Public Transport

Return to Index

Public Transport Policy

30 June 1983

The Editor
Irish Press
Burgh Quay
Dublin 2.

Dear Sir,

The present position of CIE and its exponentially increasing debt would seem to call for a more radical solution than that recently put forward by the Minister.

The argument, that the provision of a service on uneconomic routes, for social reasons, entitles CIE to such a large subsidy, is not supported by the figures.

According to figures, published in the Irish Times on June 29, only 3% of losses in 1981 related to rural bus services. The vast bulk of the loss, 58%, was incurred by the mainline rail service and next came Dublin City bus and rail services, which together accounted for 32% of the losses. On every sector, except for Rosslare Harbour, CIE made a loss. Even on coach tours, which seem to be money spinners for private bus owners, CIE made a small loss.

I would like to put forward the following solution toe the country's transport problems:

1. Identify all loss making routes and put them up for tender. In other words, let CIE and private transport operators bid against one another for the lowest Government subsidy.
2. In the case of Mainline Rail, where it might not be possible to involve private operators, the service should be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny as to how efficiency might be improved. It might also be advisable to set up a separate authority for the railways.

It seems unbelievable, that out of a total operating cost of £105.64 million for the railways in 1981, only £45.43 million (43%) was raised in fares. A separate authority could hardly do worse than that.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew J. Moran.

Current Comment

My reason for writing this letter, in 1983, was my concern that, while an increased subsidy was being claimed by CIE for servicing uneconomic routes, the daily bus service from Woodford to Limerick (Monday-Friday, except for Thursday when the service was to Galway) had been discontinued and only the weekly service to Galway, on Thursday, remained. This weekly service, now supplied by Bus Éireann, is still the only regular public bus service to Woodford. There are private bus operators in the area, and these are available for special events, excursions and the like but, as I understand it, they are precluded by law from offering a regular bus service to the public. Similar situations, I would imagine, apply all over rural Ireland.

Suggestions have been made, during the recent Dublin City bus strike, that uneconomic routes in the city be subsidised and opened to competition. I would ask that uneconomic rural bus routes be also subsidised and, where such routes terminate in a city, a combined daily fare be available which would allow commuters access to urban bus and rail services, for the day, without paying any additional fare. I would also ask that rural bus and rail services be organised into an integrated network so that an increased number of potential destinations be made available to all parts of the country. A fully computerised administration of the system could allow for integrated ticketing and apportioning of the tariff between the various service providers.

I would suggest, commuters would be encouraged not to take their cars, if a good and reliable public transport system was available to them in the city, at reasonable rates, and if this was available as part of an overall daily return bus or train fare to the city so much the better. Such a facility would have the effect of reducing city traffic congestion as well as facilitating the commuter. Also, I would suggest, visitors to the city would be likely to use the city transport right through the day and so increase usage during the slack periods. If it were thought that they might overload the system, a supplement could be charged, during rush hour, on specified routes. All this could be automated, so that, when a commuter puts a ticket in the slot, availability of the service and any supplement required could be immediately displayed.

The provision of a complex system, such as I propose, would require a single regulatory authority to oversee the integration of the various components of the system, which could nevertheless be allowed considerable levels of autonomy. Experience in Britain since the early 1980's has shown that the simple introduction of privatisation and competition, if not properly handled, can lead to an unacceptable reduction in the quality of service to the consumer. Quality of service and allowing a seamless a transfer as possible between the various components of the system would be the goals to aim for. (4/4/00)

Return to top of document.