated and simple to understand, that timetable design should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day but that timings should be attractive to passengers.
We believe clockface intervals are the key feature. By clockface intervals, we mean a quarter past every hour, so that people know they do not have to keep referring to timetables to find out when the bus will go. We believe bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be evenly spaced for passenger convenience but also to make it as efficient as possible for the companies to provide the service.
I turn to some specifics around the Dublin Bus network. Dublin Bus has benefited from a major investment in QBCs around the city and that is having an impact on passenger usage on those corridors. There has also been investment in high-quality bus shelters. Dublin Bus has implemented a number of high-frequency and direct routes and these have been very successful with customers. However, changes to the bus network in the past have met with public resistance at a local level. The result has been that the Dublin Bus network has become overly complex with a significant amount of service duplication.
We try to illustrate part of the example in a graph in the document circulated to members. It might be a little difficult to understand, so I will try to explain it. The green line shows the scheduled departure time from the city centre on the 40 group of buses. Members will see they are scheduled to leave approximately every five minutes but that in some cases, the scheduled departure time is ten minutes while in other cases, two buses leave at the same time. That is shown in a drop to zero. The blue line shows the actual interval experienced by passengers when one goes a few stages away from the city centre. Members will see that it is considerably higher than the scheduled time.
I refer to bunching of buses. As far as customers are concerned, two buses passing by at the same time is of no real interest to them. The interval until the next bus comes is what is really important to them. That is why members will see from the blue line that sometimes the interval is as high as 15 minutes, even though the resources are being deployed and there are enough buses on the routes to give a five minute interval. From a passenger point of view, they are not getting as efficient and as regular a service as they would like.
I refer to the Dublin Bus fleet size. In the graph in the document circulated, expressed in percentage terms, the blue line shows that the fleet capacity has increased by approximately 30% over the past eight years. However, the green line illustrates that passenger numbers have not really moved in that time.
Is that expressed as a percentage?
Mr. David Hearn
It is expressed as a percentage.
Our analysis has concluded that at this point in time, there are sufficient buses on the network, that there is sufficient capacity on the network for current demand and that merely adding new buses to that existing network will not, in itself, result in more passengers taking the bus. Something else must happen. It is not just about adding new buses. We recommend extracting the full value from the existing resources deployed before considering adding any new buses to the bus fleet. That is not to say we are against adding new buses but we must achieve efficiency first and then look at that.
I refer to reliability and congestion. In all the surveys, passengers rate reliability as one of the most important things in regard to using the bus service. That is very well illustrated by the success of the Luas. Reliability and predictability are the key things.
We did very detailed analysis of a number of routes and we will illustrate one of them in a graph, that is, the No. 4 service which goes through one of the key pinch points, namely, O'Connell Street. If members look at the O'Connell Street line, the difference between the top and the bottom of that line, between the dark blue and the light blue, they will see the difference in time on average for a bus to get through O'Connell Street. It varies from more than 20 minutes to approximately five minutes. There are two issues involved. One is that from the passengers' point of view, they do not know how long it will take. It could be five minutes or 20 minutes, so it is very unpredictable. From the company's point of view, it is very difficult and potentially inefficient to try to schedule and resource that service adequately. Clearly, congestion——
It can take between five minutes and 20 minutes for a bus to go from one end of O'Connell Street to the other.
Mr. David Hearn
Yes.
Some 20 minutes.
Mr. David Hearn
Up to 20 minutes.
Is that from Santry Avenue?
Mr. David Hearn
It is between the stages. Based on ticket data analysed over a period of several weeks, on average it could take between five and 20 minutes to go from Blessington Street to the end of the O'Connell Street portion of the journey. The other times are shown between stages.
Is that inbound?
Mr. David Hearn
In this case, it is inbound during the morning peak. This is probably one of the more dramatic cases but there are examples of variability elsewhere on that route. The key thing from a passenger point of view is that it is not predictable and reliable which is what passengers have repeatedly said they want. In addition, from an efficiency and company point of view, buses sitting on O'Connell Street will never be efficient.
I wish to make a few more points on reliability and congestion. The quality bus corridors have generally improved bus journey times and increased the number of passengers using those good quality corridors. However, congestion is still an issue and it restricts the efficient operation of the companies and increases their costs. That is outside the control of the companies.
There are a number of planned measures for priority. Both companies are implementing automatic vehicle location systems about which members will have heard from the companies themselves. There are plans to link them to the traffic management system in Dublin. We welcome that and believe it should be progressed as rapidly as possible.
Dublin City Council has also informed us that it is proposing a number of other demand management schemes, including increased parking charges, closing and rerouting traffic through the city centre and the creation of a bus gate in College Green. Again, we support those measures.
However, we believe there is an opportunity to go even further. If we really want to drive as many people as possible onto buses and out of cars, all demand management measures should be looked at, including road user pricing for which this committee called in its report. We agree with that and believe it is the type of thing which needs to be looked at.
If one wants to move from that very static line of bus users and really get an uplift in the number of bus users, all these issues should be looked at to try to change the attractiveness of the car relative to the bus. It is not all about just having high quality buses. That has been done. One must also improve reliability, reduce pinch points and get buses through the congestion.
I turn to ticketing and fare structure. One of our observations is that a majority of passengers in both companies still use cash. In contrast, in London approximately 2% of ticket purchases are by cash. The difficulty with cash is that it adds costs and dwell time for buses and decreases efficiency. An integrated ticketing programme is under way and we support that and would like to see it rolled out as quickly as possible. It may also be necessary to change the relative costs of cash tickets versus prepaid tickets, if we really want to drive enough people towards the use of prepaid tickets. We support the move towards prepaid tickets and are calling for a change in the relative pricing between cash and prepaid tickets to make it a real incentive for people to use the prepaid tickets.
