Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann Review

Cost and Efficiency Review
of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann
January 2009
Contents
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 23
2. Effectiveness and appropriateness of the current network of services ......................................... 35
3. Operational efficiency .................................................................................................................... 56
4. Issues affecting both companies ................................................................................................... 73
5. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................ 103
1 Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Review January 2009
Foreword
Scope and basis for review

Deloitte & Touche (hereinafter ―Deloitte‖) together with our subcontractors, the TAS Partnership Ltd
(TAS) and Colin Buchanan, are pleased to present our Report (―Report‖) on the cost and efficiency
review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to the Minister for Transport. This Report and any related
advice we give has been prepared for the sole purpose of assisting and advising the Minister in
accordance with our Consultancy Agreement dated 30 June 2008.
The information we have used to prepare this Report has been provided to us by a variety of sources
and derived from our own research of publicly available sources. In some cases, commercially
sensitive information was used to perform the analyses. Our procedures have not included verification
work and do not constitute an audit in accordance with auditing standards. At all times the
recommendations and conclusions made in this Review are those of Deloitte and we have not sought
to seek validation of our views by those consulted as part of the Review.
This Report is for the attention of the Minister for Transport. The Report may not be relied upon,
referred to, reproduced or quoted from, in whole or in part, for any other purpose than that set out in
the Consultancy Agreement. Deloitte shall not under any circumstances whatsoever be under any
liability to any party other than as set out in our Consultancy Agreement.
Background to the review

Deloitte was appointed by the Department of Transport on 30 June 2008 to undertake a cost and
efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. This section sets out our Terms of Reference that
accompany this review and summarises Deloitte‘s approach to undertaking the project. It also outlines
the overall structure of this report.
Terms of reference
The Terms of Reference for the review issued by the Department of Transport are summarised below.
These Terms specify that the review should assess whether the resources currently available to
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are used in the most effective and efficient way possible to deliver an
optimum public transport service and more particularly to:
 Assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided by
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann for public transport users and of their planning and management of
the network including the criteria used for route selection and amendment, frequency setting and
adjustment, service variations during weekday/weekend, extent of peak/off peak provision,
integration with other public transport services etc.
 Assess the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann with particular reference to
resource utilisation (including bus scheduling and staff scheduling and rostering) and operational
costs. This should include an examination of the utilisation of buses to determine whether the fleet
is deployed in the most efficient and effective manner. The assessment should also examine the
management of direct costs and overheads and of the issues (e.g. human resource,
organisational etc), which might impact on the delivery of services to public transport users.
 Identify any issues (e.g. human resource, organisational) adversely impacting on the efficiency,
effectiveness and sustainability of service delivery, indicating whether these issues are within
management control.
 Make recommendations in relation to actions required to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and
reliability of the delivery of public transport services. Each recommendation to be assessed in
relation to its implications for the financial viability of the companies and the impact on the need for
Exchequer support.
Our Terms of Reference exclude the commercial operations of Dublin Bus and the school bus
operations of Bus Éireann.
Methodology
Deloitte‘s approach to this review was to:
 Undertake a substantial amount of desktop analysis and research including reviewing previous
reports on the sector and assessing best practices internationally and benchmarking data.
 Consult extensively with senior management in both companies covering:
 Business Development
 Marketing
 Engineering
 Human Resources
 Financial
 Operations
 Hold stakeholder meetings with:
 Michael Philips, Director of Traffic, Dublin City Council.
 Owen Keegan, City Manager, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council.
 John Henry, Chief Executive, Dublin Transportation Office.
 Ciaran De Burca, Quality Bus Network Project Office, Dublin City Council.
 John Weafer, Bus Route Licensing Division, Department of Transport.
 Use electronic ticketing information to carry out in-depth analysis of service performance and
reliability indicators. Ticketing information was obtained covering each route operated by the
case study garages over two 4 week periods (November 2007 and April 2008). The information
supplied included a record of every passenger journey including;
 Ticket type and passenger category
 Service
 Area of ticket purchase (stage location)
 Date and time of ticket purchase
 Fare paid
 Use scheduling information (for routes, buses and drivers) to analyse in detail how resources at
the companies are deployed.
We focused on a number of case study garages in order to analyse the operations of each company in
detail.
For Dublin Bus, we examined two contrasting garages:
 Harristown – the newest garage for Dublin Bus, opened in October 2004.
 Donnybrook – the largest of the long established garages.
For Bus Éireann, we chose three garages serving different markets:
 Broadstone (Dublin) – commuter and expressway services.

 Cork – city, stage carriage and expressway services.
 Dundalk –local and stage carriage services.
Data review
Scheduling analysis consisted of examining the time scheduled for buses and drivers operating in
passenger service as well as time spent undertaking other activities such as ‗out of service‘ running
and time spent in the garage.
We analysed ticket data to determine:
 Passenger levels on each route by time of day.

 Usage of individual ticket types and average duration of ticket transactions.
 Relationship of capacity to demand.
 Variation in running times by time of day.
We reviewed the following:
 Approach to network design.

 Approach to timetable design.
 Engineering, maintenance and fleet data.
 Marketing and customer information data.
We benchmarked key performance indicators for both companies against comparable operators in the
UK and elsewhere in Europe.
At the request of Dublin Bus, we were also asked to carry out as an additional task, a high level
conceptual redesign of a pilot corridor (Finglas) to further test potential efficiencies.
Diagram A Methodology
Structure of report
This report is structured into five parts with an Appendix.
Part I – Introduction
Part 1 sets out an overview of the Irish Bus industry. It also describes the activities of Dublin Bus and
Bus Éireann and the various issues facing the companies. Finally, it highlights the financial context of
both companies against which this review has been undertaken.
Part II – Assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network

of services currently provided by both companies
Part II assesses the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided
by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The analysis includes an assessment of the planning and
management of the networks operated by each company including the criteria used for route selection
and amendment, frequency setting and adjustment, service variations during weekday and weekend,
the extent of peak/off peak provision and the extent to which integration with other public transport
services exist. References are made to international best practice. A number of areas are discussed
where the potential exists to improve the current set of networks and services operated by Dublin Bus
and Bus Éireann.
Part III – Assessment of the operational efficiency of both companies

Part III assesses the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann based upon the networks
and services currently operated by the companies. Our assessment covers resource utilisation
(including bus scheduling and staff scheduling and rostering) and operational costs. It includes an
examination of the utilisation of buses to determine whether the fleet is deployed in the most efficient
and effective manner. The assessment also examines the management of direct costs and overheads
and of the issues (e.g. human resource, organisational etc), which impact on the delivery of services to
public transport users
Part IV – Issues adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and

sustainability of service delivery
Part IV identifies the issues adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of
service delivery. It addresses congestion, real time passenger information, ticketing and fare
structures, capacity and operating hours, licensing, and fleet management.
Part V – Conclusions and implementation

Part V summarises our conclusions and lists a number of recommendations to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of operations at Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Finally, we set out details of the
process by which recommendations contained in this report could be implemented.
Executive summary
This report sets out the findings of the cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann
undertaken by Deloitte, together with our sub-contractors TAS and Colin Buchanan, at the request of
the Department of Transport. The review commenced in June 2008 and was completed in
January 2009.
Benchmarking of the cost base of each company indicates that they are generally as efficient as
comparable organisations. We have, however, identified a number of areas where potential exists to
improve the effectiveness of current operations, with consequential financial benefits.
Our report recommends a series of measures primarily aimed at creating a more effective and
appropriate bus network for Dublin combined with a range of operational improvements for both Dublin
and Provincial services. Our proposed measures build on the considerable investments made to date
in bus fleets and related infrastructure and take into account the deteriorating financial position of both
companies.
Introduction
The bus sector in Ireland
Since the early 1990s, each National Development Plan (NDP) for economic and social development
and more recently Transport 21, has provided funding for investment in transport infrastructure which
has included funding for fleet expansion at both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The Public Sector
Obligation Payment (PSO) has also been increasing on an annual basis in recent years. Future
investment plans foresee the bus as being the principal provider of passenger transport services in
Dublin and throughout Ireland.
The 2006 Census of Population found that the overall number of bus users increased by 7% since the
previous census in 2002. However, over the same period the number of persons driving to work by
car, lorry or van increased by 22%. The share of public transport by bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to
6.1% in 2006.
The following are a number of characteristics specific to the bus market in Ireland:
 Recent strong economic and population growth has led to a general increase in transport demand
and longer commuter journeys;
 There were almost 8,500 large public services vehicles registered in the State in 2007. Of this
almost 1,200 were registered to Dublin Bus and 700 to Bus Éireann;
 A major investment programme in Quality Bus Corridors (QBC), especially in Dublin, has
improved bus journey times, relative to that of the car but traffic congestion remains a problem in
key locations;
 A major investment in intercity motorways has led to opportunities and challenges for Bus Éireann;
 There has been significant recent capital investment by the State in PSO fleet replacement and
expansion for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The average age of the fleet operated by Dublin Bus
is 6 years. The average age of the fleet is similar in Bus Éireann (excluding schools fleet);
 PSO current funding for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is relatively low when compared to
comparable operations in other countries in Europe;
 Increases in fuel prices, combined with falling passenger numbers, have put significant financial
pressures on both companies.
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann
Dublin Bus is a commercial Semi State Body, a subsidiary company of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) .
Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network of services in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) serving a
population of approximately 1.2 million people. This population is projected to grow to 1.5 million by
2020. It operates a PSO fleet of 1,148 buses on more than 200 routes. As the principal provider of
public bus services in the region, it currently carries over 70% of public transport passengers in the city
centre area. Dublin Bus carried almost 148 million passengers in 2007.
Bus Éireann is also a commercial Semi State body within the CIE Group. Bus Éireann operates
commercial, schools transport and public services activities outside the city and county of Dublin,
serving a population of over 3 million people. This population is projected to grow to over 3.6 million
by 2020. Bus Éireann operates a Public Service Obligation (PSO) fleet of over 450 buses on a variety
of rural, city, suburban and town services. Bus Éireann also operates commercial services, principally
the Expressway service. School services are operated under contract with the Department of
Education and Science on a cost recovery basis. Bus Éireann carried 50.2 million passengers in 2007
(95.7 million when school numbers are included).
Passenger numbers
Both companies forecast a fall in passenger numbers in 2008 and 2009 due to the general economic
slowdown.
Dublin Bus passenger analysis

Dublin Bus has grown passenger numbers by almost 6% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger
numbers peaked in 2003/4 at 149 million passengers. A 3% fall in passenger numbers in 2005
coincided with the introduction of Luas services. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Dublin
Bus to fall by approximately 3% and a further 5% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.
Figure A: Dublin Bus passenger numbers
Source: Dublin Bus actual 2001 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009
Bus Éireann passenger analysis

Bus Éireann has grown passenger numbers by almost 15% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger
numbers reached 50.2 million in 2007. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Bus Éireann to
fall by approximately 2% and a further 4% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.
Figure B: Bus Éireann: passenger numbers
Source: Bus Éireann: actual 2001 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009
Financial review
Up to 2007, both companies retained modest annual profits, net of PSO payments. The companies
anticipate significant losses in 2008 and 2009 as a result of falling passenger numbers and increased
costs, especially in the areas of fuel and wages.
Financial forecasts
Dublin Bus Bus Éireann
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2008 2009 2008 2009
€m €m €m €m
Gross loss (99.7) (115.8) (46.2) (66.5)
PSO 85.8 85.2 36.9 41.5
Operating loss (13.9) (30.6) (9.3) (28.5)
Retained deficit (9.9) (31.5) (10.3) (29.5)
Table 1: Profit and loss extracts
Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann management forecasts 2008 and 2009
Figure C: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann retained surplus and PSO
Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann: audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009
If remedial action is not taken, the projected rate of losses at both companies will result in a net asset
deficit at each company in the near future.
Public Sector Obligation (PSO)

Government PSO payments including capital payments to both companies are relatively low.
In 2007, Dublin Bus received €80.1m operational subvention to cover its PSO. Bus Éireann received
€36.6m operational subvention to cover its services.
Operational subvention is designed to meet the shortfall between the cost of operating PSO services
and the revenue generated from such services. In recent years the subvention PSO payments have
been increasing at a rate of c.5% per annum with further increases applying where new services have
been introduced.
The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.29% of total revenue. Grants and subsidies to
other comparable bus operations outside Ireland vary greatly. In Europe, levels of operational
subvention are generally higher (% of revenue):
 68% in Brussels
 57% in Zurich
 62% in Amsterdam
 79% in Lyon
 38.5% in London (regulated, excluding network management costs)
The Bus Éireann PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.12% of total revenue. In addition Bus Éireann
has been using its own resources, generated from its commercial services, to subsidise PSO services.
In 2007 the retained surplus from commercial and school transport amounted to €8m. It is more
difficult to identify comparable operators for Bus Éireann given their mix of services. When compared
to the PSO received by the national operators in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the
subsidy received by Bus Éireann is low:
 Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%

 Car Postal/Post Auto (Switzerland): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 51%
 TEC (Walloon region, Belgium): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 78%
PSO payments in 2008 are forecast by management to be €85.8m for Dublin Bus and €36.9m for Bus
Éireann.
In addition to the annual PSO payment, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive capital grants to partially
fund the purchase of buses for PSO services or the upgrading of infrastructure for PSO services.
These capital grants have the effect of lowering the annual PSO compensation requirement of the
companies. This is due to the fact that the grant payments for buses and facilities are amortised on the
same basis as assets are depreciated. Without the capital grants, the net depreciation charge for the
companies would be higher.
In 2007, the amortised capital subvention amounted to €13.4m and €5.9m for Dublin Bus and Bus
Éireann respectively. This compares to an operational PSO payment of €80.1m and €36.6m for Dublin
Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.
Effectiveness and appropriateness of the current
network of services
Network design and scheduling of drivers and buses should be led by the requirements of the
passenger. For the public transport user, services should be both integrated and simple to understand.
Timetable design should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day, but timings should
also be attractive to the passenger. Clockface intervals are a key feature of best practice timetable
design, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be
evenly spaced both for passenger convenience and to even out the number of passengers travelling
on each bus.
Dublin Bus network

Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network which covering towns as far north as Balbriggan, as far
west as Kilcock, and as far south as Newtownmountkennedy.
In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs and this has
achieved improvements in journey times and customer service on several key corridors. In addition,
high quality bus shelters have been provided along many bus routes.
With an increasing population expected in the GDA over the coming years and changing land use
patterns, the National Development Plan (2007 to 2013) foresees the need for a transformation in the
public transport network in the GDA. The NDP sets out the projects necessary to achieve this e.g.
Metro North, Metro West, Luas network extension. A significant expansion of the bus fleet and
increased bus priority also forms part of the plan.
The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on the city
centre resulting in street closures and traffic disruption over the coming years.
The current bus network has not been significantly redesigned for many years. This is primarily due to
a perception that any changes to the existing network will meet public resistance. The result is that
the Dublin Bus network has become, in our opinion, overly complex with a significant amount of
service duplication.
There is an opportunity to create a simplified bus network offering improved services with improved
cost efficiency.
We have reviewed the current network and set of services operated by Dublin Bus. We have
identified a number of areas where the potential to make improvements exists:
A. Complexity of network and services
B. Coordination of services along core corridors
C. Instances of bus ‗bunching‘
D. Direct routing of services
E. Timetable design
F. Marketing and information provision
G. Achieving value for money from service provision
Examples have been identified where the current network is overly complex and can act as a barrier to
use:
 A significant number of bus routes have multiple variations (e.g. 15, 15A, 15B, 15E, 15F, 15X and
40, 40A, 40B, 40C, 40D).
 Many corridors are served by various route numbers (e.g. Rathmines: 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 15B, 15E,
15F, 18, 65, 65B, 74, 74A, 83, 128, 142).
 Some similar route numbers serve different areas (e.g. 51A, 51B) while others have significantly
different frequencies (e.g. Route 128 and 129).
 Our analysis has indicated that a simplified network will provide the majority of existing customers
with an easier to use and more regular bus service.
Our analysis has shown that several areas are served by multiple and duplicated routes. Where
services share a significant portion of a route with other bus services, the timetables are not
necessarily coordinated. This means that the service level along the common route is not as good as
it could be, given the resources deployed.
C. Instances of bus „bunching‟

While congestion is a major cause of ―bunching‖ of buses, it is possible to minimise this by;
 Ensuring departures on routes are set at even headways.

 Introducing intermediate times for services.
The figure below graphically shows an example of scheduled terminus departures from the city centre
for routes 40/A/B/C/D (not including Route 140) which serve the Finglas corridor, together with actual
waiting times along the route.
Route 40/A/B/C/D Scheduled Terminus Departures from City Centre
30
25
Interval Between Departures (mins)
20
15
10
0
06:40
07:05
07:20
07:35
07:45
08:00
08:15
08:35
08:50
09:05
09:20
09:35
09:55
10:10
10:35
10:50
11:20
11:45
12:10
12:35
13:00
13:20
13:40
13:55
14:15
14:35
15:00
15:20
15:40
16:00
16:15
16:35
16:55
17:05
17:20
17:40
17:55
18:10
18:30
18:45
19:05
19:35
19:55
20:35
21:05
21:25
22:00
22:30
23:00
23:30
Scheduled Interval
Actual Frequency
Figure D: Example of scheduled terminus departures from city centre for Routes 40/A/B/C/D
Source: Dublin Bus ticketing data
Figure D demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus,
though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. We also
show the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route which is below that which the
resources operating along the route could potentially offer. The difference is due to buses bunching
and is explained in further detail in our report.
A coordinated timetable could deliver even headways and, when combined with intermediate times,
the average waiting time could be reduced significantly.

The strong demand for recently introduced routes such as the 128, 140 and 151 demonstrate the
attractiveness of services offering direct routings, simple even headway timetables and cross city
options.
A lack of bus street stands in the city centre, particularly during the construction of Transport 21
projects, means fewer buses will be able to terminate in the city centre. However the reliability of
cross city services can be poor due to congestion. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services
should operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority and this should be addressed
as soon as possible.
E. Timetable design
A review of the services operated out of the case study garages identified a number of instances
where operational priorities have resulted in timetabled services operating in a manner that leads to
customer service issues. It is important that timetables are designed in a user friendly format. Ideally
the following features should exist for key routes:
 Clockface departures or high frequency headways (e.g. ―every 6 mins‖).

 Intermediate timing points.
 Deviations from the core service at certain times of the day should be kept to a minimum.
 Fonts and text size at bus stops should be easily readable in diminished lighting.