We have noticed the success of real time passenger information with the Luas system. Both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are rolling out an automatic vehicle location, AVL, system. Dublin Bus plans to make this information available on mobile phones this year, but it should also be made available at key bus stops. Dublin City Council is looking after this project. We support the rapid roll-out of real time passenger information at key locations as quickly as possible.
I will summarise the recommendations for Dublin Bus as follows: develop a simpler and more efficient network that follows these key principles: simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes; eliminate any unnecessary duplication of services and maximise the return from the existing services; create even headways or intervals between departures; introduce intermediate running times to try and maintain those even intervals and reduce the potential for the bunching of buses; provide additional direct routes into and out of the city centre and key places of employment; and develop and market easy to understand routes and timetables.
In the case of Bus Éireann, it operates a comprehensive service throughout the country, with a number of distinct and integrated services. Given the comprehensive and integrated nature of the Bus Éireann network, we did not find any major inefficiencies. It operates a very efficient network compared to its peers.
As mentioned Bus Éireann also faces significant financial difficulties and is considering rationalisation. We urge that any rationalisation of services will ensure the integrated nature of the network will be preserved as far as possible. We found the scheduling of buses and drivers in Bus Éireann to be relatively efficient. The company should explore every opportunity to combine dedicated services for multiple organisations. Bus Éireann is already the largest contractor of private sector services in the State, but there are opportunities where there is expenditure in other State agencies, such as the HSE, to take those pools of services and try to find the most efficient way of providing an integrated service for a rural community.
Our general recommendations are to provide better customer information at bus stops and through the roll-out of real time passenger information, RTPI, and to accelerate bus priority programmes and continue to eliminate pinch points. In this regard we support the introduction of the bus gate. We agree with the committee's report that a feasibility study on demand management measures, including road user pricing, should be considered with some urgency. We believe the companies should maintain their current replacement programme of buses because keeping a young fleet is key to the attractiveness and efficiency of the network. We strongly support the move to cashless transactions, including the rapid roll-out of integrated ticketing and a move on non-cash fares. Changes to the licensing regime and process will be needed to facilitate more private sector involvement, but this should be done in a structured and complementary way to the Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann services.
Our recommendations have been put together to deliver a customer-focused service, a full redesign of that service and to produce the kind of simplified network we talked about that includes the recommendations we have made. This is a strategic programme of work and not a trivial, business as usual, programme. We have set up key guidelines in our report with regard to getting the right kind of commitment from all stakeholders, communicating with the people who need to be communicated with and putting the right team and resources together to carry out the programme correctly.
In summary, there is a strategic opportunity, particularly in the case of Dublin Bus, to create a simplified, more user-friendly service, based around the key principles contained in our report. I thank the committee for giving us the time and opportunity to present our summary.
I thank Mr. Hearn for his summary of the report. When I read the report, I was disappointed because I felt there was not much in it we did not know already. It failed to address the fundamental issue of why Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are losing passengers, namely, the mindset change necessary to get people to switch from motor cars to buses. I am disappointed the report did not address this issue in a significant way or come up with significant proposals on how to get more people to use buses, particularly when travelling into city centres. Dublin has major congestion, with motor cars being driven into the city each day although there are good bus services that could and should be used.
In our report, we identified many of the issues identified in the Deloitte report. Having spoken with Dublin Bus, one of the key issues we identified was the need for more buses at peak times. I visited locations where people had informed me buses were flying past because they were full, and I saw that happen. We recommended an extra 350 buses to deal with that peak time situation over the next two years, but Mr. Hearn has told us there are enough buses.
Mr. David Hearn
Yes.
My second criticism concerns the statement made that the network is overly complex due to service duplication. When we challenged Dublin Bus on that, it gave us the example of Finglas. The recommendations in Mr. Hearn's report were for a more rationalised service there. Dublin Bus informed us that attempts were made in the past to rationalise the service there, but there was uproar locally because everybody wanted the company to continue providing the same level of service. Rationalisation is one way to cut costs, but it means a reduction in the quality of service and does not address the key issues.
Mr. Hearn spoke about modern bus fleets and improved QBCs, but pointed out that it can take buses up to 20 minutes to go from one end of O'Connell Street to the other. In our study we placed emphasis on the need to develop the bus gate and we will call Dublin City Council before the committee shortly to get some commitment for an immediate decision in this regard. I am not satisfied Mr. Hearn's report puts sufficient emphasis on this area. I expected the report would come up with something more worthwhile in terms of the need for immediate, courageous decisions by the authorities concerned to enable the bus gate to be developed immediately and deal with pinch points throughout the city.
A vote has been called in the Dáil.
Mr. Hearn may reply to the questions now, before we go for the vote. I will call on Deputy O'Dowd to put his questions when we return.
Mr. David Hearn
We did extensive analysis on peak time provision and it is our view there are sufficient buses to cover peak time.
What about the age of the fleet?
Mr. David Hearn
The age of the fleet is good.
It will begin to get older.
Mr. David Hearn
It will and that is why we have called for the continuation of a structured replacement programme. The Deputy is right, if that is not continued, the fleet will begin to get older. There will always be full buses on any network, but where there is bus bunching, this becomes a more serious problem because the first bus in a bunch will be full. We found that because there are uneven interval times on the schedule and the company does not strictly adhere to what we call intermediate timing points, it does not maintain even headway, which leads to full buses. We carried out very extensive analysis of the data from ticket information and went through it in great detail for the routes we were asked to study and found there was adequate capacity on those routes.
Does the Chairman have a list of speakers?
Yes.
Is my name on the list of speakers?
Yes. We shall suspend for the vote.
Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.35 p.m.
We shall resume with questions.