Both companies make a considerable investment in marketing and information provision. Our report
highlights several important sources of information which ought to be provided to the customer:
 Bus stop information

 Journey planners and Network maps
Our recommendations regarding network and service simplification will make it easier to market and
explain services to customers.
We also recommend actual intermediate departure times be published at bus stops and, where
possible, Real-Time Passenger Information be provided as soon as possible.
G. Achieve enhanced value for money from service provision

A simplified network of services with reduced variations and duplication will be less expensive to
operate. Our analysis of the Finglas case study corridor of services indicated that a more efficient
service could be provided for a net cost saving of up to 17% (saving up to €2.1m). Our conceptual
design means the majority of customers will benefit from a simplified and more reliable service. In our
report we analyse a number of options based on our views and the views of the company. In every
scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.
The case study corridor is one of fourteen main radial corridors operated by Dublin Bus. In recent
years, a number of these corridors have benefited from service capacity increases, through the
introduction of new routes. However new routes have been introduced without significant adjustments
to the existing network or set of services.
We recommend that a thorough review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors, be
undertaken so that the potential savings which the Finglas corridor case study has highlighted can be
identified across the network and the consequential financial savings made.
Bus Éireann network
Bus Éireann operate a number of distinct services:
 City and town service

 Commuter services
 Stage carriage services
 Rural services
 Expressway services
The network is operated on an integrated basis, providing services for people to travel from any one
point on its network to another. This is facilitated through:
 Integrated timetables
 Interchange points
 Journey planner
 Integrated ticketing / through fares
Given the comprehensive and integrated nature of services being offered to the public, we have found
Bus Éireann‘s network to be as efficient as its peers. It will not be possible to make major cost savings
on the Bus Éireann network without reducing services. If service rationalisation is implemented, in the
context of the current financial situation facing the company, it will be important to ensure that the
integrated nature of the network is maintained as far as is practical.
Customer information
We believe that improvements could be made in customer information, particularly at bus stops.
 City services should display intermediate times, to assist both drivers and customers.
 In many cases, bus stops do not indicate the route number of buses serving the stop.
 In Dublin City, it is rare for Bus Éireann route information to be available at stops that are also
designed to serve Dublin Bus routes.
Operational efficiency
In 2007, wages and fuel costs made up over 70% of total operational costs for both companies. This
is similar to the industry average in the UK. Fuel costs are, to a large extent, outside the control of the
companies. The CIE Group has a hedging policy for their fuel requirements, generally covering their
requirements for one to two years in advance. Direct wage costs are a factor of the number of buses
operated and the levels of pay and conditions. As pay rates are subject to national pay agreements,
they are largely outside the control of management. Therefore, overall costs can primarily be
controlled only by seeking efficiencies in operating the network of services.
Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer group operations. Having a relatively
young fleet keeps engineering costs low and improves service reliability, accessibility and customer
experience. The Companies are investigating the feasibility of sub contracting certain elements of their
engineering functions. They are also exploring the feasibility of night maintenance.
Our benchmarking analysis indicates that fleet management is in line with industry norms. A 10-12%
spare margin is typical (Dublin Bus 11%).
For both companies, administration and ―back office‖ expenses are in line with benchmarks. Various
cost reduction measures have been completed by the companies or are underway. The companies
highlighted recent successes in reducing the costs of third party claims through CIE Group shared
services. The companies should explore all opportunities to drive cost savings through greater use of
information technology and shared services in areas such as human resources, finance and
procurement.
Wages 68% - € 193.7m Fuel 7% - € 19.3m Wages 63%- € 130.0m Fuel 8% - € 15.8m
Other 23% - € 47.6m Depreciation 7%- € 13.9m
Other 20% - € 56.9m Depreciation 6% - € 16.9m
Figure E: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann operating costs in 2007
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2007
Dublin Bus operational efficiency

The Dublin Bus fleet increased by 200 buses in 1999/2000. These buses were part funded by EU
grants and the Exchequer. They were designated to meet additional peak demand along new QBCs.
The number of vehicles in the fleet did not change significantly again until the delivery of an additional
20 vehicles in late 2005 and a further 100 vehicles in autumn 2006.
Since 2000, fleet capacity, as opposed to fleet size has increased by almost 25%. This additional
capacity has been provided through a mixture of additional buses and the replacement of older
vehicles with larger ones. The increase in fleet capacity has not led to an equivalent increase in
passenger numbers.
Figure F: Dublin Bus capacity growth and passenger growth
Source: Dublin Bus management information
Our analysis shows that the current fleet size is adequate to service current demand. We favour
optimising the existing network and extracting full value from the existing fleet before considering
future fleet expansion. The need for fleet expansion should be reviewed in the future in light of
changing external circumstances and internal improvements in efficiency. Examples of external
factors are:
 The traffic management plan for Transport 21 city centre Metro and Luas construction may require
significant increase in bus modal share.
 Traffic or demand management plans introduced may offer a ‗step change‘ in bus priority thus
increasing demand (e.g. bus gate at College Green or introduction of road user charging).
We found that the scheduling of buses and drivers is generally efficient when compared with
international benchmarks. However on occasion, scheduling efficiency is achieved at the expense of
meaningful services to the customer.
Our review highlights a number of instances where a focus on scheduling efficiency by the Company
has led to weakness in service provision, for example;
 Timetables are designed to ensure maximum driver efficiency at the expense of regular, even
headway and departures.
 Examples of ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.
 Examples of routes operating to a garage without apparent customer demand.
While some of our recommendations for redesigning the schedule may result in a small reduction in
scheduling efficiency, this will be outweighed by benefits to the customer and thus potentially offer
higher revenue yields.
Meeting peak demand cost effectively is a significant challenge for all city bus services and Dublin is
no different. Passenger numbers between 08:00 and 09:00 on a weekday can be more than double
those travelling in the middle of the day.
Our ticket data analysis demonstrates that the current level of peak provision in Dublin is justified by
passenger demand. There is substantial additional demand, especially in the morning that justifies
peak only driver duties. Whilst operating buses for 4-6 hours per day may seem inefficient, expanding
operating hours increases direct costs (mainly wages and fuel which account for the majority of
operating costs) to a level which is often higher than the revenue generated from additional journeys
provided outside the core peak hours. Dublin Bus should explore the possibility of subcontracting
services, especially at peak times, as a means to address peak demand in the most cost efficient
manner possible.
120
100
80
Passenger Index (0800=100)
60
40
20
0
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour
Donnybrook
Harristown
Figure G: Dublin Bus Passenger index; numbers through the day
Currently the majority of buses used to provide additional peak services are based in Harristown
garage due to a historic lack of space at more conveniently located garages.
In the context of a general redesign of services, we believe that the cost of peak service provision can
be reduced through relocating certain buses from Harristown to garages closer to their route and
integrating peak driver schedules with general all day schedules. This can reduce the early
curtailment of peak time services in the evening due to current scheduling
A number of work practices exist at Dublin Bus that may restrict the ability of the company to make
changes in a timely manner. The precedent of disturbance payments may increase the associated
cost of network redesign.
Bus Éireann operational efficiency

We found scheduling of buses and drivers to be efficient when the nature of each service was taken
into account. In most cases, schedules were designed to ensure even headway and clockface
departures on services.
We identified the potential for some relatively minor scheduling efficiencies as a result of our detailed
analysis of certain routes.
In light of the deteriorating financial situation facing the company, Bus Éireann will need to assess a
number of strategic opportunities. Bus Éireann should further explore opportunities to combine
dedicated services from multiple organisations (schools, Rural Transport Programme, conventional
bus services, HSE services etc.). Other areas to consider are listed below.
Sub-contracting
Bus Éireann uses sub-contracting to cover PVRs and maintain timetables where congestion has
caused delays to services. In the face of falling passenger numbers, Bus Éireann intend reducing the
current level of sub-contracting.
There is potential for alternative roles for sub-contracting within the main network, whereby entire
services are contracted out to smaller operators who may be able to operate at a lower cost than a
large operator such as Bus Éireann. Key concerns for Bus Éireann in expanding sub-contracting are
safety standards and the need for an agreed framework for operating and maintenance practices. We
recommend that Bus Éireann identify clusters of routes on a rolling basis and seek private sector
tenders to operate these routes. These can then be assessed against an internal benchmark, to see if
sub-contracting can reduce costs.
Balance between express and stopping services

Bus Éireann, in providing an integrated network, also aims to ensure that services are attractive to the
majority of passengers. We recommend that the company carries out detailed cost benefit analyses of
services along each corridor to determine the best option e.g. direct services, stopping services or
hybrid services.
Capacity issues
We have identified a number of instances where more than one bus is used to meet demand for a
particular timetabled departure. Such demand could be met in some cases by the use of larger
vehicles, thereby reducing the number of drivers required.
Bus Éireann has highlighted a concern that double deck buses and coaches are currently subject to a
statutory speed restriction which they believe significantly restricts their efficient operation. Given the
recent increase in the number of double deck coaches operated by the Company, we recommended
that a decision on the issue of speed restrictions is made at the earliest opportunity.
Issues affecting both companies
Reliability of network
Public transport customer surveys have consistently rated reliability/punctuality as an important choice
factor for users. Dublin Bus benefits from QBCs but still suffers from serious traffic congestion,
especially in the city centre.
In Dublin, our ticketing analysis has demonstrated that average wait times on a number of routes are
significantly in excess of the timetabled average wait time. Figure H and I cover Route 4 southbound.
O‘Connell Street can be seen to be the source of major congestion.
25
20
Journey Time between stages (Minutes)
15
10
0
Ballymun Road (The Rise)
Phibsboro ShoppingCentre
Ballymun Road (Santry
Ballymun Rd. (Glasnevin
Botanic Avenue.
Hart's Corner
Broadstone
Blessington St.
O'Connell Street
Merrion Square
Mount St. (Holles St.)
Rd.(Haddington Rd
Pembroke Road
Northumberland
Avenue)
Ave.)
Run mean (min) Stages

Best Run
Worst Run
Figure H: Service 4 to Blackrock – Morning peak
25
20
Average Waiting Times
15
10
0
Botanic Avenue.
Hart's Corner
Broadstone
Blessington St.
O'Connell Street
Merrion Square
Rd.(Haddington Rd
Pembroke Road
Northumberland
Avenue)
Ave.)
Stages
AM Peak Wait Inter Peak Wait
PM Peak Wait Scheduled Wait
Figure I: Route 4 to Blackrock average wait time (main section)
Source: Dublin bus ticketing data
These figures demonstrate the variability of journey times, particularly in the city centre and the impact
on average waiting times for passengers. In the case of Route 4, the average wait times are
considerably larger than they should be according to the timetable. The average wait-time
deteriorates for passengers wishing to board the service south of O‘Connell Street due to the journey
time variability on O‘Connell Street.
The most recent Dublin Transportation Office Quality Bus Corridor Monitoring Report, undertaken in
November 2007, highlights QBC routes where journey times along certain city centre sections of route
are below walking pace. The modal share of bus passengers crossing the Canal Cordon in Dublin on
QBC corridors had increased by 11,126 passengers (36%) from 1997 to 2007
Clearly QBCs have generally improved journey times and increased the number of people travelling by
bus. However, congestion remains an issue, particularly in the city centre.
Punctuality and reliability monitoring is a useful tool for management in determining which routes need
bus priority measures, revised schedules and additional attention from roadside supervisors.
Dublin Bus uses ‗lost mileage‘ data to assess the reliability of services. However, the basis upon
which this data is recorded could be improved. Punctuality is measured with reference to termini
departures times. We believe the current existing location of monitoring (at termini) and the typical
small sample size used by the company means that the resulting data is of limited use as a
management tool.
Automatic Vehicle Location systems (AVL) will provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across
each network. In the meantime, an intensification of manual observations should be considered. The
rollout of AVL systems will be complete for Bus Éireann in 2009 and Dublin Bus in 2010.
Congestion
Congestion is a significant issue for both companies. Congestion restricts the efficient operations of
the companies and increases their respective cost bases. While congestion remains, the companies
have a number of options to ensure operations remain as reliable as possible which we set out in our
report.
In addition to QBCs in Dublin, further priority measures are planned. These include linking AVL
information to the traffic light management system (SCATS) in Dublin to provide further priority to
buses. This will help improve reliability of bus journey times. We understand from our consultations
with the Dublin Transport Office (DTO) that their research indicates that the time spent by buses
stopped at traffic signals can form a significant portion of overall journey times.
Supply side measures, as set out in this report, will not of themselves move sufficient people out of
cars and on to public transport to maximise revenues and minimise required PSO for the bus service.
Currently Dublin City Council are proposing a number of demand management measures including
increasing parking charges in the city centre and closing or re-routing a significant number of roads
pre and post the construction of Transport 21 projects.
More radical demand management should be considered. When London introduced congestion
charging into the city centre it saw a 30% reduction in congestion. A similar reduction in congestion in
Dublin would improve the efficiency of both companies and reduce their costs. A congestion charge
would also change the relative attractiveness of the bus versus the private car. This could drive a
significant increase in passengers and revenues to the companies. All demand management
measures such as road user pricing should be investigated in detail to determine the feasibility of
reducing congestion, improving bus speeds and moving more people on to public transport.
Ticketing and fare structure

The standard cash fares for both companies are currently approved by the Minister for Transport.
Prepaid ticket prices do not require ministerial approval. An indirect result is that discounts for prepaid
tickets relative to cash tickets are less than in many other cities. As a result cash paying passengers
make up the majority of fares for each company, resulting in cash handling costs and increased dwell
times at bus stops.
In London, on board cash fare purchases make up less than 2% of all transactions. Overall dwell times
in Dublin are higher as a result of the predominance of cash fares.
We recommend a progressive refocusing of the fare structure which aims to increase single fares at a
higher rate than the discounted tickets, making the latter more attractive to users and encouraging
people to transfer onto pre-paid or longer duration tickets. This would reduce boarding times and
engender loyalty to public transport amongst users. This may require full regulation or deregulation of
fares. The phased introduction in 2009 of a Smart Card Integrated Ticketing system, with electronic
purse capability, will significantly assist in implementing such a move.
The introduction of ‗on street‘ ticket vending machines at key locations, such as exist at Luas stops,
will further reduce dwell times.
While dwell times are not as relevant for medium to long distance coach services, we believe a move
away from cash fares will benefit Bus Éireann city and town services in a manner similar to that
described for Dublin Bus.
Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

The companies are currently rolling out AVL. The projects, funded by the Exchequer, should be
complete in 2009 for Bus Éireann and 2010 for Dublin Bus. The systems will provide the location of
every bus in the respective fleets in real time. The AVL systems provide the platform on which a RTPI
system can be implemented.
RTPI can provide up-to-date information to customers on actual bus arrival and departure times (as
currently provided at LUAS stops). This information can be made available on electronic displays at
bus stops, in addition to mobile phone and other mobile devices and on the internet. We believe that
RTPI is an important feature of a customer orientated bus service. For a relatively small capital
investment, significant improvements can be made to the customer experience. We recommend that
this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date.
Licensing
The Road Transport Act, 1932 as amended, is the primary legislation governing the provision of
passenger services by private bus operators, whilst a separate authorisation regime applies to Dublin
Bus and Bus Éireann.
The current system is reactive rather than proactive when it comes to granting licences. Dublin Bus
and Bus Éireann are concerned that the current licensing regime does not take into account the
impact of granting a licence to a private operator on their overall obligations to operate comprehensive
PSO networks. They believe a clearer policy is required to avoid ―cherry picking‖ of profitable routes
by private operators.
The current licensing regime will be replaced in the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill offering
a more coherent approach to the regulation of the bus market.
Cost benefit analysis

We believe there is potential for both companies to improve their cost benefit analysis appraisal.
The nature of Bus Éireann‘s rural and intercity routes are such that there are relatively few
permutations to consider during route planning; passengers need to travel at defined times, and there
is often only one effective route between the locations being served.
For Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann‘s city routes, the higher density of passenger demand and available
routes means that there are more choices to consider in terms of route planning. For example,
planners need to consider whether to provide a larger number of direct links at lower frequencies or a
smaller number of higher frequency services which require passengers to interchange. There is also
the consideration of how to allocate resources between the competing demands of service frequency,
network coverage and hours of operation.
We recommend that the companies adopt a system where benefits are defined in terms of time
savings for passengers. This allows walking distances, waiting times, journey times and
unpredictability (in terms of excess wait times) to be assessed on a like-for-like basis. Costs,
meanwhile, should take into account not just the resources required but the potential revenue
generation of a service change along with any abstraction from parallel services.
Summary recommendations
Dublin Bus recommendations
We recommend the development of a simpler and more efficient network with the following key
principles:
 Redesign network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics.

 Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
 Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.
 Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to improve
reliability and reduce the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.
 Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail
centres.
 Develop and market easy to understand routes and timetables.
 Achieve enhanced Value for Money from service provisions.
We recommend a number of actions to improve scheduling efficiency and effectiveness:
 Redeploy ―Peak only‖ buses from Harristown (in context of network redesign).
 Introduce intermediate timing points along routes.
 Eliminate ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.
 Eliminate routes operating to garages with no apparent customer demand.
The above programme of work represents fundamental change for the company. It should be treated
as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be
required if this programme is to be successful.
These changes need to be made in a coordinated way and with the needs of the customer at the
centre. It is an integrated set of recommendations. An ad hoc approach to picking certain elements
and ignoring others is likely to be less successful.
Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Dublin Bus is progressing with cost
reduction initiatives. Our detailed analysis of the Finglas Corridor indicates that significant cost
savings can be achieved following a strategic redesign of services across the whole network that
enhances services for the majority of customers. It will take longer, and require modest investment to
make such strategic changes, but in the long term these will yield better results and ultimately
strengthen the financial state of the company.
Bus Éireann recommendations

The scope for significant cost savings in Bus Éireann is limited as the current network design and
schedules are largely efficient.
Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Bus Éireann is also progressing with a
cost reduction programme. It is likely that some service reduction will be required to return the
company to financial stability. Any service rationalisation should be carefully planned to ensure the
entire integrated network is not undermined.
General recommendations
In addition to the specific comments set out above, we recommend the following:
 Provide better customer information at bus stops and through the rollout of the RTPI system.
 Accelerate bus priority programme and continue to eliminate ―pinch points‖. We support the
introduction of the ―Bus Gate‖ proposal at College Green.
 Conduct a feasibility study into all demand management measures – including road user pricing.
 Maintain current replacement bus programme at both companies.
 Increase the move to cashless transactions – building on Smart Card Integrated Ticketing and
making changes to the regulation of cash versus non-cash fares.
 Implement changes to the licensing regime and process.
 Provide greater clarity around PSO objectives.
Our recommendations do not call for major capital investments. Rather we are recommending
strategies to optimise the use of the major investments already made or underway.
Implementation
The implementation of a full redesign of the Dublin Bus network and the other recommendations
contained in this report will be a complex and challenging task which will involve many stakeholders –
customers, staff, local authorities, key public agencies and private sector organisations.
Below we set out some key guidelines:
 Obtain strong commitment from Government and company management.

 Develop a comprehensive list of stakeholders, assess their specific needs, issues and concerns.
 Communicate appropriately, frequently and with accountability.
 Allocate sufficient expertise and resources to do the work properly.
 Establish and maintain a process by which change can be implemented.
 Assess risk and mitigate appropriately.
We recommend that these changes be approached as a strategic programme of work and that
suitable leadership, expertise and resources be assembled from the start.
Rollout of actual changes can be approached on a phased or incremental basis. This has the benefit
of allowing the new design principles to be tried out on a pilot basis first so that customer reaction can
be gauged and built into subsequent rollouts. We suggest the following phases:
 Phase 1: Focus on assembling the team, planning the programme of work and initial consultations
 Phase 2: Design and implement a Pilot
 Phase 3 onwards: Design and rollout out new services to remaining corridors
We estimate the initial Phases 1 and 2 could be set up and implemented in a 6 month timeframe with
the subsequent rollouts over an 18-24 month timeframe.
1. Introduction
The bus sector in Ireland
The bus sector in Dublin has experienced growth over the past decade although this has reversed
recently due to the economic downturn. Since the early 1990‘s each National Development Plan for
economic and social development, and more recently Transport 21, has provided investment in
transport infrastructure which has included funding for fleet expansion at both Dublin Bus and Bus
Éireann. The PSO has been increasing on an annual basis in recent years. Future investment plans
foresee the bus as being the principal provider of passenger transport services in Dublin and all
through Ireland.
The 2006 Census of Population found that the overall number of bus users increased by 7% since the
previous census in 2002. However, over the same period the number of persons driving to work by
car, lorry or van increased by 22%. The share of public transport by bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to
6.1% in 2006.
The following are a number of characteristics specific to the bus market in Ireland:
 Recent strong economic and population growth has led to a general increase in transport demand
and longer commuter journeys;
 There were almost 8,500 large public services vehicles registered in the State in 2007. Of this
almost 1,200 were registered to Dublin Bus and 700 to Bus Éireann;
 A major investment programme in Quality Bus Corridors (QBC), especially in Dublin, has
improved bus journey times, relative to that of the car, but traffic congestion remains a problem in
key locations;
 A major investment in intercity motorways has led to opportunities and challenges for Bus Éireann;
 There has been significant recent capital investment by the State in PSO fleet replacement and
expansion for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The average age of the fleet operated by Dublin Bus
is 6 years. The average age of the fleet is similar in Bus Éireann (excluding schools fleet);
 PSO current funding for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is relatively low when compared to
comparable operations in other countries in Europe
 Increases in fuel prices, combined with falling passenger numbers, have put significant financial
pressures on both companies.
700
1148
7062
B us Eireann fleet Dublin B us fleet Other
Figure 1.1: Number of large public services vehicles 2008
Source: Department of Transport
Transport 21, the Irish Government‘s Transport Capital Investment Framework under the National
Development Plan, has funded fleet expansion and bus infrastructure for both Dublin Bus and Bus
Éireann in recent years. The main objectives of the programme for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA)
include:
 To develop a bus network to create a meshed network of services and reorientate it to take
account of rail developments.
 To create a network of interchange points across the public transport network to allow users
transfer easily.
 To introduce a Smart Card Integrated Ticket which can be used on all public transport services.
 To develop Park and Ride facilities at carefully chosen locations.
 To implement a phased programme of demand management measures.
 To introduce an integrated public information system.
Transport 21 predicts public transport patronage in Dublin will almost double to 375 million in 2016.
Suburban rail and Luas / Metro will carry c.100m each. c.175m passengers will be carried by bus.
This shows that the bus will still be by far the largest public transport carrier at the passenger end of
the Transport 21 programme. It will continue to be the principal means of increasing public transport
capacity in the short to medium term. On Dublin corridors not served by rail and for the majority of
other areas around the country, the bus will remain the dominant provider of public transport services.
In line with the Government commitment to delivering a sustainable travel and transport action plan for
Ireland, the Minster for Transport launched a public consultation in February 2008. The consultation
document suggested that bus services could be improved by:
 Developing additional Park and Ride facilities.