Mr. David Hearn
With regard to the discussion on capacity, we carried out an extensive analysis on a number of levels. At the macro level, we showed the slide indicating a 30% increase in capacity without a commensurate increase in the number of passengers being carried. We still stand over our point of view that if one just adds extra buses or capacity to the network, one will not necessarily have a commensurate increase in the number of passengers. This makes sense. We increased capacity by 30% but it has not resulted in an increase in the number of passengers. Therefore, another approach is needed.
Did the Luas take passengers away from buses?
Mr. David Hearn
It did for a while in certain areas, which is certainly the view of the company. However, if one considers that a 30% increase in capacity on the whole network did not result in a material increase in the number of passengers, one will realise that adding capacity alone will not be the answer. We are not against adding capacity but are saying we should use current capacity as efficiently as possible before considering adding more. We are very much in favour of bus transport and really believe increasing the number of bus passengers is the way forward.
Is existing capacity being used efficiently at peak times? At such times there are clearly not enough buses.
Mr. David Hearn
That is part of our analysis at the high level. At the detailed level we analysed ticketing data for particular routes. For example, we used the Finglas corridor which, with the agreement of the company, we agreed would make a good case study. We analysed all the data over many weeks, put them through all our models and spreadsheets and noted the result. The data indicated that, even during peak periods, buses were running well below full capacity. I have one of the graphs to hand and accept it is quite detailed. It is contained on page 110. It shows that, even during the morning peak period which is the most severe, a number of buses with a typical capacity of 90 passengers were running with an average of 30 or 40 passengers. One characteristic of Dublin is that the morning peak period is particularly severe, while the afternoon peak period is a little more stretched.
A reliable and more regular service will mean passengers will not all turn up at the same time. With an unreliable service, they must turn up early. If it is reliable, the times at which passengers turn up can be spread a little more and one can avoid the problem of "bunching", whereby the first bus will be full and the second, empty. If after taking all these good steps individual buses still do not have enough capacity, the next step is to redeploy some of the bigger, triaxle buses to the route. If there is still a problem with capacity, one can increase frequency. Our proposal for Finglas is to have a regular, direct, high frequency service that is customer-focused. As I stated in the report, it is a conceptual design. Therefore, based on passenger demand, if that proves as successful as we think it will, then additional buses could be allocated at peak time if they are merited on a case-by-case and commercial basis.
We raised that issue with Dublin Bus. Will Mr. Hearn map the routes that will be less complex and will avoid duplication that he is recommending for the Finglas area to replace existing routes? He can come back to the committee with that information.
Mr. David Hearn
Yes.
In responding to Deputy O'Dowd, will Mr. Hearn address the issue that is important to all members, that is relevant in Dublin and in all of our other cities, which is the fact that people are not culturally adapted to the modal switch to the bus? We will allow Mr. Hearn to answer the Finglas question but I will allow Deputy O'Dowd to ask a question first.
I appreciate that the Chairman posed general questions on the Finglas bus routes. Some people in Bus Éireann argued that the data are not necessarily always accurate. That is putting it in a nice way. What they are saying is that it depends on the time of year and the dates used for the ticket data. They argued that it was not accurate over the totality of the year. They said seasonal, holiday and other issues affect numbers. When was the data collected? If the figures Mr. Hearn presented are true then the case seems conclusive, but they doubt them. Deputy Broughan has a better idea of the number of buses that will be removed from the routes but it is approximately 14. People in Dublin Bus are saying the data are not accurate over the totality of the operation.
Mr. David Hearn
I refute that. The data is what they provided to us. It is actual ticket data. My experience of 20 years in this consulting industry is that the data do not lie. One has to get past opinion and perception and look at the data. What we did was to ask the companies for their opinions and the ticket data. What the ticket data shows is the time a person gets on a bus.
That is not the issue. I refer to the time of the year. They do not doubt the data but they said one would get a different spread of data at different times of the year. I do not know when the data were captured.
Mr. David Hearn
That is undoubtedly true.
The point they are making is that the conclusion reached is not definitive. The issue is not QED as far as they are concerned.
Mr. David Hearn
We took data from a number of periods. Perhaps Mr. Turner will assist.
Mr. Paul Turner
The data we collected were from two periods, namely, April 2008 and November 2008. They are both what we would term as significant data periods. They are free from significant holiday periods. The November period is prior to Christmas, which affects retail flows. Universities and schools are all in session and we have a spring and autumn period that is free from variations. We also took 20 week days to analyse the core flows in each of those periods, so we were able to do some sanity checks to ensure the data were reasonable. For example, we can compare all four Wednesdays to identify whether there is a data problem on a particular one, which we might need to disregard but no issues arose in that respect.
We also have an established programme to deal with ticket machine data to check driver behaviour. Not every driver will record all the free tickets. We are able to factor that in. We discussed that with the operator and it gave us its methodology for dealing with that issue. In discussions with us, the operator sought clarity on that and we provided it. I believe the data are representative.
Is Mr. Turner saying that if he was doing this in another city or country, he would take the same time periods and that there is nothing different about what he is doing here?
Mr. Paul Turner
No.
I welcome the report, especially the summary recommendations which I have looked at in some detail. I do not wish to monopolise the meeting but regardless of everything else, congestion is obviously the key reason we do not have buses running on time. If we do not deal with the pinch points the Chairman identified in our report last year, such as, for example, the bus gate and other matters, we will not get it right. The underlying problem to which Mr. Hearn referred is that even at the height of the boom we were losing bus passengers proportionately. Between 2005 and 2006, the numbers dropped by approximately 3%.
Mr. David Hearn
Yes.