 Introducing integrated ticketing and Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI).
 Introducing more flexibility in work practices to allow more responsive network planning.
 Continuing the development and improvement of QBCs.
 Doubling the length of bus priority schemes to improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of the
bus fleet.
 Investment in new fleet and maintenance of existing fleet.
Dublin Bus
Dublin Bus is a commercial Semi State Body, a subsidiary company of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE). It
commenced trading in 1987 under the terms of the Transport (Re-organisation of Córas Iompair
Éireann) Act, 1986. The Act states that Dublin Bus has an operating area ―for the city and county of
Dublin and contiguous areas…‖
Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network of services serving a population of approximately 1.2
million people. This population is projected to grow to 1.5 million by 2020. Dublin Bus currently
operates a PSO fleet of 1,148 buses on more than 200 routes and employs almost 3,800 full time
members of staff. As the principal provider of public bus services in the region, it currently carries over
70% of public transport passengers in the city centre area. Dublin Bus carried almost 148 million
passengers in 2007. The company currently operates 7 bus depots in Dublin: Clontarf, Summerhill,
Donnybrook, Harristown, Phibsboro, Ringsend and Conyngham Road.
Company activities fall into two broad categories:
 Social activities – these are activities undertaken as part of the Company‘s PSO and encompass
the majority of the company‘s services. The company receives PSO payments from the
Department of Transport to cover the difference between fare revenue and operating costs. EU
regulation 1370/2007 requires that from December 2009, formal contracts are in place, providing
for compensation plus a reasonable profit to be paid by the State for PSO activities.
 Commercial activities – these refer to ‗for profit‘ services including sightseeing tours, Airlink and
private hire services. Revenue derived from these activities amounted to c.6% of overall revenue
in 2007. Our terms of reference do not extend to reviewing commercial activities.
According to the Company, approximately 80% of the Dublin Bus fleet use radial QBCs to some
degree. Closer to 65% of the Dublin Bus fleet operate along significant sections of QBCs.
The 2007 Dublin Transportation Office QBC monitoring report indicates that bus passengers along
QBC routes have increased by over 36% in the last 10 years. Current bus modal share and the
proportion of people crossing the canal cordon between 7am and 10am along QBCs are;
 Malahide Road 61%  Swords 49%  North Clondalkin 41%

 Clontarf 61%  Stillorgan 45%  Rathfarnham 38%
 Lucan 52%  Howth Road 42%  Ballymun 38%
 Blanchardstown 51%  South Clondalkin 42%  Rock Road 28%
 Finglas 49%  Tallaght 40%  Bray 28%
Overall bus modal share for persons crossing the canal cordon between 07:00-10:00 on a weekday is
28%. The aggregate share of all public transport (bus and rail) is c.50%.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
B us Year
P ublic Transpo rt
Figure 1.2: Dublin mode share summary
Source: Dublin Transportation Office, QBC monitoring report (2007)
Other
Cycle 2%
Walk 3%
Taxi9% Bus
1% 28%
Car
36%
Rail
17%
Luas
4%
Bus Rail Luas Car Taxi Walk Cycle Other
Figure 1.3: Dublin mode share summary 2007
Source: Dublin Transportation Office, QBC monitoring report (2007)
Bus Éireann
Bus Éireann is also a commercial Semi State body within the CIE Group. It commenced trading in
1987 under the terms of the Transport (Re-organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act, 1986. The Act
states that its principal object is to provide, within the State and between the State and places outside
the State, a passenger service by road, except in so far as such a service is provided by Dublin Bus.
It operates commercial, schools transport and public services activities outside the city and county of
Dublin, serving a population of over 3 million people. This population is projected to grow to over 3.6
million by 2020. Bus Éireann operates a Public Service Obligation (PSO) fleet of over 450 buses on a
variety of rural, city, suburban and town services.
Bus Éireann also operate commercial services, principally the Expressway service. School services
are operated under contract with the Department of Education and Science on a cost recovery basis.
Bus Éireann carried 50.2 million passengers in 2007 (excluding school transport scheme).
Detailed modal share information is not available outside of Dublin.
The various issues impacting on the operational environment for both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is
set out below in diagrammatic form.
Operating environment
Subventions:
Reduction in Ticket sale
Rate of channels
Rapidly Increase Integrated
Changing Ticketing
Passenger
Demand QBCs
Slowing Bus Garages

Economy Bus Fleet
Bus Stations
Motorways
Rail PSO/
Luas
Transport 21 Dublin Bus Licencing
Regime
Bus Éireann
Bus
New Dublin
Private
Transport
Sector
Authority
Private Car EU Regulation
Transport 21
Traffic
City Centre
Congestion
Disruption Fuel Cost Health & Safety
(Including Wage Cost
Working Time
Rebate Directive
Removal) Overheads
Figure 1.4: Issues facing Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann
Source: Deloitte
1.1 Current financial position
In this section we review the historical financial performance of the companies and the forecasted
outturn for 2008 and 2009. While our terms of reference do not extend to a full financial review, it is
important to understand the financial context when determining future actions relating to efficiency and
effectiveness.
Up to 2007 both companies retained modest annual profits, net of PSO. The companies anticipate
significant losses both in 2008 and 2009. Management highlighted the following issues as contributing
factors to the forecasted losses in 2008 and 2009:
 Decrease in passenger numbers as a result of the economic downturn.

 Reduction in the rate of increase of PSO payments.
 The removal of the fuel duty rebate scheme.
 Increases in fuel and wage costs.
1.2 Profit and loss account
Figure 1.5: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann retained surplus and PSO
Source: Dublin Bus / Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009
Audit Audit Audit Audit Forecast Forecast

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€m €m €m €m €m €m
Revenue 177.6 181.5 189.3 200.4 202.4 209.5
Operating Costs (239.9) (245.8) (260.5) (286.8) (302.1) (325.3)
Gross Loss (62.4) (64.3) (71.2) (86.5) (99.7) (115.8)
PSO 61.8 64.9 69.8 80.1 85.8 85.2
Operating Profit / (loss) (0.6) 0.6 (1.4) (6.4) (13.9) (30.6)
Interest Receivable 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.5 1.7
Profit / (loss) before exceptional items 0.8 2.0 0.4 (3.9) (11.4) (28.9)
Additional pension contribution - - - - - (4.5)
Exceptional Items - - - - (0.7) (0.7)
Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 1.2 (0.0) 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.6
Release of Provision - - - 7.3 - -
CIE Subvention - - 2.0 - - -
Retained Profit / (loss) 2.0 2.0 4.3 4.8 (9.9) (31.5)
Table 1.1: Dublin Bus Profit and Loss account
Source: Dublin Bus audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009, reclassified
Notes:
2006: The CIE Group made a contribution to the Company of €2m.
2007: €7.3m provision release related to third party claims. This followed a review of claims since the Personal Injuries
Assessment Board began operations resulting in lower claims costs.
Audit Audit Audit Audit Forecast Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
€m €m €m €m €m €m
Revenue 226.5 241.29 265.1 282.9 298.8 319.0
Operating Costs (245.5) (263.7) (294.1) (323.2) (345.0) (385.5)
Gross Loss (18.9) (22.4) (29.1) (40.3) (46.2) (66.5)
PSO 24.0 25.2 26.5 36.6 36.9 41.5
Operating Profit/(Loss) 5.1 2.8 (2.6) (3.7) (9.3) (25.0)
Interest Receivable 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.0
Profit / (loss) before exceptional items 5.8 3.5 (1.7) (2.1) (7.3) (24.0)
Additional pension contribution - - - - - (3.5)
Exceptional Items - - - - (1.0) (2.0)
Kentsown Legal Fine - - - - (2.0) -
Parent Contribution - - 4.0 - - -
Release of Provision - - - 9.0 - -
Retained profit/(loss) per a/c's 5.8 3.5 2.3 6.9 (10.3) (29.5)
Table 1.2: Bus Éireann Profit and Loss summary
Source: Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009, reclassified
Notes:
2006: The CIE Group made a contribution to the Company of €4m.
2007: €9m provision release relates to third party claims. This followed a review of claims since the Personal Injuries
Assessment Board began operations resulting in lower claims costs.
2008: The Kentstown legal fine of €2m relates to a Court ruling following an accident in 2005
1.3 Operating review

Both companies derive their revenue from two main sources - fare revenue and PSO revenue.
Fare revenue
The fare increase averaging 10% from 1 January 2009 is included in the 2009 forecast of both
companies. The increase is considerably higher than in recent years. The yield from such a fare
increase may be proportionally less than those earned from fare increases in recent years as the
higher rate of increase may lead to a reduction in demand.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fare increase average 2.75% 3.5% 4.0% 2.75% 5.0% 10.0%
Table 1.3: Fare revenue
Source: Department of Transport
Dublin Bus has over 400 ticket agents selling prepaid tickets throughout Dublin. These agents are paid
a commission of 4%. The cost of ticket distribution to agents is less than 1.5% of revenue.
Passenger numbers
Both companies forecast a fall in passenger numbers in 2008 and next year due to the general
economic slowdown.
Dublin Bus has grown passenger numbers by almost 6% during the period 2001-2007. Dublin Bus
passenger numbers peaked in 2003/4 at 149 million passengers. A 3% fall in passenger numbers in
2005 coincided with the introduction of Luas services. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by
Dublin Bus to fall by approximately 3% and a further 5% in 2009 due to the general economic
downturn.
Dublin Bus
2,790 7.5%
2,780
5.0%
2,770
2.5%
2,760
2,750 0.0%
2,740
-2.5%
2,730
-5.0%
2,720
2,710 -7.5%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Staff
% Increase/(decrease)
Bus Éireann
3,700 7.5%
3,650
5.0%
3,600
3,550 2.5%
3,500
0.0%
3,450
3,400 -2.5%
3,350
-5.0%
3,300
3,250 -7.5%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Staff
Figure 1. 6: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann number of staff
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 - 2007
Dublin Bus attribute the lack of growth in passenger numbers since 2004 to the introduction Luas,
combined with the expansion of services and capacity on DART and Commuter rail.
Bus Éireann has grown passenger numbers by almost 15% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger
numbers reached 50.2 million in 2007. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Bus Éireann to
fall by approximately 2% and a further 4% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.
The Dublin Bus fleet increased by 200 buses in 1999/2000. These buses were part funded by EU
grants and were designated to meet additional peak demand along new QBCs. The number of
vehicles in the fleet did not change significantly again until the delivery of an additional 20 vehicles in
late 2005 and a further 100 vehicles in autumn 2006.
Since 200, fleet capacity, as opposed to fleet size, has increased by almost 25%. This additional
capacity has been provided through a mixture of additional buses and the replacement of older
vehicles with larger ones. The increase in fleet capacity has not led to an equivalent increase in
passenger numbers. Adding new buses is unlikely to drive additional passenger journeys unless
additional measures are taken, as set out later in our report.
Figure 1. 7: Dublin Bus capacity growth and passenger growth
Source: Dublin bus management information
Fleet issues are discussed in further detail in Section 4.6.
Bus Éireann passenger numbers are set out below:
Passengers (millions) 2001 % 2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 % 2006 % 2007 %

Provincial City Services 20.1 - 21.0 4% 21.4 2% 21.1 -1% 21.6 2% 21.9 2% 22.1 1%
Other scheduled services 23.7 - 25.1 6% 27.0 8% 26.7 -1% 27.5 3% 27.8 1% 28.1 1%
Sub Total 43.8 - 46.1 5% 48.4 5% 47.8 -1% 49.0 3% 49.7 1% 50.2 1%
Table 1. 4: Bus Éireann passenger numbers and % increase
Source: Bus Éireann actual 2001 – 2007
Management state that passenger numbers fell in 2004 due to:
 Drainage works/road works in cork city which severally disrupted traffic for many months
 Road works in Galway city (Eyre Square) which disrupted traffic for well over a year
 Overall traffic congestion in Limerick city at peak hour
 Worsening traffic congestion at peak hour on the main arteries into Dublin and the Quays in
Dublin, which have been alleviated somewhat
Revenue forecasts for 2008 and 2009 anticipate a decrease in passenger numbers as a result of the
economic downturn for both companies.
PSO
Government PSO payments, including capital payments, to both companies are relatively low.
In 2007, Dublin Bus received €80.1m operational subvention to cover its PSO. Bus Éireann received
€36.6m operational subvention to cover its PSO.
Dublin Bus
100
90
80
70
60
€m's
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Capex Subventio n -A mo rtised

Operating Subventio n
Bus Éireann
100
90
80
70
60
€m's
50
40
30
20
10
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Capex Subventio n - A mo rtised

Operating Subventio n
Figure 1.8: Dublin Bus /Bus Éireann subvention
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009 (CAPEX unavailable)
The PSO payment is designed to meet the shortfall between the cost of operating PSO services and
the revenue generated from such services. Generally, in recent years, the PSO payment has been
increased at a rate of 5% per annum with further increases applying where new services have been
introduced. PSO per passenger at both companies has been increasing in recent years. The
increases for 2008 and 2009 amount to the following:
2008 2009
PSO Movement PSO Movement
Dublin Bus €85.8m 7% €85.2m (1)%
Bus Éireann €36.9m (1)% €41.5m 12%
Table 1.5: Dublin/Bus Éireann PSO
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann management forecasts 2008 & 2009
The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.29% of total revenue. Grants and subsidies to
other comparable bus operations outside Ireland vary greatly. In Europe, levels of operational
subvention are generally higher (% of revenue):
 68% in Brussels
 57% in Zurich
 62% in Amsterdam
 79% in Lyon
 38.5% in London (regulated, excluding network management costs)
The Bus Éireann PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.12% of total revenue. In addition Bus Éireann
has been using its own resources, generated on its commercial services, to subsidise PSO services.
In 2007 the retained surplus from commercial and school transport amount to €8m. It is more difficult
to identify comparable operators for Bus Éireann given their mix of services. When compared to PSO
received by the national operators in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the subsidy received
by Bus Éireann is low:
 Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%

 Car Postal/Post Auto (Switzerland): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 51%
 TEC (Walloon region, Belgium): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 78%
In addition to the annual PSO payment, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive capital grants to partially
fund the purchase of buses for PSO services or the upgrading of infrastructure for PSO services.
These capital grants have the effect of lowering the annual PSO compensation requirement of the
companies. This is due to the fact that the grant payments for buses and facilities are amortised on the
same basis as assets are depreciated. Without the capital grants, the net depreciation charge for the
companies would be higher.
In 2007, the amortised capital subvention amounted to €13.4m and €5.9m for Dublin Bus and Bus
Éireann respectively. This compares to an operational PSO payment of €80.1m and €36.6m for Dublin
Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.
Dublin Bus
Bus Éireann
Figure 1.9: Dublin Bus /Bus Éireann PSO per passenger
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007; Management forecasts 2008 and 2009. Bus Éireann PSO analysis
calculated with reference to passenger numbers excluding schools.
Operating costs
In the period 2004 to 2007, revenue and operating costs have increased as follows:
 Dublin Bus: Revenue up 12.8%, Operating costs up 19.5%.

 Bus Éireann: Revenue up 24.9% Operating costs up 31.6%.
The graphs below represent the relationship between revenue (excluding PSO revenue) and operating
costs since 2004.
Dublin Bus
400
300
€m's
200
100
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Revenue excluding subventio n
Operating Co sts
Difference
Bus Éireann
400
300
200
€m's
100
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Revenue excluding P SO
Operating Co sts
Difference
Figure 1.10: Dublin Bus / Bus Éireann revenue (excluding PSO) and operating costs
Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009
Between 2004 and 2007, the kilometres operated by both companies grew approximately by 6% and
16% for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.
Operating costs are dealt with in further detail in Section 3.
1.4 Balance sheet
Audited Accounts as at 31 December Audited Accounts as at 31 December
2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007
€m €m €m €m €m €m €m €m
Fixed Assets
Tangible Assets 119.6 120.7 155.5 163.5 81.1 79.9 95.2 121.7
Current Assets
Stocks 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 4.4 4.4 4.9 4.7
Debtors 79.9 81.6 76.6 89.2 43.8 52.6 56.3 69.2
Cash at bank - 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.9 0.8
82.5 85.3 80.1 93.1 48.4 58.2 62.1 74.7
Creditors (40.0) (39.5) (43.3) (60.3) (37.3) (38.6) (45.6) (54.1)
Net Current Assets 42.5 45.8 36.8 32.8 11.1 19.6 16.5 20.6
Total Assets less current liabilities 162.1 166.4 192.4 196.3 92.1 99.5 111.7 142.4
Provision for liabilities and charges (77.0) (80.1) (86.6) (77.5) (39.5) (43.7) (45.5) (39.5)
Deferred income (44.7) (43.9) (59.2) (67.3) (21.3) (21.0) (29.0) (58.9)
40.4 42.4 46.6 51.5 31.3 34.8 37.2 44.0
Financed by
Called up share capital 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2
Asset replacement reserve 21 21 21 - 7 7 7 -
Profit and loss account (12.4) (10.4) (6.1) 19.7 (4.8) (1.3) 1 14.8
Shareholders' funds 40.4 42.4 46.6 51.5 31.3 34.8 37.2 44.0
Table 1.6: Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann balance sheet
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts, reclassified
The Debtor balances for each company include amounts owing by the parent company, CIE Group
(the Group carries out the treasury functions of the operating companies). The parent company debtor
balances amounted to €76m (Dublin Bus) and €51m (Bus Éireann) in 2007.
Deferred income reflects European Union and Exchequer grants, which relate to capital expenditure
on specific projects. They are credited to deferred income as they become receivable and are
amortised to the profit and loss account on the same basis as the related assets are depreciated.
Financial Context Summary
After several years of modest annual profits, net of PSO payments, both companies face significant
losses due to falls in passenger numbers, combined with significant cost increases (fuel, wages etc.).
PSO levels are low by international standards.
The graph depicting passenger and capacity growth at Dublin Bus since 2000 demonstrates that the
increase in capacity has not led to a substantial increase in passengers. Adding new buses to the
existing network is unlikely to significantly drive additional passenger demand.
The forecasted losses for 2008 onwards are not sustainable. If remedial action is not taken, the
projected rate of losses at both companies will result in a net asset deficit at each company in the near
future. The companies have identified the need to put in place a cost reduction programmes to
address the shortfalls.
2. Effectiveness and appropriateness
of the current network of services
Network design and scheduling of drivers and buses should be led by the requirements of the
passenger. For the public transport user, services should be simple to understand, easy to use,
reliable and integrated. Timetable design should reflect the level of demand at different times of the
day and should be attractive to the passenger. Clockface intervals are a key feature of best practice
timetable design, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes
should be timed to be as evenly spaced as possible for passenger convenience and to even out the
number of passengers travelling on each bus.
In this section we assess the approach to network and service development at both a strategic and
operational level and highlight examples of practices in other countries. We assess driver and bus
schedules at the garages subject to our review. We also assess timetable design. Finally we set out
a conceptual redesign of services along a sample corridor in Dublin.
2.1 Dublin Bus network design process