There is a serious underlying issue. Notwithstanding the awful recession period we are in, the underlying problem is how to get people onto buses. With all of the increase in capacity, we still have a serious problem that has not been addressed. We need to analyse that more to get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Hearn reckoned that approximately €2 million could be saved on the Finglas route. I accept that will not be the same over the other 14 major routes but significant savings can and must be made in the interests of greater efficiency, the travelling public and the taxpayer. We are in a serious crisis with Dublin Bus letting approximately 290 workers off and mothballing 120 buses. I have been told by Dublin Bus that the intention is to sell off the older buses and keep the newer ones.
Mr. David Hearn
Yes.
We must deal with this serious crisis. One of the recommendations in Mr. Hearn's report is that the above programme of work represents fundamental changes for the company and should be treated as a major change and transformation programme. That is key really, that Dublin Bus must take those recommendations on board.
To some extent, the work practices concern me. I was not clear on the out-of-service comparison between Dublin and the United Kingdom. Mr. Hearn said the out-of-service time on the Finglas route was up to 20% on average whereas the out-of-service time in the UK ranged between 3% and 10%. Can Mr. Hearn explain that further?
Mr. David Hearn
First, I shall deal with the general points. We agree that the underlying point of the report is a customer focused, more efficient and effective, customer-friendly service. Fundamental to that is a simplified, easier to understand and more reliable service. Our terms of reference, which were set down by the Department, were specific. They were to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the resources that are currently deployed in the two bus companies. We were also asked to specify whether those things were under the control of the company.
We were focused on the company and what it could control as opposed to some of the wider issues. We think there are significant areas the company can control. That is fundamentally down to the design of the network. That is why we use the word "fundamental" redesign of the network. That is not to say there are not good aspects to the network. Clearly, there are very good things and some of the recent services that were added have proved to be successful but the timing feels right to take into account all of the improvements, the new bus corridors and buses, developments in public transport, the Luas, etc., and put them all together to come up with the right network that is customer focused and user-friendly.
Clearly, other matters were not directly in the control of the company. We set those out in the report although they are not strictly part of our core terms of reference. The committee is very strong on those issues and perhaps that goes back to the Chairman's point. We feel that congestion is a significant operational issue for the company and we set that out. It is graphically illustrated in our data and analysis. We can go back over that if anybody wants me to illustrate it.
Fundamentally, if the aim is to get us out of the car culture and onto buses, we have to change the relative attractiveness of the car to the bus. That is why we call for a serious consideration of road user pricing or congestion charges and additional measures, as does the committee in its report. The measures that are planned are clearly going to be beneficial. We support them, including the bus gate, but if we really want to move that very static 150 million passengers dropping down to 145 million we must do something much more fundamental and that is not completely within the control of the company. There is something within the control of the company, which is a simplified, easy to use, easy to market network, and then there are clearly things outside the control of the company such as a fundamental shift in the price and the attractiveness of the car.
I refer to out of service time. Strategic park and ride facilities would help. Many people who drive into the city do not have a choice, as they do not have access to public transport. However, if strategic park and ride facilities were provided around the city, they would make a significant difference and provide a choice to motorists who would get out of their cars rather than drive to work.
Mr. Paul Turner
The issue of out of service running on the Finglas corridor stems from the location of the depot, which is Harristown, close to the airport. The nature of that requires, as it does at times in the UK, significant out of service running to get drivers back to where they start.
They must drive the bus from Harristown to the route in Finglas.
Mr. Paul Turner
Yes, we have made suggestions to the company about how it can alter that figure slightly while still running from Harristown, such as the use of shuttle cars. This will bring the cost down a little but it will not be radical. Unfortunately, when one is faced with having to build depots on the periphery of the centre, it will lead to——
Does that mean 20% of the time nobody is on the bus except the driver going to and from Harristown?
Mr. Paul Turner
It reflects the portion of the time the driver is working and, therefore, 80% of the time he is productive.
There is nobody on the bus for the other 20% of the time.
Mr. Paul Turner
He runs empty to and from the base the other 20% of the time. That happens in up to 10% of the basket of UK operations we benchmarked. Doubtless, extreme examples could be found in them as well.
However, they are empty between 3% and 10% of the time generally in the UK. That implies facilities are much nearer.
Mr. Paul Turner
They have more central locations, as is the case with some existing Dublin Bus depots. That results in a much lower scenario but it is a trade off between the availability of land and the facilities at older depots compared to modern premises.
Mr. David Hearn
There are two related issues. Many of the euro buses for peak duties were located at Harristown because no room was available in city centre locations but they are used on routes, in many cases, which are a long way from Harristown and, there is, therefore, an inefficiency in driving buses to the beginning and end of a route. If they were located closer to where they are needed, this would reduce that inefficiency. We also identified and highlighted work practices relating to where driver breaks, for example, are taken. Some efficiencies could be gained through changes in work practice and custom to make sure breaks are not always taken at the garage, for example, but taken in the city centre or other locations that improve efficiency.
Dublin Bus is stuck in many ways between a rock and a hard place. The hand of history weighs heavily on its management structures and it finds it difficult to change a route on the basis it has always had customers and, therefore, why change? That comes through time and time again. The more difficult side of politics manifests itself in dealing with Dublin Bus. There is a certain parochialism whereby if an attempt is made to straighten out a route, a chorus of telephone calls and representations follow. The company is stuck in the middle of this. When managers want to straighten out routes, they almost paint themselves into a corner and are unable to make the necessary radical changes. I compliment the witnesses on this comprehensive report, which highlights that radical reform is required to improve the brand and to serve bus users rather than serve the company.
When the Minister appeared before the committee, I asked whether reliability statistics were available for Dublin Bus. He said as far as he could see there were no reliable reliability statistics. While that is humorous, reliability statistics are available for the DART and mainline rail. We can argue about the parameters but they exist. They do not exist for Dublin Bus.
On an anecdotal basis, the 46A route, which is the jewel in the crown of Dublin Bus services, has a 20-minute gap in service on a Saturday morning. That has everything to do with driver breaks and nothing to do with serving the consumer. The small print of the new signage at bus stops is interesting. It refers to about every ten or 20 minutes between certain times, which masks the fact that there are gaping holes in most bus routes at most times. The report's statistics reflect this. Services run more or less schedule.
I will allow the Deputy to finish his questions after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 5.10 p.m.
Dublin Bus needs radical reform, particularly in terms of how its network operates. The Finglas corridor seems to be a good example. The Dublin Transportation Office has good modelling data on where people travel within the city, but I am not convinced that Dublin Bus is reflecting the data in its routing. I would be interested to learn our guests' opinion.
Regarding signalling and bus priorities, the report refers to SCATS and bus detection. It reminds me of a discussion that I had 20 years ago concerning the bus transit programmes then in use. This matter boils down to whether buses are getting sufficient priority in the city, particularly from Dublin City Council. Will our guests outline the current priority? For example, can one or several buses push for a green time to allow them through or is it done manually?
The crucial bus gate, which has been under discussion, should be developed within months. That aside, what other measures could be taken to help buses stay on schedule? Would a south quays bus lane help? Pearse Street has a degree of bus priority, but Garda vehicles outside Pearse Street Garda station are double or, in some instances, treble parked. Should buses have greater priority through such bottlenecks? Where else could buses be given the priority they deserve?
Dublin Bus depots are concentrated in the inner city, Harristown in the north and Ringsend in the south east. Were it to restart, I assume there would be a better distribution of depots. In Tallaght, it is ludicrous that the nearest bus station is in Donnybrook. Would low cost depots help us to reduce the amount of empty running? Should we create depots in correct locations more quickly? Shuttle buses and other means of taking drivers to their buses have been mentioned, given the mismatch between drivers' and depots' locations, but should we move faster to establish a depot in the south west of the city?
Shared route services seem to operate from one depot exclusively, but the possibility of another depot operating the 4 and 4A routes from Blackrock to Harristown has been hinted. Could Donnybrook be used to complement the services from Harristown, thereby reducing empty running on the route?
Building the Dublin Bus brand is crucial. People need to know that, if they get on a Dublin Bus service, it will take them to where they want to go in a reliable and timely manner, which I am not convinced is currently the case. To attract car users to buses, we must build the brand's reliability. I alluded to the gaps in the quality bus network schedule. How can we build the brand?
Dublin Bus has moved considerably in recent years. My opinion has always been that it should be given the buses and allowed to perform. Given the graphs presented, it has the buses, but there must be more movement on performance. Now is the time to make that happen.
Dublin Bus relied particularly on the immigrant population, many of whom have left Ireland in recent years. The core customers have more choices. We must bend over backwards to get people on to buses. At a previous meeting, someone referred to putting Wi-Fi on buses. Such initiatives are a part of the initiative, as we must build a brand. I would welcome our guests' opinions.
I welcome the report and the delegation. While I have not read the report from cover to cover, I have scanned through it and read the synopsis provided today. Overall, the report is good, but I would have preferred more specifics concerning overlapping services.
The Finglas route has been mentioned. Having grown up in east Finglas, I know the area well. The five routes that service the north, south, east and west of Finglas terminate in the village near Hart's Corner on the Finglas Road. I do not understand why Dublin Bus has not considered a nipper bus service from the five destinations to Finglas village. It would be a rapid service thanks to the bus corridor along the Finglas Road from Hart's Corner to Dorset Street. I am disappointed this is not contained in Deloitte's report, particularly as it makes the point regarding better utilisation of services and that more buses do not mean a better service.
As for the Luas, at previous meetings with Dublin Bus, Ministers and others, I stated that if a train service was available, the public would not use the bus service because of a reliability factor that, unfortunately, buses did not yet have. If Dublin Bus wishes to grow its passenger numbers, instead of running a parallel service in which it will be the clear loser, it should operate feeder buses from residential areas to Luas and DART lines. I am disappointed this is not contained in Deloitte's report.
Those members who used to listen to Mike Murphy's early morning radio show will recall his famous comments about the 46A bus always being late and never turning up. However, it has become ridiculous and, with no disrespect to anyone living in the area, a letter to the editor was published in last Saturday week's edition of The Irish Times in which a gentleman referred to seeing five 46A buses in Merrion Square. While the first two were relatively full, the other three were carrying no passengers. By coincidence, last Sunday night I left St. Vincent’s Hospital and, while passing through Merrion Square, saw two 46A buses on Clare Street. As this took place at approximately 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. on a Sunday evening, one would not expect there to be an overlapping service, but two 46A buses were pulled right up against each other with very few passengers on board. The concept of better utilisation must be drummed into all concerned. I would have liked Deloitte’s report to have contained more route analysis, in which specific routes are studied to ascertain where there are overlaps and alternatives.
I have made the point previously about park and ride facilities that Deputy O'Dowd has reiterated today. If we wish to increase passenger numbers and remove cars from the road, park and ride facilities must be put in place on the perimeters along the main arterial routes. People would use such a service, were it available, and I have become blue in the face while suggesting it. For instance, in my constituency of Dublin North, Swords would be an ideal location because it would attract people from counties Louth and Meath, who gladly would drive——
We would get the same bus.
They would gladly drive up the M1 or the N2, park at Swords and hop on. While I hope we will have the metro within four or five years which would facilitate such a scenario, the report did not make reference to such a facility.