The guidelines to Dublin Bus in relation to network and service operations are currently reflected in
statute, the ‗Platform for Change‘ document published by the Dublin Transport Office (DTO), Transport
21, and the Memorandum of Understanding agreed annually with the Department. This will be further
strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract
regime for all PSO services in the GDA.
Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network covering towns as far north as Balbriggan, as far west
as Kilcock and as far south as Newtownmountkennedy.
In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs and this has
achieved improvements in journey times and customer service on several key corridors. In addition,
high quality bus shelters have been provided along many bus routes.
With an increasing population expected in the GDA over the coming years, and changing land use
patterns, the National Development Plan 2007 to 2013 foresees the need for a transformation in the
public transport network in the GDA. The NDP sets out the projects necessary to achieve this e.g.
Metro North, Metro West, extension to the Luas network. A significant expansion of the bus fleet and
bus priority also forms part of the plan.
It has been consistently stated that the bus will remain the main provider of public transport services
pending the delivery of other public transport infrastructure such as new Luas lines and Metro.
The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on the city
centre resulting in street closures and traffic disruption over the coming years.
The current bus network has not been significantly redesigned for many years. This is primarily due to
a perception that any changes to the existing network will meet public resistance. The result is that
the Dublin Bus network has become, in our opinion, overly complex with a significant amount of
service duplication.
There is an opportunity to create a simplified bus network offering improved services with improved
cost efficiency.
Dublin Bus has informed us that they understand the primary objective of public transport policy is to
carry more passengers and increase modal share for public transport.
Dublin Bus network design
The network design process in the company, as described by Dublin Bus management, is set out
below. It begins at the strategic level which is primarily progressed within the Business Development
and Operations departments and then moves on to the tactical/route level where the details
routes/schedules are designed at Area Operations level.
Strategic level
 Strategic network review commissioned every 5 years to identify the key requirements, issues and
priorities for the short to medium term.
 Regular contact with the Local Authorities and Development Agencies to establish new population
locations and their rate of development. This identifies and prioritises the areas which will require
additional services
 Review of bus network in the context of census data and data from DTO.
 Extensive interaction with the Quality Bus Network Office to agree the development of the network
of orbital and radial QBC‘s.
 Internal benchmarking and monitoring of routes and corridors from a revenue, passenger and
profitability basis identifies loading, profitability or operational issues to resolve.
 Approval sought for all changes to the Dublin Bus network from the Department of Transport. In
addition there are regulatory issues arising from Irish and EU law that affect our ability to adjust
the network in specific areas – these are factored into the design process or force changes to
designed routes.
Tactical/route level
 A large range of factors influence the detailed design of a new or adjusted route. Initially factors
such as profitability, capacity utilisation, running time, operational performance, and previous
timetable issues will be critical for Area Operations.
 A large range of issues influence the design such as :
 New residential development and employment developments
 Other demographic changes
 Political / social considerations
 Interchange – rail / LUAS
 Roads developments
 QBCs
 Traffic congestion problems
 Terminus availability
 Running time adequacy
 Bus type
 Network effects – parallel routes
 Roster /scheduling issues
 Garage allocation – breaks and reliefs
 Previous schedule – staff issues
 Previous schedule – customer issues
 Final design implemented after staff agreement reached. All schedules must be approved in detail
by the Department of Transport.
 Extent of marketing depends on the scale of the change. This can range from national media
advertisements and household leaflet drops for major improvements to small statutory ads for
minor adjustments. All changes are posted on the internet.
The most recent strategic network review commission by Dublin Bus was published in early 2006.
The review made a number of recommendations including;
 425 additional buses to deal with a reported severe lack of capacity – reflecting projected growth
of the city;
 more QBCs to restrain growth in journey times;
 cross linkage of services to reduce demands on city centre termini;
 expansion to serve developing areas; and
 simplification of timetabling, information and fares.
To date, the Dublin Bus 2006 strategy has not been fully implemented. Capital subvention was
provided by the Exchequer, for the first stage of fleet expansion. The company reports that insufficient
operational subvention, combined with licensing issues, prevented the full deployment of the 100
additional buses received in the autumn of 2006. Other elements within the strategy, such as
improved timetabling and scheduling, have also not yet been implemented fully.
Case study: Transport for London (TfL) – network planning

We set out below the approach to network planning adopted by Transport for London. The London
bus network is one of the largest and most comprehensive urban transport systems in the world.
Every weekday over 6,800 scheduled buses carry around six million passengers on over 700 different
routes.
The network is dynamic and responds to changes in London‘s growth and changing customer needs.
Every year a fifth of the bus service is re-tendered, with around half of the network subject to some
level of review.
TfL has the role of regulator and strategic planner for bus services in London, including the
responsibility for planning bus routes, fares and timetables. Services are then tendered for operation
by the private sector, typically under 5 year contracts.
TfL has service planning guidelines for buses which specify that the network should be:
 Comprehensive – TfL aims to provide a bus service within 400 metres of every household in
London where feasible, as well as providing links to key destinations and other transport modes.
 Frequent – Rather than diluting resources into large numbers of low frequency services, TfL aims
to provide ―turn up-and-go‖ schedules as far as possible.
 Simple – route structures and timetables should be simple and easily marketable to the public.
 Reliable – low frequency services should be punctual and high frequency services should arrive
at even intervals.
 Accessible to all – buses and infrastructure should be wheelchair accessible and take into
account other disabilities such as sight and hearing impairment.
TfL uses contract renewal as an opportunity to review routes and implement any major changes that
may be necessary to that route. However, contracts may be renegotiated at other times to allow for
changing passenger demand or other circumstances, such as changes to congestion charging.
TfL Buses collects a significant amount of data on passenger demand through a number of
mechanisms, including origin and destination surveys on buses, loadings surveys at bus stops, and
data from ticket machines on each bus. The origin and destination patterns are particularly important
when assessing route options. It also considers suggestions from local authorities, bus operators,
passenger correspondence and other interested parties. Options for each route are then developed in
the context of the Mayor‘s strategies.
Like many public sector transport organisations, TfL assesses all changes to the network, from the
evaluation of a five-year route contract down to the addition of a single daily departure on a route,
using cost-benefit criteria. TfL defines benefit largely in terms of time savings for passengers (from
changes to frequencies, geographical coverage, hours of operation and reliability). Passenger time is
given a monetary value so that it can be assessed against cost. Cost is defined as the price of the
service change minus the revenue it is expected to generate.
When funding is restricted, schemes are prioritised in terms of their cost benefit ratio. Cost-benefit is
also used when cuts in the network are required, in order to assess the least damaging changes.
Cost-benefit is only set aside when there are overriding reasons for a service change (such as the
need to supply capacity to prevent overcrowding).
Some aspects of benefit, such as social inclusion or pollution reduction, are difficult to quantify. In
addition, some groups of passengers, such as senior citizens, are more sensitive to changes than
others. To ensure these aspects are taken into account, TfL consults stakeholders such as local
authorities and London Travelwatch on major changes.
Changing the current network

Dublin Bus management believe that where changes to the network involve significant service
changes, or reduction of service, then significant public and local political resistance may be expected.
This public/political resistance has led to past decisions being reversed or altered significantly.
Dublin Bus view on changing the current network

Dublin Bus believes that any changes to their existing network will encounter public resistance. In
their January 2006 business case for 200 additional buses, Dublin Bus state:
―Dublin Bus is charged with operating a network of services across the Dublin area. This means that
legally and politically the Company is expected to maintain access to public transport and there is
always major reaction to any suggestion of removing a service from any particular area.
The result of this is that the network can be more complex in certain areas that would be required if
run in a strictly commercial basis. This in turn can result in lightly used services which are essentially
providing socially necessary linkages.
Dublin Bus routinely rationalises its bus services and the bus network is constantly being reconfigured
in response to changing circumstances.
However, the social exclusion and political issues which will arise from systematic cancellation of
lightly used routes are major, and must be considered in a broader context.
Recent experiences where Dublin Bus proposed to reorganise local services met with major
opposition from customers and public representatives and the practical approach is one of more
gradual change which is what Dublin Bus is planning to achieve over the next few years and single
bus savings could only be expected each year. In practice, savings made tend to be absorbed within
the garage to adjust schedules for deterioration in running time; this requires additional resources to
retain frequencies.‖
Going forward, strong political and management leadership will be required if significant improvements
are to be made to the efficiency and effectiveness of Dublin‘s bus network.
2.2 Dublin Bus overview of network and services
Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive service, covering most parts of the city well. We have reviewed
the current network and set of services operated by Dublin Bus. We have identified a number of areas
where the potential to make improvements exists:

E. Timetable design

The current network can appear complex to the casual user as a result of the number of different route
variants and the mix between high and low frequency services.
Examples have been identified where the current network is overly complex and can act as a barrier to
use:
 Related services typically have variants such as the 4/4A, though in some cases there are many
variants (eg 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, 40D).
 In some cases the linkage between route variations can be tenuous. For example, Route 17 is an
orbital service on the southside of Dublin while Route 17A is an orbital service on the northside of
Dublin. Route 51A serves Beaumount hospital on the northside of the city while Route 51B serves
Clondalkin on the westside of the city.
 On the Stillorgan QBC the new route to Bray has been numbered 145 to link with the old non QBC
route to Bray (the 45), rather than the 46A with which it is common for a significant length. The
46A could be assumed to be a variant of Route 46, yet there is no such route.
 Particular areas are served by a range of route numbers (e.g. Malahide Road: 20B, 27, 27B, 27C,
27X, 42, 42A, 42B, 43, 128, 129; Rathmines: 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 15B, 15E, 15F, 18, 65, 65B, 74,
74A, 83, 128, 142 )
 Route 128 is a high frequency all day, every day route while Route 129 has two departures each
weekday in each direction and does not operate at weekends.
Our analysis demonstrates that it is possible to create a more simplified network which will be easier to
understand and less costly to operate.
Network simplification: Belfast bus services example (“Metro”)

Translink introduced the 'Belfast Metro' network in February 2005 having commissioned TAS to
design, test and validate network changes. The plans were tested using Geographic Information
Systems to ensure the network met equality and accessibility parameters.
The result was a highly visible colour coded network on 12 core corridors with 5-10 minute weekday
daytime frequencies on the main sections. The network delivered better services for more people,
improved punctuality and reliability.
Mileage operated grew by 5%, the fleet was upgraded and the complete package delivered 20%
growth in passenger numbers across the Metro business.
While the scale of operations in Belfast is significantly smaller than Dublin, the principles remain the
same.
Dublin Bus has stated that three key factors contribute to the complexity of the network in Dublin,
namely that:
 Dublin Bus has a general obligation to provide a network of PSO services in the Dublin area and
the elimination of marginal services could be the subject of legal challenge.
 Dublin is a very low density city and in many suburbs there is considerable physical segregation of
areas leading to complex road and route patterns.
 Their current preference is to favour retention of long established route numbers, which has the
benefit of familiarity to existing customers, over a simplified route numbering system, which will
benefit new customers.
Network complexity and Dublin town planning
Dublin Bus management highlighted difficulties encountered in serving the following two areas due to
town planning issues.
Example 1: Littlepace
Littlepace is a residential area between Blanchardstown and Clonee. Littlepace requires local and
commuter bus services.
Dublin Bus serves Littlepace with Route 70 which originates in Dunboyne and Clonee. Ideally the
route would operate through Littlepace and join the road network at Huntstown Way and operate a
direct alignment towards Blanchardstown and the city centre. However Littlepace is a cul de sac for
buses and cars (pedestrians and cyclists can travel through), and the lack of a through route means
that Route 70 must operate a 3 kilometre round trip.
Dublin Bus state that services could be more direct, faster and cost efficient if provision had been
made by town planners for bus only access through Littlepace. Dublin Bus has been in discussions
with Fingal County Council for over 10 years seeking a ‗bus only gate‘ between Littlepace and
Huntstown Way to no avail.
Example 2: Swords
Swords has expanded considerably in recent years in a segmented fashion making bus services to
Swords relatively costly and complex.
Dublin Bus has 5 main geographic ‗markets‘ in the Swords area:
 Northern; Applewood, Glen Ellen
 Western; Swords Manor
 South Western; River Valley
 North Eastern; Seatown
 South Eastern; Drynam/Holywell
The main travel patterns are for local, airport and city centre movements. Dublin Bus believe it is not
cost effective to operate a strong high frequency all day service from each of these individual areas.
However, a combination of areas can sustain such services. However, in the context of the existing
road infrastructure, a single strong bus route must operate a circuitous alignment from and into more
than one sector to serve its customer base.
Dublin Bus believe town planning should take into account public transport needs so that high
frequency bus routes can operate more direct alignments between sectors on bus-only paths,
benefiting customers in each of the segments. The following could improve bus service effectiveness if
introduced.
 A western bus-only crossing of Ward River Valley Park

 Bus only access from River Valley Road to Hilltown
 Bus only streets or ‗bus-gates‘ into Swords Main St, so that buses avoid getting caught in major
congestion
 Bus access through Holywell. The high density scheme was developed recently and the mini-
roundabouts on the main access road through this scheme cannot facilitate a buses safely
passing using the roundabout.
 Refraining from allowing developments on the margins to be built which are impossible to serve
due to inadequate roads or lack of turning/layover facilities for buses (Knocksedan to the west and
Castleview to the north are examples)
 New road design and old road update to restrain private car use and encourage bus travel.
 Development of bus stop infrastructure including accessible bus stops and sufficient space for bus
stops and bus shelters.
Dublin Bus state that the town planning design principles described above should be built into
developments rather than being retrospectively introduced.
Source: Dublin Bus Management Information

Our analysis has shown that where services share a significant portion of a route with other bus
services, the timetables are not necessarily coordinated. This means that the service to customers
along the common route is not as good as it could be, given the resources deployed.
Figure 2.1: Route 15, 15A and 15B Interval times Monday to Friday from Eden Quay
Routes 15, 15A, 15B share 5 km of their respective routes from Eden Quay to Terenure via St
Stephen‘s Green, Rathmines and Rathgar. Routes 15 and 15B continue to share a common route for
a further 2 km to Templeogue Bridge.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the extent to which more than one bus serving the common corridor departs at
the same time from Eden Quay while at other times there are gaps of between 10 and 15 minutes.
The average interval for the day is 6 minutes. At 09:45 all three buses depart together followed by a
15 minute gap before another two depart together.
Services outlined in Figure 2.1 could be coordinated to deliver a 6 minute interval with the current
resources or with a slightly lower frequency using fewer resources while still delivering an enhanced
service.
It is not uncommon to see buses operating along the same route running in pairs. Our analysis of
ticketing data demonstrates that ―bus bunching‖ is an issue for Dublin Bus.
While congestion is a major factor in causing buses to ―bunch‖, it is possible to minimise this by:
 Ensuring departures on routes are set at even headways.

 Introducing intermediate times for services.
30
25
Interval Between Departures (mins)
20
15
10
0
06:40
07:10
07:25
07:40
08:00
08:25
08:40
09:00
09:20
09:40
10:00
10:25
10:50
11:25
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:20
13:45
14:15
14:35
15:05
15:25
15:50
16:15
16:40
17:00
17:20
17:40
17:55
18:20
18:45
19:05
19:45
20:15
21:00
21:25
22:10
22:50
23:25
Time
Scheduled Interval
Actual Frequency
Figure 2.2: Example of scheduled terminus departures from city centre for Routes 40/A/B/C/D
Figure 2.2 demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus,
though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. We also
show the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route, which is below the potential
frequency that could be achieved from the resources operating along the route. The difference is due
to buses bunching and is explained in further detail in our report.
A coordinated timetable could deliver even headways and, when combined with intermediate times,
the average waiting time could be reduced significantly.
Headways
Maintaining even headways ensures that the time spent by each service at bus stops should be
relatively consistent.
Examples of inconsistency between the intervals of timetabled departures on Route 46A and Route 4
are set out Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4.
In the event that even headways are not maintained, buses that follow a longer than typical interval
will pick up more passengers than average and, therefore, progress at a lower speed than average to
the extent that the bus departing behind it may catch up. Buses that follow a shorter rather than
typical interval will pick up fewer passengers than average and therefore progress at a higher speed
than average to the extent that it may catch up with the bus ahead of it.
Recently introduced Route 140 maintains an even headway throughout the day.
Figure 2.3: Route 46A timetable departure interval times from Dun Laoghaire, Monday to Friday
Figure 2.4: Route 4 timetable interval times from Harristown, Monday to Friday
The 2006 MVA network review identified the need for ―more regular headways to make the timetables
‗passenger friendly‘ ‖.
Intermediate times
Intermediate times will make it possible to publish actual departure times at bus stops as opposed to
the current practice of publishing departure times from the terminus. They can assist in maintaining
even headways along an entire route. Intermediate times are dealt with further in Section 4.1.
The strong demand for recently introduced routes such as the 128, 140 and 151 demonstrate the
attractiveness of services offering direct routings, simple even headway timetables and cross city
options.
Route Number Routing Date service commenced Weekly Passenger Numbers

4/4A Harristown to Blackrock Nov 2007 67,000
128 Clongriffin to Rathmines Nov 2007 60,000
140 Finglas to Lesson Street Feb 2008 38,000
151 Adamstown to Docklands Mar 2007 41,000
Table 2. 1: New direct, high frequency services
Source: Dublin Bus electronic ticket machine data
Operating services along a direct route can also reduce the cost base.
A lack of bus street stands in the city centre, particularly during the construction of Transport 21
projects, means fewer buses will be able to terminate in the city centre. However the reliability of
cross city services can be poor due to congestion. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services
should operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority and this should be addressed
as soon as possible.
Rationalising cross city services may also have the potential to reduce operating costs. As an
example, we identified certain routes from our case study garages currently terminating at ―far side‖
cross city locations (e.g. Routes 7, 46A and 145 terminate close to O‘Connell Street, while Routes
13/A and 140 terminate on Merrion Square and Lesson Street). Analysis of ticketing data has shown
that there appears to be sufficient capacity on these type of services along the core north / south
corridor between Parnell Square and St Stephen‘s Green for them to be amalgamated. This would
have the effect of reducing the number of buses on the heavily congested section of road, reducing
the resources required to operate the combined routes and open additional travel options for
customers.
Dublin Bus state they are in favour of radial route amalgamation subject to the resolution of the city
centre congestion and route length issues. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services should
operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority. This is not currently always the case.
E. Timetable design
A review of the services operated by the case study garages identified a number of instances where
operational priorities have resulted in timetabled services operating in a manner that leads to customer
service issues. For example:
 Route 145: A number of services throughout the day, departing on an even headway at the
terminus, are subsequently diverted to Bray station to facilitate driver changeover, leading to
potential bunching of buses further along the route.
 Route 46A: Inconsistent headways lead to potential bunching of buses. The buses and drivers
allocated to the route between 10:00 to 16:00, Monday to Friday, have capacity to provide
departures from Dun Laoghaire every 6 minutes on average. However, inconsistent timetabled
headways lead to departures as close as 2 minutes apart and as far apart as 8 minutes. Over the
same period on a Saturday departures are as close as 5 minutes apart and as far apart as 16
minutes with an average departure interval of 9 minutes.
 Route 40: There are 72 departures from the city centre on a weekday but these are not consistent
timed with intervals scheduled at 15 minutes (37 times), 10 minutes (16 times) and 20 minutes (12
times). Lack of coordination leads to duplicate departures with other Route 40 variants.
 Route 4: Generally this service has a simple, even headway timetable but with certain instances
where additional services are operated without apparent demand and where the rotation between
Route 4 and Route 4a departures are not maintained.
While we have identified the importance of maintaining even headways for services earlier in this
report, it is also important that timetables are designed in a user friendly format. Ideally the following
features should exist for the majority of key routes:
 Clockface departures or high frequency headways (e.g. ―every 6 mins‖).

 Intermediate timing points.
 Deviations from the core service at certain time of the day should be kept to a minimum.
 Fonts and text sizes at bus stops should be easily readable in diminished lighting.

The company has recently developed a new marketing strategy and information provision is a key
feature of a successful marketing campaign. Network and service simplification will make information
provision easier to achieve.
Important sources of information for the customer include:
Bus stop information

The company have recently introduced ―Transport for London Style‖ bus stops at 80 city centre
locations with a further 40 to be installed early in 2009. Features of these bus stops include:
 Clear identification of buses serving the stop.

 Timetable information facilitated by larger information panels.
 Route diagrams.
While the introduction of these bus stops is a positive development, further enhancements are
possible. Currently all timetable information at bus stops gives departure times from the terminus,
irrespective of how far the bus stop is from the commencement of the route. In many instances,
particularly away from the city centre, many bus stops carry no information - not even a list of routes
serving the stop. This acts as a barrier to use for the casual user.
Best practice in bus stop design includes the following features:
 A clear indication of the routes serving the stop.