As for the point that Dublin Bus has lost passengers in the past year, this is not simply due to the downturn in the economy. While that has had an impact, there are large residential areas in my constituency — Deputy Broughan will probably blow a gasket again — with 2,500 or 1,750 houses that have no bus service at peak times. Were Dublin Bus allocating its resources better, it would secure that market and not be complaining about falling numbers and revenue. Were Deloitte to prepare follow-up reports or if it was to have the opportunity to comment on this, I suggest it should consider that throughout Dublin and counties Meath and Kildare there are huge residential areas with a population that would use buses, were a service provided. I refer to the nipper service from residential areas to mainline rail, Luas and DART stations, etc.
Although the report was good overall, Deloitte should have analysed every route to ascertain whether there were overlaps or duplication or whether more buses were needed. I do not know if so doing was in its brief.
Mr. David Hearn
Although we would have liked to have performed all of the analysis suggested by Deputy Kennedy, it was not our brief to analyse all the network. We were given instructions pertaining to the examination of a certain number of garages and depots, which is set out in the report.
Can the conclusions in respect of Finglas be extrapolated to the entire city? Can Deloitte's findings regarding savings of €2.2 million, involving a reduced bus service for Finglas, become €29 million in order that there is no PSO? This is the mathematics members wish to ascertain. What cost benefit analysis did Deloitte conduct to achieve the Finglas result? Can it be extrapolated to the entire city? If not, the conclusion of Deloitte's report in this regard is a complete fraud.
While we have dealt with the Finglas issue, I will allow the delegates to answer——
No, we have not.
Yes, we did before the Deputy arrived. However, I will allow the delegates to answer the question. However, we have asked for the detail on alternative routes to be provided for us.
A conclusion was made in the report that did not have validity. There is an implication — Deputy Kennedy has raised the same point — which does not have validity in accountancy or mathematical terms.
Mr. Hearn can respond to that point. He is responding to Deputy Cuffe.
Mr. David Hearn
I hope I have captured all of Deputy Cuffe's questions. I understand the first point made before the break pertained to reliability monitoring. Train and tram systems have a lot of information built into them, given the manner in which the signalling systems work and the nature of the systems delivered in this regard. The bus companies are implementing automated vehicle location systems — Dublin Bus this year and Bus Éireann next year — after which both will have their systems up and running. In the meantime, there is room for additional reliability monitoring, a matter to which we drew attention in our report. We agree that having reliable reliability statistics is a critical management tool in improving the bus service.
The second point Deputy Cuffe mentioned pertained to the usage of DTO data. We draw attention to this matter. The bus companies claim they use such data. Clearly, we consider this is the right way to go. Particularly in the context of a redesign, for which we call in our report, it is vital that the most up-to-date data are always used. The difficulty with this type of redesign is that while the data may drive rational decisions to provide buses in particular areas in which there is demand, this may not always match the beliefs of local people who have a current service as to where it should be. Although we advocate using the data to drive this network, this does not underestimate the difficulty and challenges in carrying out such a redesign.
The Deputy mentioned the issue of priority through the city, as well as the linking of signalling with the Dublin City Council SCAT system. This is a programme that is under way and while it has been budgeted for, it has not yet happened. There are some technical challenges associated with it. The difference between a Luas and a bus is that only one Luas approaches a junction at any given time. There is no competing Luas coming from a different direction and there is only one of them. The difficulty with bus routes is that several buses can approach a junction from one direction, while they also can approach from another at the same time. Luas carriages also have the great advantage of running along the same track along the entire route. As buses can turn corners and so on, one needs extremely accurate route maps showing exactly what they will do. When they reach a particular junction, will they turn left, right or pass straight through? When one puts all of the information together, it is not a trivial job to give prioritisation. However, from our discussions with Dublin City Council, we understand it has a plan and a programme in place to do this and that it has a sophisticated traffic management system. It is a question of building the right level of priority into it, testing it and ensuring it all works.
The Deputy mentioned the bus gate and other measures. We support the provision of a bus gate and state in our report that it is a key measure in moving people from cars to buses. As for other measures, we understand there is an agreed list of pinch points that are being addressed by the QBC office and Dublin City Council, which we welcome. Having considered the list, all the measures it contains seem very sensible. However, members will note that our report also states we do not necessarily believe this goes far enough. Although addressing all the pinch points will clearly give some key advantages, we also recommend the investigation of measures such as road user pricing and congestion charges or additional priority measures to ensure buses are given as much as possible. While there is no hard and fast rule, we are pushing for a sufficient level of priority to provide a fast, reliable and customer-focused service. Until this is achieved, we will strongly argue that one must keep pushing these measures. There is no clearly defined end point. The result of this process must be a customer-focused, fast and reliable service.
I agree with Deputy Cuffe's point regarding bus depots. Depots are something of an expensive historic legacy. To some extent, one must live with the depots one has. City centre depots are not necessarily a disadvantage because they are generally close to the most popular bus routes. However, there certainly may be some gaps. We cannot comment specifically on individual depots because we were not asked to look at that issue in compiling our report. I do not have an opinion on that matter. In general, however, I accept the point that they represent a restriction on services.
The question of sharing of routes is fine in principle. In general, the priority must be to identify whatever is the most efficient and effective means of serving a particular route. I agree totally with Deputy Cuffe's final point regarding branding. The thrust of our report is that a simplified, reliable and easily understandable network is easier to market and sell. Bus Éireann in particular has made great efforts in marketing its brand. However, unless the underlying product is simple and easy to understand, it matters little how much is spent on marketing, mail drops or advertising. The product itself must be the product customers want. Our report makes the point that expenditure on marketing and branding will be far more powerful if there are improvements in the service itself.
Deputy Kennedy asked about the specification of overlapping services. We made some general comments about this with reference to the network in its totality and, in agreement with the bus company, examined the Finglas corridor in more detail. This was considered a useful representative corridor given that there is a strong demand for public transport, with a significant population without private transport and thus reliant on the bus service. In addition, it is a corridor which, as Deputy Kennedy observed, already has several bus services, including the very successful recent addition of the 140 route. Therefore, it represented a good example on which to focus efforts to devise ways of providing a more customer-focused and simplified service.
The thrust of our recommendations, taking into consideration geographical issues and residential patterns from the latest DTO data, with particular reference to residents without private transport, was that two high-frequency routes which would overlap through a large part of the corridor into the city centre before splitting to provide high-frequency and reliable services to east and west Finglas, respectively, would satisfy the majority of customer demand. A minority of customer demand is for a local service into Finglas village. The research shows that people travelling into the city centre prefer to be able to do so in one bus journey. They would rather not have to use a nipper bus, if there is an alternative.
Therefore, our conclusion was that the ideal solution was two reliable, high-speed direct routes which would be within walking distance for most passengers. This should be supported by a local service, where necessary, which is why we allowed for a local nipper-type service in our case study. However, we see that as primarily geared towards people in west Finglas who wish to travel to Finglas village rather than those travelling to Finglas to get a bus into the city centre. As I said, we provided in our case study for a direct service from west Finglas into the city centre.
Will Mr. Hearn provide the committee with details of the routes, frequency, nipper services and so on?
Mr. David Hearn
Certainly. I will be happy to do so.
Will Mr. Hearn comment on the report's recommendations in regard to off-peak services? I understand the frequency at peak times is quite good. I support the report's recommendation that five buses be pulled at off-peak times. If the numbers are not there, a frequency of 15 minutes or 20 minutes rather than five minutes makes sense. However, my point was that a nipper bus service serving west Finglas and feeding into Finglas village, from where passengers could be sure they could get a bus into the city centre within ten or 15 minutes, would increase passenger numbers.
Mr. David Hearn
We have allowed for the provision of a nipper service in our proposal. It would be relatively easy to scale that up or down. We have allowed for a 20-minute service in our case study.
I remind members that the delegates from SR Technics are waiting outside. Therefore, I ask members to be as brief as possible in their questioning.
The Deloitte report includes recommendations already put forward in previous reports. As I said at a recent meeting of this committee, we have been waiting 20 years for cashless transactions, an automated vehicle location, AVL, system, real-time and intermediate information and so on. Much of the content of this report was contained in the last internal report of Dublin Bus. As such, it adds little to the debate. We all know these improvements must take place. Many of them are the responsibility of the Government. For example, we have been waiting 80 years or 90 years for bus licensing legislation, but there is no sign of action from the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in this regard.
In regard to the Finglas corridor, is Mr. Hearn saying that the projected savings of €2.2 million can be replicated across the 13 other corridors? There was a discussion recently on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" radio programme about the concerns of residents in the greater Ballyfermot area that a similar type of plan may be implemented there. Does the report set out to claim that what is proposed for Finglas could be replicated across the network? Is the cost of the nipper service built into the cost projections? One of the problems with the proposed solution is that some vulnerable commuters such as elderly persons or parents with young children will have to walk further to access the bus service. Did Deloitte ascertain the longest distance any passenger would have to walk to access each of the two major routes? The British Department of Transport, for example, has guidelines for both urban and rural areas on the maximum distance any person should be from a bus route regardless of one's location throughout Britain. Did Deloitte undertake this type of study?
Does the report mean to suggest that no public service obligation is necessary? In other words, is there a suggestion that Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann could be maintained without public funding? One of the striking factors to consider in view of the current proposed cutbacks in Bus Éireann is the observation in this report that the company is as efficient as it can be, yet massive cutbacks are being imposed on routes throughout the State. I will attend a meeting in the Chairman's city of Galway tomorrow night at which one of the issues for discussion will be the massive slashing of bus services, with some 15 buses being removed from the city network. One of the issues the Labour Party has with this report is our concern that it is being used by Deputy Cuffe's party and by Fianna Fáil as a fig leaf or smokescreen to impose significant cutbacks in public transport.
That is not true.
It is not only true but obvious. We have just heard that the proposed bus strike this coming Saturday will be deferred. There are no thanks due to the Minister for this welcome development.
The report offers an interesting analysis of public service obligations throughout Europe. It seems Dublin Bus has by far the lowest public service obligation at 29% of revenue. The corresponding figure for Brussels is 68%; 57% for Zurich; 62% for Amsterdam; 79% for Lyon; and 39% for London. Will Mr. Hearn confirm whether Dublin Bus has the lowest level of public funding support in the European Union? The Minister claimed at last week's meeting that these figures are inaccurate because Deloitte did not take into account all the funding the two bus companies receive in regard to fleet replacement.
In the case of Bus Éireann, the report offers comparisons with, for example, Connexxion in the Netherlands, which I presume is a regional company, which receives a 49% subsidy and TEC in the Walloon region of Belgium which receives 78%. By contrast, Bus Éireann receives a subsidy of only 12% of revenue. Bus services in Galway, Cork, Limerick and other cities are operating with a tiny subsidy. Should Deloitte not have highlighted this more significantly in its report? If we are to have a top class public transport service, which most people would recognise as a public good, there will be costs. The report seems to acknowledge this on the one hand, while, on the other, it presents us with an entire chapter on the Finglas corridor with the observation that this cost can be taken out. My constituents are concerned that the service will deteriorate if these recommendations are implemented.
A meeting took place last night in Rivermeade in Deputy Kennedy's constituency. The people of Rivermeade are very upset. They contacted me and others about the loss of their service. They do not want to take a bus into Finglas village, they want to go from Rivermeade and St. Margaret's directly into the city centre. This is coming through the corridor to which the representatives of Deloitte are referring. If the Finglas analogy is replicated, the fear is that we will lose services and the bus service will be worse.