 The display of intermediate departure times. Stop specific timetables should be considered.
 Details of fares that will apply to journeys from the stop.
 The provision of a local area map with bus routes overlaid and the present location clearly
indicated. The provision of spider maps should be considered. (similar to those used by London
Underground).
 A telephone number for information (if this service is provided).
 Customer service contact details for Dublin Bus, including telephone number, postal address, e-
mail and website.
 The bus stop should be named or some other identification so that passengers can report
vandalism or missing information.
Journey planner and network maps
Dublin Bus management state that they intend launching a new website in January 2009, with
significantly enhanced search facilities.
The company is currently developing a network map to illustrate services across their entire network.
An easy to understand city-wide map is essential to allow intending passengers to determine which
routes to take and the best location to interchange.
The design will need to distinguish between high frequency and low frequency routes in order to make
the map of benefit to customers. The large number of route variants operated by Dublin Bus on most
corridors will be difficult to communicate on a single map.
We also recommend actual departure times be published at bus stops and, where possible RTPI be
provided.
Our recommendations regarding network and service simplification will make it easier to market and
explain services to customers.

A simplified network of services with reduced variations and duplication will be less expensive to
operate. Our analysis of the Finglas Case Study corridor of services indicated that a more efficient
service could be provided for a net cost saving of up to 17% (saving up to €2.1m). Our conceptual
design means the majority of customers will benefit from a simplified and more reliable service. In our
report we have analysed a number of options based on our views and the views of the company. In
every scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.
We recommend that a thorough review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors be
We set out below a summary of our review of services along the Finglas Corridor.
Case study – Finglas corridor
Existing services
The majority of services in the Finglas area operate along the Finglas Road, the N2 (―the Finglas
Corridor‖). Services along the Finglas corridor are made up of:
 Routes 40/A/B/C/D: These are long established Finglas services operating from Parnell Square in
the city.
 Route 140: This is a new route offering cross city service to Lesson Street with regular 10 minute
all day frequency.
The introduction of Route 140 significantly increased capacity on the Finglas corridor and offered
direct, cross city travel options to customers. The pre existing set of services were not altered when
Route 140 was introduced.
Figure 2.2 graphically shows an example of scheduled terminus departures from the city centre for
routes 40/A/B/C/D (prior to including Route 140) which serve the Finglas corridor, together with actual
waiting times along the route.
Figure 2.2 demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus,
though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. The green
line shows the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route which is below that which
the resources operating along the route could potentially offer.
While analysis of ticket data has shown some heavily loaded peak journeys, there are also some
lightly loaded peak journeys. We believe this represents buses running in pairs – in some cases as
scheduled. Inter-peak journeys rarely carry more than 30 passengers.
Proposed services
There are several ways the services on this case study corridor could be made more efficient and
more customer friendly:
 eliminate duplication of services;

 reduce number of service variants;
 co-ordinate timetables;
 even headway departures;
 intermediate times; and
 provide better customer information.
The above changes would give the company the opportunity to provide equivalent or better services at
lower than current costs or provide significantly enhanced services at current costs.
As an example we developed a conceptual design focused on providing an equivalent or better

service at a reduced cost. This consists of:
 Two standard pattern Finglas to city centre services (south city terminus). City centre services
reduced to two core routes, from the current six, with integrated timetables offering a combined 5
minute peak frequency and 7.5 minute off peak frequency.
 Additional peak journeys providing two way flows to city centre and Tyrrelstown and a residual off
peak service to areas unserved by the main routes. This helps ensure that peak demand is
catered for, while services to Tyrrelstown are maintained.
 A local Finglas service, ensuring access to Finglas village is maintained.
 Minor changes to other Finglas services not using the Finglas corridor.
Under this scenario a redesigned and improved service could be provided for the large majority of
passengers with a cost saving of up to €2.1m (17% of current cost base of services along the
corridor).
There are several other options that could be considered while keeping to the key principles of
simplification, even clockface departures and better customer service. We accept that any redesign
will require a change in services and a change in behaviour for customers. For example, some
customers will get an enhanced service at their current locations while other customer may need to
walk a little further to access an enhanced service. This kind of change and communication needs to
be handled carefully and sensitively to ensure a successful outcome.
In our working papers we analyse a number of revenue scenarios, based on our views and the views
of the company, to assess the impact of the changes identified in our conceptual design. In every
scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.
Dublin Bus accept that there is some scope for reviewing the service pattern in the Finglas area and
state that they have commenced a review of services taking account of the principles identified in this
report. Dublin Bus state that it was their intention to make adjustments to the level of service in the
area when the passenger trends start to stabilise, following the introduction of Route 140.
The case study corridor is one of fourteen main radial corridors operated by Dublin Bus. A number of
these corridors have benefited from service capacity increases, through the introduction of new routes,
in recent years. However, the new routes have been introduced without significant adjustments to the
existing network or set of services. Instances exist on other corridors where the timetables of services
sharing several kilometres of route are not coordinated. A rigorous application of the above principles
to these other corridors is likely to deliver significant efficiency gains.
Dublin Bus network summary
Guidelines from the Department of Transport as to the policy and objectives of PSO payments will be
further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 which provide for a
contract regime.
The current network is overly complex due to a mixture of route variations, inconsistent timetabling
and the introduction of new routes on top of existing routes.
The recent significant changes to land use and demographics in Dublin combined with major changes
to Luas, expansion of DART and commuter rail, quality bus corridors etc mean that there is a clear
opportunity to strategically redesign the current network to make it more efficient and effective.
We recommend that a network redesign exercise be undertaken concentrating on bundles of routes

along key corridors to address the design principles raised in this section:
 Redesign network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics.

 Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of routes.
 Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed resources.
 Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to reduce
the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.
 Provide additional direct routes.
 Achieve enhanced value for money from service provision.
2.3 Bus Éireann network design process
The guidelines to Bus Éireann relating to network and service operations are reflected in statute, the
Transport 21 programme, the Memorandum of Understanding agreed annually with the Department of
Transport and to the extent relevant to the operational activities of Bus Éireann the ‗Platform for
change‘ document published by the DTO. These guidelines will be further strengthened by the
provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority 2008 which provide for a contract regime for PSO services
in the GDA and with the introduction of a contract regime for PSO services outside the GDA in the rest
of the country in 2009 under the provisions of the proposed Transport Regulation Bill.
Bus Éireann has a PSO fleet of c.450 buses operating 57 City urban, suburban and town routes and
195 Stage Carriage routes. It has c.220 buses operating 45 expressway routes.
In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs in Dublin and
Green routes in other cities. This has achieved improvements in journey times on certain routes.
Investment has also led to an expansion and upgrading of the bus fleet and bus stations around the
country.
Bus Éireann have informed us that they understand their primary role is to operate an integrated
network across the country.
Strategic approach to network development

Bus Éireann describe their network design functions as falling into three broad categories:
 Strategic (3 to 10 years) – inputs include National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning

Guidelines, County Development Plans, PLUTS (Planning Land Use and Transportation Study),
Transport 21, and Bus Éireann‘s own business plans.
 Tactical (1 to 3 years) – inputs include route and corridor reviews, stakeholder consultation and
internal proposals.
 Operational (0 to 12 months) – inputs include period and quarterly reviews, route and corridor
research, local traffic conditions and road construction.
The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on Bus
Éireann services into and out of Dublin city.
2.4 Bus Éireann overview of network and services
Bus Éireann operate a wide range of services:
 City Bus Services in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford

 Town services in Athlone, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Navan and Sligo
 Commuter bus services radiating from Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford
 Local bus services throughout Ireland
 Expressway inter-urban coach services
 Eurolines coach services to Britain and Europe
The network is operated on an integrated basis, providing service for people to travel from any point
on its network to another. This is facilitated through:
 Integrated timetables
 Interchange points
 Journey planner
 Through-fares (i.e. one ticket for travel on potentially several services)
Examples of the practical benefits of an integrated network were provided by Bus Éireann following
studies carried out at the following locations:
Category of survey point Trip origin Trip destination on a typical day

Minor locations O‘Rourkes Cross, Co. Limerick Westport, Glengarriff, Kinsale, Drimoleague, Castlemaine, Dublin, Ballina,
Sligo
Crusheen, Co. Clare Waterford, Tralee, Sligo, Loughrea, Tipperary, Killarney, Newmarket on
Fergus, Knock
Large towns (also served by Mallow, Co. Cork Over 60 destinations
rail)
Ennis, Co. Clare Over 100 destinations
Table 2. 2: Examples of journeys facilitated through an integrated network
Source Bus Éireann analysis
NORTH NORTH (Donegal, Belfast, Derry etc.

Donegal, Derry, etc. MIDLAND (Athlone, Longford, etc.
WEST (Galway, Mayo, Sligo, etc.)
EAST (Dublin, Kildare, Meath, et.)
Lorrha
Scariff
Birr
Borrisokane
EAST
Roscrea Dublin
Killaloe NENAGH
Silvermines
WEST
Limerick Newport
Galway, Mayo, etc.
Cappamore
SOUTH SOUTH (Cork)

Cork, Kerry SOUTH EAST (Waterford, Wexford)
Figure 2.5: Integrated Networrk - Examples of travel options from Nenagh
Source: Bus Éireann management information
The current integrated network is funded through fares, public service obligation (PSO) payments, and
funding from Bus Éireann‘s commercial resources.
However, the network is subject to continuing change. The opening of motorways and town bypasses
place additional pressure on the maintenance of the existing network. However, with major
improvements to the road network, customers from large towns will opt for direct express services
where possible, thus diluting the financial viability of services to smaller towns. Secondary locations
by-passed as a result of direct express services may become uneconomic and may require PSO
funding.
We assessed the network operated by Bus Éireann against the following:
D. Timetable design
E. Marketing and information provision
F. Optimising the cost of services

City services: 17 routes are operated in Cork city with fewer city routes operated in Galway, Limerick
and Waterford. The small number of routes, combined with the limited use of route variants ensures
services are relatively easy to understand.
AAA
Figure 2.6: Cork City services
Source: Bus Éireann management information
Services along corridors are generally coordinated, except where peak demand require extra services.
An example of services along a commuter corridor is set out below. Weekday departures from
Busáras on Route 109:
 4 departures an hour to Dunshaughlin (every 15 minutes)

 2 of these services extended to Navan and Kells (every 30 minutes)
 1 of these departures extended to Virginia and Cavan (every hour)

The potential for ―bus bunching‖ is relatively low for Bus Éireann city services as frequencies tend to
be every 10 minutes or greater. Timetables that generally adhere to even headways reduces the
potential for bunching further.
D. Timetable design
The vast majority of Bus Éireann services operate clockface timetables.
E. Marketing and information provision

A journey planner is available on Bus Éireann‘s website. We believe that improvements could be
made, in terms of customer information, particularly at bus stops.
The majority of bus stops in Cork city do not indicate what route numbers are serving the stop.
Timetables are not displayed at all bus stops. City services should also display intermediate times, to
assist both driver and customer.
In Dublin City, it is rare for Bus Éireann route information to be available at stops that are also
designed to serve Dublin Bus routes. Any stop served by a Bus Éireann service should be clearly
marked to indicate this fact while also supplying full timetable information.
During our review Bus Éireann accepted that the range and level of information provided at stops
could be improved upon. It is currently in the process of erecting approximately 200 additional bus
shelters across the country to add to the 430 shelter in the network. As part of this process Bus
Éireann are also updating customer information at the shelters. In the East, Bus Éireann are currently
updating all bus poles with improved information for customers
F. Optimising the cost of services

Given the extensive integrated network operated by Bus Éireann, the operation of the network is
generally efficient when compared to comparable operators.
Given current economic constraints, we recommend that a programme be put in place to assess the
detailed cost benefit analysis of services along each corridor. The analysis will assist in addressing
the following possible options;
1. Run a single service from a town via a series of villages to a city centre.
2. Run a direct service, leaving the villages unserved.
3. Run two services, one direct from the town to the city and another which either links the villages to
the city, or also serves the town.
4. As item 2 but with a shuttle feeder link to/from villages (e.g. by taxi or rural transport minibus).
Development plan appraisal
We were presented with the company‘s development plans for Cork, Galway, Leinster & East,
Limerick & Tralee, North West, and Waterford. Since the various development plans have a similar
format and methodology, we reviewed one in detail (Cork).
Bus Éireann network planning – Development plan

The Bus Éireann Cork Area Development Plan 2007-2009 was produced as a response to the Bus
Éireann Business Plan for socially and economically necessary services of 2005, licence applications
for service developments submitted to the Department of Transport in early 2006, and the original
Cork area business case of May 2006.
There are a number of key themes in the plan:
 Capacity increases – purchase 56 vehicles to give 20% increase for commuter/stage/carriage

services and 12% increase for city and suburban services.
 Passenger numbers – cater for an additional 4.1 million passenger journeys in first three years.
 Modal shift – displace 1 million car journeys p.a. during life of project.
 Accessibility – 100% disabled accessibility within one year.
 Integration – significantly increase integration with other public transport modes.
 Service quality and comfort - significantly increase for new and existing customers.
 Reliability – significantly increase level of reliability and service available.
 Environment – procurement of Euro 4 vehicles. Also see modal shift target.
 Deliverability – oversee expansion of services in an effective and efficient manner.
Five options were considered to meet the targets of the Business Plan, The economic analysis of the
preferred option includes a Qualitative Statement and a Scaling Statement. In the qualitative
statement, it is stated that the preferred scheme needs to fit in with wider society objectives in the
following categories:
 National Spatial Strategy

 Modal shift
 Wider economic objectives
 Social inclusion and accessibility objectives
 Environmental objectives
 Replacement of commuter coach fleet
 More widespread and better quality services for customers
 Increased reliability
 Schools transport
 Increased accessibility
 Transport integration
The quantitative statement scales from 1 to 5 the following categories:
 Economy
 Safety
 Environment
 Accessibility and social inclusion
 Integration
The additional number of passengers per new vehicle was calculated by the average occupancy in
2005 multiplied by a defined take up rate of 60%.
For the risk assessment, Bus Éireann stated that the following matters were crucial to deliver on time
and on budget:
 Must be an immediate and a prolonged financial commitment including a commitment to cover

transport cost inflation.
 Cost recovery levels remain similar to previous 5 years. Fares to increase in line with inflation.
 Bus Éireann assumes revenue risk of proposed developments. However, where licences amount
to cherry picking, the state must pick up the revenue shortfall to secondary settlements if these
routes are to be maintained. Additional licences also need to be issued to ensure prompt delivery.
 Simultaneous bus priority measures need to be introduced.
 Speed limit of double deck coaches must be raised from 65 to 80km/h.
 Engineering holdings must be increased to reflect increase in services.
 Customer and maintenance facilities improvement programmes need to be expanded.
The Cork Area Transport study recommends an additional 75 to 90 buses along with introduction of a
BRT corridor from Ballincollig to the Docklands. Various PLUTS updates in Galway, Cork, Limerick,
Waterford have recommended fleet and service expansion.
The assessment of development plans for services in the Southern region is largely qualitative. There
is no specific mention of risks such as:
 Increased fuel costs

 Reduced economic activity
 Staff shortages
 Funding shortfalls
A full cost benefit analysis was undertaken for the business plan covering the Leinster / Eastern region
due to the size of investment, in line with Department of Finance capital appraisal guidelines.
While Bus Éireann has a detailed methodology for appraising broader investment schemes, we
believe a similar detailed approach should be in place appraising changes at a more tactical level. For
example, there may be a number of competing options for services along a corridor, such as:
 Higher frequencies;
 Route extensions;
 Lengthening of the traffic day;
 Reliability improvements; and
 Other expenditure, such as publicity.
During our case studies it became clear that management have a strong knowledge of the services
operated and the benefits they provided. However this knowledge was not always recorded. Whilst
cost benefit analysis can be a complex strategic tool, its principles can be adapted for smaller projects.
We believe the company should appraise its routes against key criteria in a structured manner,
identifying for example whether the route serves significant employers, hospitals or other health
facilities, deprived communities, otherwise isolated communities etc. As noted much of this
information is known to key staff, but is not logged in a form which allows appraisal. In a situation
where investment or retrenchment decisions are made, easy access to this evidence can add value to
an assessment.
Bus Éireann network summary
Guidelines from the Department of Transport as to the policy and objectives of PSO payments will be
further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract
regime for PSO services and for the extension of this regime to outside the Greater Dublin Area later
in 2009 under the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill.
Given the comprehensive and integrated nature of service being offered to the public, we have found
Bus Éireann‘s network to be as efficient as its peers. We have not identified material instances of
network complexity or cost inefficiency. Bus Éireann have produced strategic plans for each of its
operating regions.
The opening of motorways and town bypasses present both opportunities, to introduce new services,
and challenges, with competition from private sector express services, for Bus Éireann.
The projected financial deficit will require rationalisation / reduction in services unless additional PSO
funding is provided. We recommend that a programme be put in place to assess the detailed cost
benefit analysis of services along each corridor before making final decisions on network changes.
3. Operational efficiency
3.1 Operational costs
In 2007, wages and fuel costs made up over 70% of total operational costs for both companies. This
is similar to the industry average in the UK. Fuel costs are, to a large extent, outside the control of the
companies. The CIE Group have a hedging policy for their fuel requirements, generally covering their
requirements for one to two years in advance. Direct wage costs are a factor of the number of buses
operated and the levels of pay and conditions. As pay rates are subject to national pay agreements,
they are largely outside the control of management. Therefore, overall costs can primarily be
controlled by seeking efficiencies in operating the network of services.
Wages 68% - € 193.7m Fuel 7% - € 19.3m Wages 63%- € 130.0m Fuel 8% - € 15.8m
Other 23% - € 47.6m Depreciation 7%- € 13.9m
Other 20% - € 56.9m Depreciation 6% - € 16.9m
Figure 3. 1: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann operating costs in 2007
Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann audited accounts
Wages 68% Fuel 9%

Other 19% Depreciation 4%
Figure 3. 2: UK operating costs in 2006
Source: Bus industry monitor TAS Publications and Events Ltd
Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer group operations. Having a relatively
young fleet keeps engineering costs low and improves service reliability, accessibility and customer
experience. The Companies are investigating the feasibility of contracting certain elements of their
engineering functions to reduce costs. They are also exploring the feasibility of night maintenance.
However, there are two key constraints;
 Lack of space at most garages at night time.

 VAT – like all bus operations, the companies are not in a position to reclaim VAT charged by any
contracting party.
Our benchmarking analysis indicates that the cost of fleet management is in line with industry norms.
A 10-12% spare margin is typical (Dublin Bus 11%). The average age of the city fleets for both
companies (c. 6 years) is below the UK average of 8 years. For both companies, administration and
―back office‖ expenses are in line with benchmarks and various cost reduction measures have been
completed or are underway.
Wages costs
The companies increase their wage rates in line with National Wage Agreements (NWA). The
forecast for 2009 of both companies include an assumption that increases under the new NWA will be
paid in accordance with the guidelines for private companies.