We all want cashless and integrated services. If we had those, we would have a totally different service. It is my understanding that buses could change the traffic signals under SCATS. I was the chairperson of the committee in Dublin City Council that developed the SCATS system. Oireachtas Members are no longer allowed to sit on local authorities but my understanding was that this was being implemented in 2000 or 2001 so that the buses could change the traffic signals.
Regarding the modal shift, the delegation is saying that the brand must be attractive. When waiting for the bus one wants to see real-time information. When this starts there will be a different system of automatic supervision of worker behaviour because, for example, someone will have to be at the bus in a part of Swords at 4.21 p.m. rather than at 4.30 p.m. or 4.10 p.m. This technology would change things.
The Labour Party wonders about the connection between pricing and popularity of bus services. The Labour Party suggested a fare of €1 or 50 cent for kids to get across the city and the greater Dublin region. I am not sure what public service obligation would be required but we did some cost-benefit analysis on increased passenger numbers vis-à-vis lost revenue from fares. Did the delegation undertake that analysis, considering taking in less revenue by making it a very cheap service so that it would be attractive? The cost of transport is an important issue.
Reference was made to the north fringe, which is in my constituency. I am pleased to tell Deputy Kennedy that Dublin Bus has informed me that the 128 bus, a successful cross-city route, will continue, cutbacks or not. One of the reasons for this is that we have a north fringe committee for the major new urban district being built there. We went to the trouble of setting up the committee and getting all stakeholders, including the bus companies led by the public bus company, around the table. The result was the 128 route. I suggest that those who represent other areas could have done the same. The service works very well. There are perhaps 1,500 occupied houses in our part of the north fringe.
I do not think that figure is accurate.
The Deputy had his chance when Holywell was in the planning process. It was built beside a motorway with very high density. The Deputy had his chance but I invigilated in the north fringe. We got a bus service, we are proud of it and we want to keep it because we believe that integrated transport planning is the way forward.
May I interrupt? Some people in SR Technics have time constraints so I will bring the meeting to a conclusion after having given the delegation an opportunity to respond.
Mr. David Hearn
I shall try to answer as many of the questions as I can. SCATS is possible when one is further from the city centre because there may be only one bus approaching the lights. In the city centre, where many of the priority problems exist and real benefit would result, one cannot have a single bus changing the signal. It is more complex than that. One must give additional priority to all buses. There is an algorithm that examines the number of carriers and the saturation of cars and buses.
Has the technology been available for a long time?
Mr. David Hearn
The technology exists. One of the advantages is that Dublin City Council has one of the most modern traffic signalling systems. When automated vehicle location, AVL, is introduced and if that link, which is planned for and budgeted, is provided, it would be an advantage. We totally agree with Deputy Broughan on the modal shift and the link between pricing and popularity. Our report states that it is relativity between car and bus that must change. At the moment it is far too easy for all of us to get into our cars because we can drive for free on our roads, including through the city centre.
It is not free.
Mr. David Hearn
It is free at the point of use.
What is the cost per week and per year?
Mr. David Hearn
The studies show that when one has already bought a car——
Why are people not buying cars right now?
Mr. David Hearn
Studies have shown roads will fill up to saturation even in a downturn. Cars start dissipating until people start realising that roads are moving more freely and they return to using their cars. Roads will always get back to saturation, particularly through pinch points.
Pricing matters and there are two ways to go: one can reduce the price of the bus or make the car more expensive. In the current climate there is not a great amount of extra funding available to radically reduce the price of a bus ticket.
Did the Deloitte report explore that option?
Mr. David Hearn
Our terms of reference concerned the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the bus.
Did Deloitte do a cost-benefit analysis between lower prices and higher usage?
Mr. David Hearn
Not specifically on that issue.
Did Deloitte do a cost-benefit analysis between lower prices and higher usage?
Mr. David Hearn
No.
Mr. David Hearn
We call for a change in relative pricing and relative attractiveness and we stand over that. The Deputy asked about savings in the Finglas case study and whether these could be applied across the network. The principles to which we refer, reducing duplication and inefficiency, moving to more even headways and faster, simpler, more customer-focused service, will apply. Applying this across all 14 routes to be removed was not part of our terms of reference.
Was it modelled on other European cities? Cities such as London and Rome have more direct bus routes but the corollary is that these cities have massive fixed line metro or Luas systems. Many areas in these cities have three public transport mechanisms.
Mr. David Hearn
All of our analysis and research takes into account studies undertaken in the UK, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Switzerland. Closer to home, the introduction of the Luas shows what a fast, direct, reliable, repeatable service can do and how attractive that is. Within Dublin Bus, and the introduction of the more recent routes to which the Deputy referred which are direct, reliable, even clockface routes, customers have been moving from older services to the new ones because they find it more attractive. We are calling for this to be taken to its logical conclusion and to redesign the network, taking a corridor-based approach to provide the best service possible for customers. We are customer-focused. There were comments made about not providing a direct service to west Finglas. This was a preliminary and conceptual design and requires further work and refinement by the company. We provided for two direct regular services to the city centre, one from east Finglas and one from west Finglas. While we put a nipper bus service in, this was more to help those in west Finglas getting to Finglas village. It was not a case of telling the people in west Finglas that they no longer had a direct route. We sought a ten minute service to west Finglas at peak times and 15 minutes in off-peak times. That is a conceptual design and, if demand proves it to be as successful as we believe it will be, it is possible to add additional buses and to improve frequencies.
We thank the delegation for the presentation. We would appreciate detailed information, including maps, on the Finglas route. Our intention is to see if it can be implemented, both from the company's perspective and from the view of the local community. The company tells us that it is not satisfactory. We will propose implementation of this idea and see how it progresses. We will suspend until the delegation from SR Technics come in.
Sitting suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 5.52 p.m.