Executive 84 Executive/Clerical 384
Clerical 139 Traffic Supervisors 143
Supervisors (traffic) 150 Drviers (FT and PT) 1,887
Drivers 2,865 Supervisors (maintenance) 22
Supervisors (maintenance 59 Eng Ops/Skilled 302
Craftsmen 184 Apprentices 49
Apprentices 33 Other 40
Others 96
Total 3,610 Total 2,827
Table 3. 1: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann staff numbers
Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann management information
Dublin Bus
2,790 7.5%
2,780
5.0%
2,770
2.5%
2,760
2,750 0.0%
2,740
-2.5%
2,730
-5.0%
2,720
2,710 -7.5%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Staff
Bus Éireann
3,700 7.5%
3,650
5.0%
3,600
3,550 2.5%
3,500
0.0%
3,450
3,400 -2.5%
3,350
-5.0%
3,300
3,250 -7.5%
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Number of Staff
Figure 3. 3: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann number of staff
Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 - 2007
Both companies carry out network design functions in addition to actual operations. The Bus Éireann
figures include management of the schools transport scheme and sub contractors. The 96 ―other‖
staff in Dublin Bus were previously employed as conductors. Dublin Bus state this arises from a
Labour Court ruling at the time of the move to one person operated buses.
The number of drivers in both companies in recent years has increased, reflecting an increase in the
number of services provided and the implementation of the 48 hour working week Directive.
The Companies anticipate a significant increase in pension costs over the coming years as they each
operate defined benefit schemes. An exceptional pension charge of €4.5m and €3.5m for Dublin Bus
and Bus Éireann respectively is included in forecasts for 2009.
Fuel costs
Fuel costs have been particularly volatile in recent times. Having peaked at over $120 per barrel
earlier this summer, they are now back below $50. The CIE Group has a policy to hedge, where
possible, their fuel requirements 18 to 24 months in advance. In recent years, through a rising market,
this policy has benefited the Group and kept fuel costs down. However the most recent hedging was
at a relatively high price so more recent falls in price will take some time to feed through.
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Month
Price per barrel
Figure 3. 4: Oil prices (per barrel)
Source: Energy information administration (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm)
Cost reduction programme

A cost reduction programme, across a number of areas in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, is targeting
savings of €7.2m and €6.5m for 2008 respectively. However, as this is not sufficient to sustain the
financial viability of both companies, we understand that both companies are investigating more
substantial cost reduction plans as part of a rationalisation programme to address the forecast deficits.
2008
€m
Claims cost reduction 1.3
Driver efficiencies 2.4
Reduction of administration headcount 0.9
Operating efficiencies 0.6
Mechanical engineering 0.4
Other cost reductions 1.6
Total 7.2
Table 3. 2: Dublin Bus cost reduction programme
Source: Dublin Bus management forecasts 2008
2008
€m
Operations 3.6
1.1
Engineering
1.4
Administration
0.4
Claims
6.5
Total
Table 3. 3: Bus Éireann cost reduction programme
Source: Bus Éireann management forecast 2008
3.2 Scheduling
The design of bus schedules is critical in turning a route and service plan into a deliverable operation.
Bus schedules should be led by the requirements of the passenger, whilst meeting legal and efficiency
parameters. Operating frequencies should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day, but
should not be so low as to involve long waits at bus stops at less busy times. Clockface intervals are
advisable, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be
timed to be evenly spaced both for passenger convenience and to even out the number of passengers
travelling on each bus, to avoid buses travelling in bunches.
In addition to providing information for passengers, bus schedules also provide guidance for drivers
and controllers. Schedules should, therefore, reflect typical journey times that vary according to the
time of day. They should lean towards the average times that regularly occur, with recovery time at the
termini to allow for the regular but unpredictable occurrences of excess journey time. Both early
running on low frequency routes and buses making very slow progress on higher frequency routes are
of considerable inconvenience for passengers.
Schedules need to be designed over the course of the day with regard for efficient use of bus and
driver resources. Driver scheduling is subject to EU regulation and local agreements. The need to take
into account staff considerations should not override the ability of the operator to provide a good
service to the public.
It is important that routes are reviewed on a regular basis. Monitoring of punctuality and of traffic lost
mileage helps identify routes on which revised running times might be required, as does feedback
from staff and passengers. Reviewing bus journey times is currently a labour intensive process which
will in future benefit from AVL which is currently being implemented.
Dublin bus scheduling
Dublin Bus provided bus and driver schedules for the routes which operate from Harristown and
Donnybrook garages. In terms of workload, the garages are of similar size. Harristown has 15% more
duties than Donnybrook on a Monday to Friday and slightly less at weekends.
Following an initial review of all the schedules, we undertook the following analysis:
 A: The schedules for Routes 4 and 4A were analysed fully. These account for 11% of the driver
hours at Harristown
 B: We analysed ‗out of service‘ running for the Route 40 corridor. Route 40 services account for
7% of the driver hours at Harristown garage. This route was chosen due the fact that the route and
depot are geographically separated.
 C: We analysed 10% of the peak only services operated from Harristown garage. This was carried
out to gain a detailed picture of how these buses are deployed, since peak only services account
for 27% of the schedules at Harristown.
 D: We analysed Route 46A as an example of how a large, strategically important route is
resourced at Donnybrook garage. Route 46A is the most frequent route in Dublin and accounts for
16% of driver duties at the garage. A thorough analysis of bus and driver movements was
undertaken, as well as a review of how scheduled journey times vary across the day.
We found scheduling at both garages to be generally efficient when compared to peer operators. In
some instances scheduling efficiency had been achieved at the expense of customer service and
where improvements and hence cost reductions/efficiencies could be made.
A: Routes 4/A
Route 4 operates from Harristown Garage through Ballymun, Phibsboro, O‘Connell Street,
Ballsbridge, to Blackrock. Route 4A extends marginally further on the Southside to Stradbrook.
Together they represent 11% of overall driver utilisation at Harristown.
Driving times
1,
On both routes, driving time is a high proportion of paid time accounting for 96% on Route 4 and 88%
on Route 4A. The latter is lower as some changeovers take place in the city centre. Efficiency is
enhanced due to all driver breaks being unpaid and the adoption of uniform journey times through the
day.
The limited ‗out of service‘ operations that exists on this route could be reduced further if two AM and
two PM shifts on each route were to be worked from Donnybrook given the proximity of the south city
termini to Donnybrook garage. This would result in a more balanced service with respect to
northbound and southbound journeys, reducing the need for early morning buses to run empty from
Harristown and decreasing the associated cost. Although keeping each route to one depot can make
control of the route easier, the same effect can be had by keeping each duty and bus on a route,
under the same control, regardless of originating depot.
Demand
On average, just 160 passengers per day are recorded boarding at Harristown on routes 4 and 4A,
and some of this is accounted for by drivers travelling to/from the City Centre. The majority of
passengers board from Ballymun onwards.
1
Driving time = In service driving time plus scheduled ‗out of service‘ running time. Paid time = Driving time plus
non productive time (e.g. travelling, booking on and off)
Driver breaks
Staff at Harristown depot were involved in industrial action in 2007 over the issue of taking breaks in
the city centre. Routes 4/A and 128 were at the centre of the dispute. The issue was resolved by
having Routes 4/4A continuing to Harristown, with the drivers on Route 4 taking their breaks at the
depot and the drivers on the 4A taking their breaks in the city centre. The Route 4A drivers who finish
their duties at the city centre are given a 50 minute paid travelling allowance.
As noted above, very few passengers travel on Route 4/A between Ballymun and Harristown garage.
This 15 minute round trip journey occurs 95 times a day, of which only 19 are essential for bus
positioning purposes. Total travel time for buses/drivers on this section amounts to 19 hours per day.
2
Dublin Bus should consider rerouting 4/A to turn around at Ballymun rather than Harristown and have
more driver breaks in the city centre.
Journey time
Typically, scheduled journey times for bus routes change at different times of the day to reflect
different levels of congestion and average journey times. The graph below indicated that the
scheduled running times, Monday to Friday, generally do not change for Routes 4 and 4A.
100
90
Average Timetabled Journey Time
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Route 4A Time
Route 4
Figure 3.5: Dublin Bus Routes 4 and 4A – Average timetabled journey time, Ballymun to Blackrock
Source: Dublin Bus timetable information
In the evening time, the scheduled journey time along Route 4A is reduced. However, to maintain
even spaced timings with Route 4, journey times for Route 4 are increased.
The table below indicates examples of when off peak scheduled journey times can equal or exceed
peak scheduled journey times.
Service 4 4
Harristown 08:00 21:00
Parnell Sq E 08:40 21:40
Stradbrook - -
Frascatti Centre 09:15 22:20
Parnell Sq W 09:50 22:55
Scheduled round trip time 150 mins 155 mins
Table 3.4: Dublin Bus scheduled timetable extract
2
It should be noted that there are a number of routes that have Harristown as their terminus (Routes 4, 4A, 13,
13A, 27B, 83), all of which have a portion of their route close to Harristown that carries few passengers.
Our analysis has shown that there should be increases to scheduled running times in the peak for
Routes 4 and 4A and that there is scope for reducing off-peak journey times. Scheduled journey times
during the evening, particularly on Route 4 could be reduced or alternatively, all buses and drivers
could work to Stradbrook (terminus for Route 4A) based on current allocated journey times.
B: Routes 40/A/B/C/D
The 40 series operates between Finglas and Parnell Square, with the 40D extending westward
towards Tyrrelstown. Together the services represent 7% of driver utilisation at Harristown garage.
Finglas is a moderate sized town in the north-west suburbs of Dublin. It is served by a number of
routes which traverse the north of the city as well as by the 40 series of routes which operate along the
Finglas Road from the city centre and diverge into a number of branches near Finglas. In the
afternoon peak hour (17:00-18:00 from city) there are 17 departures, 5 each on 40 and 40A, 1 on 40B,
2 on 40C and 4 on 40D. Off peak there tends to be 10 or 11 departures per hour with typically 4 each
on the 40 and 40A and generally one or two trips per hour on 40B, 40C or 40D. Journey times are
typically scheduled at 35-45 minutes (60 minutes on the 40D).
The 40 series represents a significant allocation of resources – 110 drivers‘ duties per week and a
Peak Vechicel Requirement (PVR) of 28, including the support from six Euro duties. The route is
operated from Harristown garage (around 15 minutes travelling time from Finglas termini).
Driver breaks
When a driver books on/off or takes a break, he or she generally drives their bus between the garage
and Finglas. This journey is allocated 15 minutes (or 30 minutes for Route 40D). A number of drivers
also travel to/from the city centre – a journey of 30 minutes. In total, this means that a driver can spend
well over an hour a day driving while not in passenger service.
The route is rostered and scheduled with a combined block of work on one sub-route and then on
another sub-route after a break. This results in buses making a relatively large number of long ‗out of
service‘ journeys. An analysis of the Monday to Friday bus schedules showed the following results per
day.
Route Time in service (hours) „Out of service‟ running (hours) % „Out of service‟ running
40 76.0 15.8 17%

40A 78.3 17.3 18%
40B 19.8 4.6 19%
40D 81.3 23.7 23%
Total 255.5 61.3 20%
Table 3.5: Dublin Bus „out of service‟ journeys
An analysis of operations at various garages in the UK shows that ‗out of service‘ mileage is typically
between 3% and 10%.
Drivers on a Monday to Friday duty are in passenger service for only 76.3% of their time. This includes
the effect of an average 20 minute overpayment due to the average length of work being less than the
7h38 paid daily amount.
Scheduling driver breaks in the city centre could reduce ‗out of service‘ running on the route
significantly.
Where a duty both starts and finishes in the city centre, the use of existing facilities for drivers to sign
on and off locally rather than at the garage could potentially reduce the number of bus movements.
For journeys which start or finish in Finglas, a small fleet of ferry vehicles could be used to transport
drivers to and from the route at changeover times. This system is regularly used in the UK. In addition
to reducing the number of buses required, the fuel consumption of the ferry vehicles (which are
typically cars or vans) is considerably lower than that of a bus.
C: Euro/Universal duties (27% of the schedules at Harristown)

Euro and Universal buses provide peak capacity. Euro duties use buses part funded by the European
Union for the purpose in 1999/2000 whilst Universal buses may also operate on industrial estate
services and school services.
110 duties at Harristown and 43 duties from Donnybrook are Universal / Euro duties and they
represent a significant investment in resources.
The buses / drivers spend an average of just 4.25 hours in passenger service, a significant proportion
of which is travelling contra-peak on routes towards Harristown garage. The drivers have an average
paid day of around 7.5 hours and an average unpaid break approaching four hours in duration. The
length of unpaid break is high by industry standards.
The duties typically involve 2 journeys along main routes in the AM peak and two in the PM peak.
Most Harristown buses operate some distance from Harristown garage and the buses based there
spend a considerable time travelling to the start of their route. The requirement to get back to
Harristown to take a break combined with a condition that all split shift duties finish within 12 hours of
starting means that the buses often start leaving service shortly after 18:00 and do not support the full
length of the PM peak.
Driver duties
The 12 hour shift limit causes difficulties for Dublin Bus to meet pm peak demand. However, if these
duties were integrated into the basic schedules for the routes concerned, the 12 hour limit could be
managed to avoid the aforementioned issue. This could be achieved by a driver working a Euro duty in
the morning and a main roster duty in the afternoon to finish within 12 hours, whilst a colleague works
a main roster duty in the morning and a Euro in the afternoon to finish later.
Garage location
Capacity issues at other garages has lead to Harristown operating Euro buses on services that might
otherwise run from other depots, resulting in counter peak in service or ‗out of service‘ trips back to
Harristown garage. There are two possible opportunities to address this – the potential opening of a
new garage at Grangecastle and space which may become available at other depots through service
rationalisation. The precedent of disturbance payments, where drivers are asked to change route or
garage base, may mean any benefit from a move only materialises in the medium term.
D: Route 46A corridor

Route 46A was analysed as an example of how large, strategically important routes are resourced
from older and more established depots such as Donnybrook. Route 46A is Dublin‘s most frequent
route. A thorough review of bus and driver movements was undertaken, as well as how scheduled
journey times vary across the day. We also looked at how the Euro and Universal buses resourced
from a number of depots are used to provide peak enhancements on the Route 46A corridor.
Route 46A operates between Dun Laoghaire and Mountjoy Square via Foxrock, Stillorgan,
Donnybrook, St. Stephen‘s Green and O‘Connell Street. Route 46A schedules cover the core 46A
service and part of Route 46B. Other variations of the 46A route are covered by Euros and Universals
from Donnybrook. Its schedules also cover part of Route 46B (Sandford Industrial Estate) and make
up 16% of driver duties at Donnybrook. Other variations of the 46 group are covered by Euro and
Universal duties from Donnybrook.
Our analysis consisted of calculating the time spent by drivers and buses operating in service, time
spent operating ‗out of service‘ mileage and time spent on other activities. We also considered the
levels of overtime paid to drivers and how breaks were arranged and to what extend these are
appropriate.
The Route 46A corridor operates along the Stillorgan QBC. It has a core PVR of 21 excluding Euro
duties and a staff requirement of 305 duties per week. There is also is a significant enhancement from
Euro and Universal buses: 93 journeys are operated by Euro/ Universal buses in the AM peak and 75
in the PM peak.
This route is rostered efficiently, with drivers spending 90% of their paid time driving buses in
passenger service by following the same roster pattern as the majority of other routes in Dublin. Each
bus spends 20-30 minutes travelling to either the city centre or Dun Laoghaire at the start and end of
its day. However, the first bus from Dun Laoghaire doesn‘t arrive in the city centre until 07:30. The shift
pattern on a Sunday means that the first bus doesn‘t arrive in the city centre until 10:30.
The scheduling of Route 46A reflects changes in journey time throughout the day. This allows two
buses to come ‗out of service‘ in the inter-peak period while maintaining a relatively consistent service
for customers.
170
Avergae Timetabled Journey Time
160
150
140
130
120
110
07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:30 18:30 19:30 20:30 21:30
Times
Figure 3.6: Dublin Bus Route 46A – Average timetabled journey time (Round trip)
The scheduling of Route 46A reflects changes in journey time throughout the day, which allows two
buses to come ‗out of service‘ in the inter-peak period while maintaining a relatively consistent service
for customers.
Work practices
Scheduling efficiency and service delivery are inextricably linked to work practices within the company.
Dublin Bus work practices are flexible in many areas, for example, unpaid breaks and the length of
split shift duties enable efficient driver deployment in the majority of cases. We identified the following
areas where additional work practice flexibility could be pursued.
Harristown
The Harristown garage was built with Exchequer funding, to provide facilities for 150 additional state
funded buses with a capacity for a further 200 buses. The garage opened in October 2004 and since
opening there have been ongoing discussions regarding scheduling arrangements.
A dispute arose in 2007 surrounding the location of driver breaks and changeovers for Routes 4, 4A
and 128. Following extensive negotiations and a week long strike by drivers, agreement was
eventually reached through the Labour Court as follows:
 No existing routes at Harristown would have breaks outside of the garage for at least 3 years, and
thereafter only by agreement with the union;
 Drivers provided with 50 minutes paid travel time, in each direction, for city centre changeover for
Route 4A and 55 minutes for Route 128,
 Dublin Bus will invite drivers from outside Harristown to work on Routes 4A and 128
 Only recently recruited drivers will be asked to operate Route 4A and 128
Our scheduling analysis identifies possible efficiencies to be gained from city centre breaks on other
routes based in Harristown, which the company needs to pursue in the interest of greater
efficiency/cost savings given the challenges facing the company.
„Marked In Drivers‟ and disturbance payments

Upon joining, drivers in Dublin Bus can be assigned to work on any route in the garage where they are
based, but typically after four to seven years they are 'marked in' to a single route, working on a five
week rota which is reserved for the more experienced drivers. Approximately 60% of the workforce is
marked in at any time.
Dedicating drivers to particular routes tends to be advantageous in terms of increasing familiarity with
the route and passengers. In efficiency terms we believe that such rosters work well where there are
at least 8 buses allocated to the route. This gives sufficient volume of duty segments to allow efficient
duty compilation. Where routes have fewer vehicles, our experience is that the schedules become less
efficient. In such cases, greater efficiency is achieved if drivers operate more than one route.
The lack of flexibility when a driver becomes ‗marked in‘ can lead to certain inefficiencies even for
routes with a high number of buses allocated to them. As an example, our analysis of Route 4/A
indicates;
 A lack of driver cross over between Route 4 and Route 4A results in drivers taking breaks without
reaching their required driving hours.
 Inefficient evening time operations.
Disturbance Payments have been made to drivers as compensation for changes to their ‗marked in‘
route or if they move from one garage to another. They have been included in Labour Court
recommendations. Such payments are not common within the bus industry. Approximately €2.5m
has been paid to drivers in the last 4 years, the majority of which relates to the opening of Harristown
garage, examples include:
€‟000
Drivers moving to Harristown 1,900
Drivers moving from Harristown 135
Moving terminus for some Tallaght services (Eden Quay to Ringsend) 269
Merging of routes 15B & 15C 52
Table 3. 6: Dublin Bus disturbance payments in last 4 years
Source: Dublin Bus management
Based on our general analysis and specifically with reference to the Finglas corridor, we believe there
is significant potential for network redesign. The precedent of disturbance payments, if continued, will
increase the up front costs of any network changes.
Bus Éireann scheduling
Bus Éireann provided bus and driver schedules for the routes which operate from Broadstone,
Dundalk and Cork garages for the purposes of our analysis.
Scheduling duties efficiently can be more difficult for longer distance services. There are both
geographic and temporal reasons for this. The main geographical factors are the location of the bus
garage in relation to the routes it supplies, and location of the bus turnaround at the end of the route.
The distance involved in travelling to and from the garage to the route (‗out of service‘ mileage) might
be substantial, although is likely to occur only a few times a day. There is also the potential for ‗out of
service‘ mileage to accrue if a bus needs to drive to stand some distance away from the final stop on a
route, or has to traverse a large loop to turn around. The main temporal factor that affects efficiency is
the need for operating staff to take breaks. As the Company continues to implement the EU Working
Time Directive, the cost base may increase.
We set out below a brief synopsis of services and schedules operated by Bus Éireann.
Town services
Bus services in towns such as Cork, Drogheda and Dundalk are characterised by short length routes
(journey times of 20 to 30 minutes) and medium to high frequencies (every 30 minutes or better).
Routes provide both radial and orbital links, and often serve a central bus station. High levels of
commuter usage result in additional journeys at peak times.
Journey times can be expected to be higher during peak times, and there will be some variability of
journey times during day to day operations. Layover times are scheduled at the end of routes to
facilitate punctual departures from termini, as expected.
Few routes are very far from the bus garage and therefore dead mileage tends to be relatively low.
Driver changeovers can be scheduled at either termini or whilst the bus is in service, thus allowing
shift lengths to be matched with driver duty lengths and maximising driver efficiency.
Rural services
Rural services provide links between villages and small towns and link them to larger towns nearby.
They provide low frequency journeys which are timed to meet passenger demand. Journey times vary
from 30 minutes to as much as 2.5 hours. The variability of journey times is fairly low, although
layovers tend to be high, primarily to allow buses to depart when required. Some routes operate
seasonal timetables.
Intercity services
Intercity routes provide express long distance journeys between large towns and cities, occasionally
stopping at intermediate points. Journey times vary between two and five hours, and frequencies are
typically between hourly and every two hours. Duplicate journeys are a common occurrence to cater
for excess demand at peak times (including Friday afternoon), and variable high demand sections
along the route that arise on an ongoing basis.
There are typically garages at each end of the route, and sometimes along the route, which means
that dead mileage can be minimised. However, the different running times of different routes, and the
long distances involved, means that efficient driver scheduling is more difficult to achieve.
Unpredictable journey times, particularly near Dublin, mean that buses require longer layovers to
ensure punctuality.
Commuter services
Commuter services combine features of the other three service types. Commuter services are
operated into all the National Spatial Strategy gateway cities (including Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick
and Waterford) in line with the National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines and PLUTS
studies. They cater for journey lengths of some 60 to 90 minutes with frequencies that are hourly or
better. Additional journeys are provided at peak times to cater for heavy commuter flows.
Where there are garages at both ends of a route, ‗out of service‘ mileage is less likely to arise. Route
lengths are also sufficiently short that efficient rostering is possible. In order to maintain clockface
departures it is appropriate that medium length layovers are in place.
Schedule review
Following an initial review of all the schedules provided by Bus Éireann, we analysed the following:
 Approximately 11% of the schedules for Cork were analysed in detail. Cork operates city routes,
rural routes and express to Dublin, and all were examined as part of this process.
 Commuter services from Broadstone, as they are by far the most dominant use of both vehicles
and drivers at the garage.
 Dundalk, Drogheda and Balbriggan services.
A summary of our findings are set out below:
Bus Éireann Southern Region

Driver duties in Cork are split into two broad categories. City duties operate the higher frequency
services in and around Cork; provincial duties operate the rural services in the surrounding regions as
well as express services to Dublin. There are also ‗relief‘ duties that support these two roles. ‗Relief‘
duties can serve more than one route, geographic area or type of service.
City services
City services provide a frequent cross-city service to the suburbs of Cork with a typical journey time of
25 minutes from the city centre to the end of the route and a service interval of between 10 and 20
minutes.
All city routes except for Route 1 have their own base rota whereby drivers are allocated to a specific
route and drive duties on an indefinite fixed rotation. However, they do share duties between each
other. To understand how the city services are resourced, we examined one of the larger routes,
Route 2, in detail.
Route 2 has a 20 line roster with 100 duties of which 12 are duties on other city routes, such as Route
4; whilst five duties are operated on Route 2 by drivers on other routes‘ rotas. This is an efficient
means of balancing longer duties over different rotas, ensuring that the roster has full lines, i.e. the
number of days of work matches up with the number of drivers.
On some routes, relief drivers drive a duty normally performed by a driver on the base roster and this
forms part of the timetabled service. In addition, relief drivers drive a small number of additional
services at peak times and these do not appear on the public timetable.
A detailed analysis of the duties performed by buses and drivers on Route 2 showed that:
 buses spend on average 13h35m on the road, of which 94% was spent in passenger service;
 the average length of a drivers‘ day was 8h21m, of which 7h00m was spent at the wheel and
6h47m in passenger service. The remainder comprises unpaid breaks and ‗out of service‘
journeys. Altogether, drivers spend 91.5% of their paid time in passenger service;
 the average break was 0h56m.
A 10-minute walking allowance applies if drivers finish their shift in the city centre. 10 minutes is
allowed for signing on and off which is comparable to other operators.
Rural services
We studied a corridor focused upon the southwest corner of County Cork between Castletownbere,
Goleen, Drimoleague and Cork which is served by Routes 236, 237, 239, 251 and seasonal Route
252.
The majority of services on the 236 are operated by dedicated drivers rather than relief drivers.
Rotas tend to be small, with around one to four drivers. A number of drivers and their vehicles are
based at outposts – four at Bandon, two at Bantry, one at Glengarriff, one at Goleen and three at
Skibbereen. Often the main rota drivers get paid overtime and spend some time either on call or
waiting for the next service – this can be a reasonably efficient way of allocating work if the service
matches with peaks in demand. Some relief drivers are also scheduled on these routes.
A sample of 10 schedules (7 main rota and 3 reliefs) showed:
 The average paid time for drivers is 8h28m. Of this, 5h55m is spent driving in passenger service,
representing 70% of paid hours. These figures are comparable to rural services operated by other
operators where timings are determined by passenger demand rather than operational
convenience.
 Average unpaid breaks are 1h24m for relief drivers and 2h06m for main roster drivers. Long
unpaid breaks significantly increase the efficiency with which drivers can be deployed.
 On average, drivers spend 37 minutes per day either on stand or waiting for instruction from
controllers. This is low by comparison to other operators and is a benefit of the long unpaid
breaks.
An analysis of vehicle usage showed that vehicles spend an average of 12h26m per day in service.
‗Out of service‘ running accounts for 13% of the time buses spend on the move.
Intercity services
Cork is served by the five ‗Expressway‘ services.
Route 40 and Route 8 were examined in detail.
Route 40 entails a 7 hour journey and is split into three sections: Tralee (via Rathmore or
Ballyvourney) to Cork (2h30 / 2h15); Cork to Waterford (2h15), and Waterford to Rosslare (1h25m)
with breaks of 20-35 minutes between each section and uniform running time. Some passengers
making through journeys need to change buses.
Analysis of the schedules of 10 Route 40 drivers showed:
 The average spread time is 8h56m, with 7h51m of this paid.

 The average duty involves 28 minutes of driving ‗out of service‘ and 1h27m on stand, representing
6% and 17% of paid time respectively.
 The average driver spends 5h29m in service, 70% of paid time.
Relief drivers on Route 40 also work suburban services around Cork during early mornings and late
evenings and during the evening peak – an efficient way of rostering services since current running
times make staffing only the 40 inefficient due to the 2h15m / 2h30m running time.
Drivers on Route 8 operate one trip to Dublin and back giving 8h50m in service (including a 15 minute
break at Urlingford) with a 1h25m break at Dublin.
An analysis of the six express coaches starting the day from Cork garage showed that they spend an
average time in service of 10h36 minutes. The time spent on stand between operating services is
2h45 on average. These figures compare favourably with those of long distance bus operations in the
UK. The time spent on stand, which is waiting time either in the depot or at other termini, reflects the
need for buses to adhere to a low frequency timetable.
Bus Éireann eastern region
Commuter Route 109
Route 109 is a ‗suburban/regional‘ service operating between Dublin and Cavan, also serving
Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells and Virginia. There are 4 departures per hour from Dublin, with various
journeys scheduled to turn short of Cavan. There are a few additional duplicating journeys at peak
periods as well as night buses at 00:30 and 03:30 on a Friday and Saturday night. Buses depart
Dublin between 05:20 and 23:00 and arrive into Dublin arriving between 07:10 until 00:10, with the
frequency reducing to hourly after around 1900.
The majority of drivers stay with their buses all day rather than swapping buses between breaks. This
results in 3-4 buses at a time not being utilised for 45 minutes or more during the period 08:00 to
09:00. Many of these buses, but not all, run ‗out of service‘ between Busáras and Broadstone due to
the lack lay-by facilities at Busáras. This accounts for 10.6% of scheduled hours for buses.
The timetable includes recovery time between journeys, and between journeys and breaks, accounting
for 20.4% of the scheduled hours for buses. Unlike other low frequency routes, Route 109 has
sufficient driver and bus duties (24 driver duties per day and 14 bus duties per day) to potentially
improve efficiency in this area. Regular, detailed monitoring of journey times is recommended as it
would allow a more accurate and potentially efficient schedule to be drawn up. The rollout of AVL
systems during 2009 will facilitate this.
Commuter Routes 100, 101, 100X

These routes provide both local and express services between Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk. Route
100 provides the local services between Drogheda and Dundalk (a 40 minute journey) and Route 101
between Dublin and Drogheda (80 minutes). Route 100X provides an express service between Dublin
and Dundalk (1h35m, 4 stops).
Route 100X has 45 minutes of recovery time at both ends of the route, which is a high percentage in
relation to the overall running time of 95 minutes. When drivers have a scheduled break, they take 45
minutes during a turnaround. This has the benefit that no other driver is required to cover breaks
(improving scheduling efficiency). However, this also means that there is effectively no recovery time
on a trip and so the subsequent journey might run late.
Route 100 has 25 minutes of recovery time at Dundalk and five minutes at Drogheda. Route 101 has
ten minutes of recovery time at both ends of the route and drivers pass on their bus to another driver
to have a break of thirty minutes.
Although an initial analysis might suggest that the three routes have unnecessarily high levels of
recovery time, this occurs due to the nature of their geographical coverage and journey time lengths.
Dublin Broadstone and Busáras

The vast majority of Bus Éireann services run to / from Busáras central bus station. Those not running
to Busáras run to either St Stephen‘s Green or Belfield. Scheduled journey time between Busáras and
Broadstone is 15 minutes. Many buses, particularly on suburban routes travel to Broadstone between
journeys so that drivers can take their break and to provide recovery time between journeys. Intercity
type services tend to take their breaks and recovery times at Busáras.
This ‗out of service‘ running between Broadstone and Busáras can be a significant portion of overall
‗out of service‘ running for a route, for example it accounts for 44% of ‗out of service‘ running on the
Route 109 which itself accounts for 10.4% of paid driver time.
Some layovers of several hours take place at Busáras whilst layovers of less than an hour take place
at Broadstone. The optimum use of the limited lay-by facilities at Busáras should be studied by the
company. We suggest exploring the following options to minimise the occurrence of journeys between
Busáras and Broadstone;
 Use of alternative lay-by locations closer to Busáras. (We understand that Bus Éireann are
actively investigating the use of CIE lands in the vicinity of Connolly Station for this purpose)
 Employing a ‗stepping-back‘ process so that when drivers take their breaks, their vehicle is passed
on to another driver in order to reduce the amount of time that buses need to layover. These
breaks could be taken at Busáras.
 Terminating certain routes at other city centre locations. This is already in place with some
suburban / regional services at peak hours
Drogheda, Dundalk and Balbriggan services

 Rural services: The vehicle and driver requirement is determined by the school and college
journeys and a journey to work into the local town in the morning and out again in the evening with
other journeys in the interpeak operated within the margins of the peak vehicle and driver
resource. Many routes are operated within the spread of one driver‘s shift, as would normally be
best practice for this type of service.
 Drogheda and Dundalk town services: The town services for Drogheda and Dundalk in the
main are operated to an interval pattern (hourly or half hourly) with the same bus and driver with
cover for breaks and certain early morning or evening journey being covered in the margin of rural
route drivers. These services are resourced efficiently given the constraints of the timetable
requirement.
 Balbriggan town service: The 20 minute frequency Balbriggan town service requires two drivers
for the one vehicle because of its spread and remoteness from a depot (Broadstone). It also has
no identified break cover for two mid morning and two afternoon trips and transport for the
afternoon driver to relieve the morning driver appears to be a staff car from Dublin. An option to
consider for improved efficiency for this service would be to resource the service from Drogheda.
Drogheda is much closer to Balbrigggan than Dublin both in distance and journey time. The
reduction in bus mileage and in particular drivers hours would reduce the spread hours required to
cover the service.
Strategic opportunities for Bus Éireann

In light of the deteriorating financial situation facing the company, due to falling passenger numbers
and increasing costs, Bus Éireann will need to assess strategic opportunities:
 Subcontracting services to other operators

 Integration with Rural Transportation Programme
 Integration with Health Service Executive requirements
Harmonisation of vehicle types, such as the replacement of tail lift fitted minibuses with low floor
vehicles has enabled such integration to take place in the UK with demand responsive transport,
patient transport services, social services day car transport and low volume schools transport
sometimes integrated into a single resource pool by the more proactive local authorities. A single
resource pool, incorporating brokerage where required, can allow sectors with differing mandates to
work together to maximise the benefit from these resources.
Sub-contracting
Bus Éireann uses sub-contracting to cover PVRs and maintain timetables where congestion has
caused delays to services. In the face of falling passenger numbers, Bus Éireann intend reducing the
current level of sub-contracting.
There is potential for alternative roles for sub-contracting within the main network, whereby entire
services are contracted out to smaller operators who may be able to operate at a lower cost than a
large operator such as Bus Éireann. Key concerns for Bus Éireann in expanding sub-contracting are
safety standards and the need for an agreed framework for operating and maintenance practices. We
recommend that Bus Éireann identify clusters of routes on a rolling basis and seek private sector
tenders to operate these routes. These can then be assessed against an internal benchmark, to see if
sub-contracting can reduce costs.
The expansion of subcontracting has a number of potential challenges:
 Part of the current low cost base may be because operators on commuter service charge on a
marginal basis using a vehicle which is otherwise occupied during the day: costs may rise if a
dedicated vehicle is used, though this could provide an operator with a more guaranteed income
stream than traditional ad-hoc private work.
 Market forces may influence prices where there would be little competition for the work.
 Individual relations issues.
Opportunities should be identified in a logical and structured manner. Bundles of services should be
tested against the market by seeking prices from possible sub contractors. This would be compared
to the cost of continued in house operation and from this a short list of subcontracted routes would be
drawn up and the tender process taken forward.
The short listing process needs to assess the direct costs and the opportunity cost or benefit. For
example a basket of services in one particular area may allow a reduction in overheads through the
closure of a depot facility, even if the direct costs generate a lower saving than a diverse group of
services across a region.
Strategically this would assist the wider economy as smaller operators are liable to be suffering due to
the economic down turn.
Rural transportation programme

The Rural Transport Initiative (RTI) arose from a commitment in the National Development Plan 2000-
2006 to provide funding for the development of pilot public transport initiatives in rural areas. The aim
of this funding was ‗to encourage innovative community based initiatives to provide public transport
services in rural areas with a view to addressing social exclusion in rural Ireland caused by lack of
access to transport‘. The RTI operated as a very successful pilot action research initiative between
2002 and 2006.
A new Rural Transport Programme (RTP) was launched in February 2007. The RTP is building on the
success of the RTI and puts the former pilot scheme on a permanent mainstreamed basis, with
significantly increased funding. It continues the recognition that local communities are best placed to
identify their rural transport needs and to address them. Consequently, approved rural community
transport groups will continue to have primary responsibility for initiating, developing, organising and
delivering transport services funded under the RTP.
The broad aims of the programme are:
 To provide, enhance and sustain a nationwide community based public transport system in rural
areas.
 To maximise existing transport assets and to utilise new technology where necessary in the co-
ordination and development of transport.
 To act as a catalyst in providing models of partnership at all levels where key sectors actively
engage in transport provision.
 To ensure equality of access for all, including older people as well as people with mobility, sensory
and cognitive impairments.
 To maintain, promote and develop models of good practice.
 To continue to contribute to rural public transport policy.
This programme facilitates structural integration with other transport services. There is the potential,
for example, to link school operations to RTI services and greater connectivity could be achieved
through integrated planning, whether led by or facilitated by Bus Éireann.
3
With suitable multi purpose vehicles , CT operators could become subcontractors on conventional bus
services and add value by operating these on a more flexible basis.
Health Service Executive

Movement of outpatients to/from appointments is generally an off peak transport requirement and is
often achieved by use of taxis or dedicated non emergency ambulance minibuses. Bus Éireann have
indicated that in many cases conventional bus services with wheelchair access (large and midi bus)
could be used where taxis are currently used
Integrating this provision into a wider transport resource bank may lead to efficiencies both in public
transport, schools transport and health transport.
Scheduling summary
Scheduling at Dublin Bus is generally efficient. However on occasion, scheduling efficiency is
achieved at the expense of meaningful services to the customer.
Our report identifies some potential efficiencies for the routes and schedules studied in detail.
A number of work practices exist at Dublin Bus that may restrict the ability of the company to make
changes in a timely manner. The precedent of disturbance payments may increase the associated
cost of network redesign.
The use of Harristown garage for a number of peak only services is inefficient. The duties of split shift
drivers should be incorporated into general schedules to better meet peak demand.
Scheduling at Bus Éireann is also generally efficient.
The significant deterioration in the financial position of Bus Éireann due to falling passenger numbers
and increasing costs may require service rationalisation in the absence of increased PSO revenue.
Any rationalisation plan should take into account:
 Opportunities to combine dedicated services (e.g. schools, RTP and conventional bus)
 Subcontracting of entire services to the private sector operator
 Potential expansion of double deck operation where regular peak demand exceeds the capacity of
standard sized coaches
3
The Department will examine the question of harmonising the Construction and Use Regulations so that the
same passenger vehicle can be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. This would remove the
anomaly whereby vehicles owned by charitable or statutory organisations can use any seating configuration on
their vehicles whereas a vehicle used for commercial or for reward purposes, even if that reward is not-for-profit,
must comply with PSV regulations. Harmonisation of the Construction and Use Regulations would also address
other issues which require resolution in order to enable any passenger vehicle to be used for both commercial
and non-commercial purposes, thus improving the safety of the public and voluntary transport fleet and enabling
brokerage opportunities to be created. Source: http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/transport_access_05.htm
4. Issues affecting both companies
4.1 Reliability of network and services
Public transport customer surveys have consistently rated reliability/punctuality as an important factor
for users.
Monitoring services: Transport for London example

The level of service monitoring undertaken by TfL reflects the importance of the service ultimately
delivered to the customer.
TfL reliability monitoring

TfL measures bus reliability in terms of Quality of Service Indicators (QSIs), a system which
endeavours to measure reliability as experienced by passengers waiting at bus stops. There are two
types of measurement, depending on whether a route operates on a low frequency (every 15 minutes
or less) or on a high frequency (every 12 minutes or better).
Many passengers using a low frequency route will have a good idea of when the next bus is due to
arrive and will arrive at the bus stop in the expectation of catching a particular departure. As a result,
reliability is assessed in terms of ‗on time‘ performance. In terms of QSIs, a bus is assumed to have
arrived on time if it arrives within a window of 2 minutes before or 5 minutes after the scheduled time.
When using high frequency routes, passengers tend not to consult a timetable but instead turn up at
the bus stop in the expectation that a bus will arrive shortly. In order to measure this type of usage,
excess wait time (EWT) is used. It is calculated by measuring the difference between actual waiting
times against scheduled waiting times.
To measure both types of routes, TfL uses observers with handheld computers deployed at key points
along the route. Shifts normally last 2.5 or 3 hours and are scheduled to occur on a randomised basis
between 07:00 and 21:30 on weekdays, 10:00 and 17:00 on Saturdays and 14:00 to 17:00 on
Sundays. Nightbuses are also monitored between 00:00 and 05:30.
There are 250 locations and each location has at least 16 observations during a quarter. QSIs are
calculated for each route every 4 weeks, with data for each route published on the TfL website every
quarter.
The QSI system was originally introduced in the 1970s as a management information tool. Since 2001,
reliability data has been used to incentivise operator performance through the use of quality incentive
contracts.
The manual system of observations is due to be replaced by a GPS based one shortly.
TfL mystery traveller surveys

TfL uses an agency to carry out mystery shopper style surveys. Trained surveyors, who travel
incognito, assess measures such as vehicle cleanliness, quality of bus blinds, ride quality, driver
presentation and the presence of etching and graffiti. The results are sent to bus operators every
quarter. The results of the surveys can determine whether an operator will be allowed an extension of
a contract from 5 to 7 years.
TfL other monitoring

Driver Quality Monitoring is carried out on behalf of TfL by the Driving Standards Agency. A large
number of criteria are examined during each assessment, including acceleration, cornering, braking,
speed, anticipation, and how close to the kerb a bus stops. Examiners also look out for behaviour
which is considered dangerous, such as using a mobile phone or driving with the doors open.
Inspections of vehicle quality are carried out on behalf of TfL by engineers from the Freight Transport
Association.
Operators submit their own returns of kilometres not operated due to reasons such as traffic, driver
shortage and mechanical reasons. TfL carries out detailed audits of operators to ensure the accuracy
of the lost kilometres reporting procedure.
Wheelchair ramp availability – TfL introduced surveys of wheelchair ramp availability to address public
concerns about non working ramps.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys – passengers are asked to rate a number of categories of bus services
similar to those assessed with Mystery Traveller Surveys.
Dublin Bus
Dublin benefits from QBCs, but still suffers from serious traffic congestion, especially in the city centre.
Customer perceptions of poor reliability and punctuality are in part due to the structure of the services
and the information available to customers. In most cases:
 Intermediate running times are not specified so that drivers are not regulated along the route,
meaning that gaps may widen or narrow along the journey.
 Passengers have no access to scheduled departure times other than those of buses leaving at the
termini, which may be a considerable distance away from where the passenger is actually waiting.
 End to end journey times on some routes investigated show a much smaller than expected
variation between peak and inter peak journey times.
 RTPI is not currently available at bus stops (although plans are in place to introduce this)
Running times
We believe there is a strong case for restructuring timetables to address the above issues by including
running times at intermediate points.
The provision of intermediate running times could achieve three key objectives:
 Passengers would be more assured of the intended time of departure.

 Drivers would be able to monitor their own progress against schedule and advise controllers of
delays.
 Controllers may be able to pinpoint problems sooner than otherwise as they can identify vehicle
delays earlier.
There are a number of challenges in designing an optimum timetable. It must not be timed so fast as
to be unachievable, or to slow as to risk early running or frequent time waiting. Seasonal variability is
also an issue, though there is the potential to adopt variable timetables as undertaken in a handful of
UK cities (Sheffield and Manchester for example) and in some other European cities. These involve
either a reduction in peak capacity to cope with lower loads during the summer holidays or a reduction
in running time during periods of low congestion.
Dublin Bus has expressed concerns regarding the feasibility of introducing intermediate running times.
However, intermediate times have been successfully introduced in other heavily congested cities.
Running times should be calculated around typical trips, rather than extreme ones to minimise early
running and appropriate layover time inserted at the termini to reduce the chance of late running
buses departing late in the opposite direction.
Route 4 example
We have analysed the current running times of several services by using ticket machine data.
Running times are unpredictable, especially in the city centre.
Figure 4.1 shows the morning peak running times on service 4 from Ballymun towards Blackrock.
Immediately apparent is the O‘Connell Street fare stage which shows a range of journey times from 6
to 22 minutes with an average of 13 minutes. A range of 16 is poor, but this is compounded by the
4
mean running time being almost equidistant from the extremes. This implies that variability is high
and, therefore, intervals at successive stops will also be affected, impacting on passengers along the
remainder of the route.
25
20
Journey Time between stages (Minutes)
15
10
0
Botanic Avenue.
Hart's Corner
Broadstone
Blessington St.
O'Connell Street
Merrion Square
Rd.(Haddington Rd
Pembroke Road
Northumberland
Avenue)
Ave.)
Run mean (min) Stages

Best Run
Worst Run
Figure 4. 1: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock – Morning peak sectional journey times
This impact becomes clear from Figure 4.2. This shows the average observed waiting time at each
fare stage. The dark blue line for the morning peak shows that early on in the route buses are close
to the 10 minute scheduled wait time, but gradually become further away from it. Reference to the
Figure 4.2 shows a wide range of running times at ―Ballymun Road (The Rise)‖ and this is where the
average wait time increases. This then becomes perpetual. As the interval widens more passengers
are waiting at the stops, boarding takes longer and the bus becomes more and more delayed. By
O‘Connell Street, the average wait time has reached 13.5 minutes.
The unpredictability in the city centre then causes the delays to accumulate and the average waiting
times to rise. Inter peak performance improves with a largely level line from Ballymun to city – though
still above the scheduled 10 minutes. O‘Connell Street remains a significant source of delay. Average
waiting times is longest in the evening peak.
4
If an average was closer to either extreme the implication is that one pattern is more common than the other.
Service 4 to Blackrock Average Wait Time (main section)
25
20
Average Waiting Times
15
10
0
Botanic Avenue.
Hart's Corner
Broadstone
Blessington St.
O'Connell Street
Merrion Square
Pembroke Road
ShoppingCentre
Rd.(Haddington Rd
Northumberland
Phibsboro
Avenue)
Ave.)
Stages
AM Peak Wait Inter Peak Wait
PM Peak Wait Scheduled Wait
Figure 4. 2: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock – Morning peak sectional average wait times journey times
Figure 4.2 shows the peak versus inter peak journey time variations. The main impacts other than the
city centre (in this direction) are at Ballymun in the morning peak and leaving the city in the afternoon
peak. Morning peak average times from Ballymun Road to O‘Connell Street are 45 minutes compared
to 37 minutes in the inter peak
Service 4 to Blackrock running time variations
14
12
10
Running Times
0
Botanic Avenue.
Hart's Corner
Broadstone
Blessington St.
O'Connell Street
Merrion Square
Pembroke Road
Ballymun Road (The
ShoppingCentre
Rd.(Haddington Rd
Northumberland
Rise)
Phibsboro
Avenue)
Ave.)
Stages
0700-0900
0900-1600
1600-1900
Figure 4. 3: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock –journey times during the day
From a passenger information point of view, customer satisfaction and service monitoring viewpoint,
there is a strong case for introducing intermediate timing points along this route. This would allow
greater customisation of bus stop timetable displays for the local market and allow service controllers
to assess late running and regulate accordingly. Bus drivers may be able to regulate their driving to
address potential early running – or in extreme cases to pause until scheduled departure time is
reached. In the UK a monitoring standard of 95% compliance within a range of 1 minute early to 5
minutes late is in place.
Table 4.1 shows the times for a peak and inter peak departure for Route 4 at each of the main stages
along the route using the average morning peak and inter peak running times. We have allowed 5
minutes from Harristown to Ballymun and 10 minutes from Merrion Gates to Blackrock to allow for the
extremes of the route not covered in our analysis. The scheduled return journey is also shown.
On average, the scheduled journey time for 08:00 departure from Harristown is insufficient to ensure
an on time departure for the return leg.
Morning Peak Inter Peak

Average Running Time Average Running Time
Ballymun Road (first stage) 08:05 12:05
Botanic Avenue 08:26 12:19
Phibsboro 08:32 12:25
O'Connell Street 08:52 12:42
Ballsbridge (Anglesea Rd.) 09:04 12:54
Merrion Gates 09:12 13:00
Blackrock 09:22 13:10
Scheduled Return Departure 09:15 13:15
Table 4. 1: Dublin Bus running time analysis – Route 4
Clearly congestion at peak times is an issue. Our analysis indicates that additional time should be
allowed for Route 4 peak journey time. Dublin Bus management state that a new schedule is in
preparation which addresses the running time issue
Reliability of network and services

Dublin Bus collects lost mileage data over 4 week periods. Lost mileage is disaggregated by cause
and by depot. During 2008 Period 7, total mileage lost across the network was 0.5%. This is below
that which is measured in many other cities. Given the reported traffic problems in Dublin, the figure of
0.24% for traffic lost mileage appears very low. Dublin Bus has acknowledged that the mileage
reporting process may not record all lost mileage. Inspectors both on the road and in the garage have
responsibility for reporting lost mileages, but this is not always recorded during busy times.
Item Dublin Bus Period 7, 2008 England Outside London London

All Items 0.5% 0.9% 2.5%
Traffic 0.24% 0.2% 1.7%
Maintenance 0.13% 0.3% 0.3%
Staff 0.04% 0.2% 0.1%
Other 0.06%
Table 4. 2: Causes of lost mileage Dublin Bus, England and London
Source: Dublin Bus, Department of Transport (www.dft.gov.uk)
Monitoring punctuality
Punctuality data was provided by Dublin Bus for January to March 2008. For Harristown, observations
were undertaken for 91 scheduled departures. Of these, observed departures varied from 6 minutes
early to 7 minutes late. Three did not operate at all.
For Donnybrook observations were made of 101 scheduled departures. Of these, observed departures
5
varied from 3 minutes early to 10 minutes late. Nineteen buses did not operate at all.
All observations were conducted at the start of routes, which presents a limited picture of the network,
and the number of observations over the period represent a statistically limited sample. Nevertheless,
the figures show over 10% of buses departing more than two minutes early and the number of buses
from Donnybrook depot which did not operate is high.
Punctuality data is a useful tool for management in determining which routes need bus priority
measures, revised schedules and additional attention from roadside supervisors. However, the
existing location of measurements (at termini) and small sample size means that the resulting data is
of limited use as a management tool. AVL will in due course provide a comprehensive view of
punctuality across the network. In the meantime, an intensification of the manual observations should
be considered.
Bus Éireann
Many of the factors affecting service reliability for Dublin Bus also apply to Bus Éireann.
In some cases lay over time for Bus Éireann services, at the end of each journey is relatively long.
This ensures that in almost all cases the return journey will commence on time. This is especially
important for the customer if the service is an infrequent one. AVL systems, due to be fully
implemented during 2009 will provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across the network. In the
meantime, an intensification of the manual observations should be considered.
The collation of lost mileage data is a valuable management tool providing early warning in terms of:
 Vehicle reliability
 Staff availability
 Traffic delays
 Ensuring that schedules are not over or under-resourced
Bus Éireann issue Road Passenger Operations summaries every 4 weeks. For the study, Bus Éireann
provided summaries from the Southern Region for periods 3, 4 and 6 of 2008. The reports show the
number of trips operated as a percentage and service failures as an absolute number (13:00-15:00
failures per period).
Driver availability is shown to be in the region of 95-98%. Bus Éireann have explained that this is the
number before spare drivers have been allocated or contractors asked to substitute, and therefore the
actual number operated is much higher, although there are no figures to show the level achieved.
Maintenance key performance indicators are centred on vehicle availability. The data for the
availability of vehicles does not take into account the new vehicles being delivered during the relevant
periods
5
Dublin Bus management state that the 19% of services recorded as not operating is due to observations being
taken at a terminus. On the days of observation, some buses were only operating part of the route. These buses
were ―turned back early‖ by inspectors to address late running of buses due to congestion.
Reliability of network and services assessment
Traffic congestion is a significant issue in Dublin city centre and at other ―pinch points‖. Congestion is
also an issue in other cities and towns for Bus Éireann.
We recommend that procedures are put in place to accurately record lost mileage as it can be a useful
management tool to improve reliability for customers.
An AVL system will in due course provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across the network of
both companies.
Pending the rollout of AVL systems, an intensification of manual observations for Dublin Bus services
should be considered.
We recommend the introduction of intermediate running times to help improve reliability.
Bus Éireann‘s current monitoring reports should be restructured to show the number of trips lost for
each depot as a percentage attributable to each category (staff, vehicles, traffic, other) on a consistent
basis.
4.2 Congestion
Congestion directly impacts on the efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in a number of ways:
 Revenue loss
 Buses and drivers that are tied up in congested traffic are producing less revenue.
 Operational issues
 Drivers take longer to complete their duties than scheduled, incurring an overtime expense for
the company.
 Scheduled journey times need to reflect realistic times – congestion introduces variability into
journey times and more recovery time is needed before return journeys can be made. This has
a direct impact on both driver costs and fleet requirement.
 Customer issues
 Where congestion leads to service reliability issues, customer confidence in the service is
eroded, further reducing passenger numbers.
A report, commissioned by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, by BDO Simpson Xavier estimated that
congestion costs each company the following amounts in 2005;
 Dublin Bus: €60m

 Bus Éireann: €20.5m
Dublin congestion
the companies and increases their respective cost bases.
Our analysis identifying journey time variation for various routes operated by Dublin Bus clearly
indicates that congestion is a major issue in Dublin. The congestion in Dublin also impacts on Bus
Éireann commuter services and other services operating to and from Busáras.
The most recent annual Dublin Transportation Office Quality Bus Corridor monitoring report highlights
findings from a monitoring exercise undertaken in November 2007. Findings contained within this
report include:
 A reduction in passenger numbers crossing the canal cordon on QBC corridors of 3.56%
compared to 2006 with a decline in numbers on all corridors except Malahide and
Blanchardstown;
 Passenger numbers travelling on QBC designated routes crossing the canal cordon between 7 –
10am have declined by 5.25% compared to 2006 with small increases on the Lucan and Malahide
QBCs being offset by significant reductions on the north Clondalkin and Swords QBCs;
 Bus average journey times in the morning peak were less than the corresponding car average
journey time in 12 out of the 16 QBCs with significant variations on some;
 Significant journey time improvements were achieved on the Lucan and Malahide QBCs;
 Bus modal share of persons crossing the canal cordon between 7–10am continues to fall in 2007,
having peaked at 34.66% in 2003.
Bus modal share is greatest where QBCs exist, demonstrating the importance of bus priority in
attracting people from their cars.
According to the Company, approximately 80% of the Dublin Bus fleet use radial QBCs to some
degree. Closer to 65% of the Dublin Bus fleet operate along significant sections of QBCs.
QBCs have a bus speed design specification, net of dwell times, of just under 18km per hour. Speeds
significantly below this target were observed on a number of city centre sections of QBC routes
including:
QBC Section Time Average Speed
Blanchardstown Hawkins Street to Merchants Quay PM peak 5.2 km/hr
Rathfarnham Camden Street to Bishop Street AM peak 3.0 km/hr
Stillorgan Parnell Square East to D‘Olier Street PM peak 3.1 km/hr
Tallaght Dame Street to Harcourt Street PM peak 6.8 km/hr
Average Walking Speed 5 km/hr

QBC Minimum Design Speed (net of dwell times) 18 km/hr
Table 4. 3: Selection of bus speeds from DTO QBC Monitoring Report 2007
The majority of QBCs do not achieve the minimum design speed. A bus priority programme has been
agreed between Dublin Bus and Dublin City Council/Quality Bus Network office to address key ―pinch
points‖ where severe bus congestion occurs. During our consultation with the QBN office, a concern
was raised at the slow pace of implementing improvements due to various planning issues and local
objections.
In recent times, Dublin Bus has had considerable discussions with key stakeholders regarding a public
transport gate at Trinity College. This has the potential to deliver a step change in improved reliability
for buses from all corridors across the city. Our analysis supports the introduction of this project.
Bus priority improvements in Dublin will also benefit Bus Éireann commuter services and expressway
services operating from Busáras. QBN projects extend beyond Dublin to surrounding counties and
benefit Bus Éireann services. For example, bus priority measures have recently been introduced in
Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath. ‗Green Routes‘ have been introduced in Cork and plans are in place for
bus priority measures in a number of other cities around the country.
Higher average operating speeds will reduce costs for the companies but also ensure more consistent
and faster journey times for passengers thereby increasing the attractiveness of the bus relative to
other modes of travel. Any acceleration to existing bus priority programmes would bring benefits to
both passengers and operators.
In addition to bus lanes, further priority measures are planned. These include linking AVL information
to the traffic light management system (SCATS) in Dublin to provide further priority to buses. This
should help improve reliability of bus journey times. We understand from our consultations with the
DTO that their research indicates that the time spent by buses stopped at traffic signals can form a
significant portion of overall journey times.
By way of example, we set out below a range of options Dublin Bus can use to ensure the impact of
congestion is minimised.
Option A: Intermediate running times

 As discussed in Section 4.1.
Option B: Match schedule to running time as far as possible:
 Our scheduling analysis shows that in some instances scheduled journey times vary very little
throughout the day. Ticketing analysis indicates that journey times in general do improve during
the interpeak period. Specific analysis for Route 4 is contained in Section 4.1.
Option C: Even, frequent headways
 Currently, the majority of routes operated by Dublin Bus are not timetabled to have a consistent
headway between services. Consistent and frequent headways can minimise the impact for
customers of instances where congestion results in journey times being greater than scheduled.
Rather than a bus operating every 10 minutes, inspectors can take action to ensure that services
are operated, for example, every 12 minutes thereby minimizing the impact for the customer.
Where departures are irregular, this approach is not possible.
Option D: Use of technology
 The introduction of AVL will assist the company in both assessing the reasonableness of the
current scheduled journey times for services as well as help manage services on days where
unanticipated congestion occurs. AVL will also facilitate linkage to traffic light management
systems (SCATS). RTPI by displaying expected arrival times of services, inform passengers of
delays caused by congestion.
Option E: Avoid congestion
 O‘Connell Street is one of the most congested points on the Dublin Bus network. All cross city
services operated by Dublin Bus currently use O‘Connell Bridge. The Company believe this is
essential as they believe the majority of customers wish to travel to O‘Connell Street or its
surrounds. However, in light of the significant congestion in the area, we believe Dublin Bus
should explore, at least on a pilot basis, using other routes as a basis to cross the city.
 Supply side measures, as set out in this report, will not of themselves move sufficient passengers
out of cars and on to public transport to maximise revenues and minimise required PSO for the
bus service. Currently Dublin City Council are proposing a number of demand management
measures including increasing parking charges in the city centre and closing or re-routing a
significant number of roads pre and post the construction of Transport 21 projects.
We recommend that all demand management options, including road user pricing and congestion
charging, should be evaluated in detail. A study should be carried out to assess the feasibility of
introducing additional demand management measures opt drive a major shift from car passenger
journeys to the bus and other public transport. An additional benefit of reducing car passenger
journeys is that it will further reduce congestion thus speeding up the bus service and making it even
more attractive. The combination of extra passenger revenue, efficiency gains due to reduced
congestion and potentially allocation or some or all of the revenues raised through road user charging,
offers an opportunity to make a significant effort to solve the projected financial objects of Dublin Bus
while enhancing rather than curtailing services.
London congestion charge

London‘s congestion charging scheme was introduced in February 2002 to a 21 square kilometre area
in the centre, representing 1.3% of the city‘s total 1579 square kilometres. There was no charge to
travel along the main ring road bordering the zone, but any vehicles entering or moving within the
zone were required to pay a charge of £5, later increased to £8. No charge is made during the
weekend, public holidays or other non-charging days such as between Christmas and New Year.
Certain low emission vehicles are exempt, as are buses and taxis.
Immediately following the introduction of the congestion charge, congestion decreased by 30% within
the charging zone. Bus journey times and the variability of journey times reduced.
Around a fifth of London's bus journeys pass through the charging zone. Reliability of services,
measured by excess wait time, across London showed an improvement of 20% in the first year after
the congestion charge was introduced. Delays caused by traffic congestion fell by 40% across
London, by 60% within the charging area, and by 50% along the boundary
Congestion assessment
both companies and increases their respective cost bases.
We support the acceleration of existing bus priority programmes and demand management schemes
such as bus gates increased parking charges and integration of AVL to Dublin traffic light
management systems (SCATS). We support the bus gate proposal for College Green.
We recommend a study be carried out to test the feasibility of all possible demand management
options including road user pricing and congestion charging.
4.3 Ticketing and fare structure
Dublin Bus
The standard cash fares for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are currently approved by the Minister for
Transport. Prepaid ticket prices do not require ministerial approval. An indirect result is that discounts
for prepaid tickets relative to cash tickets are less than discounts found in the UK and elsewhere in
Europe. As a result cash paying passengers make up the majority of fares for Dublin Bus. This
results in higher cash handling costs for the bus companies and increased dwell times at bus stops.
Analysis of existing Dublin Bus cash and period fares

The Dublin Bus main adult ticket structure is summarised in Table 4.4. Period tickets offer reasonable
value with a weekly ticket at 3.8x the day ticket (and 3 day ticket at less than twice the day ticket).
However when period tickets are compared to cash/single journey tickets the value is less clear.
Users need to make at least 12 journeys per week before their tickets become good value. Therefore
for commuters paying even the top fare, 10 €2 tickets represents a €20 weekly travel cost, and the
value of paying €23 for optional unlimited travel is questionable. This is more severe for cheaper single
tickets.
Stages Single Day 3 Day 7 Day

1-3 €1.05 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00
4-7 €1.50 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00
8-13 €1.70 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00
14-23 €2.00 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00
Ratio to Single
1-3 5.7 11.0 21.9
4-7 4.0 7.7 15.3
8-13 3.5 6.8 13.5
14-23 3.0 5.8 11.5
Table 4. 4: 2008 Fare structure (main adult tickets)
Examples of on and off bus ticket purchases

Transport for London has a two tier fare as part of its strategy to minimise on bus ticket sales. Single
fares are priced at £2.00, with a discount to £0.90 for ‗Oyster‘ smart card users. A £3.50 day bus pass
(£3.00 with Oyster), with £13 weekly, £50 monthly and £520 annual tickets are also available. Multi
modal travelcards are also available.
STIB in Brussels charges €2.00 for on vehicle issued single tickets and €1.70 from machines, or €1.60
for smartcards. One day tickets are €4.50 (machine) or €4.20 (smartcard).
In Dublin it is not possible for cash paying passengers to purchase a ticket for a full journey, where a
change of bus is required.
Use of period tickets

Table 4.5 shows the changes in ticket use in England reported by the Department for Transport (UK).
This shows how the bus operators have developed their period ticket ranges to increase share of use
at a time when concessionary use has increased dramatically due to the expansion of free travel. In
London the transformation has been more radical with 44% of journeys now made using Smartcards
and only 5% of users paying cash fares. Period tickets encourage multiple trip making, capture
revenue early and engender loyalty from passengers.
Metropolitan Cities London All England
2000/1 2007/8 2000/1 2007/8 2000/1 2007/8
Cash Fare on Bus 38% 29% 28% 5% 42% 20%
Day Ticket 8% 10% 5% 5% 5% 7%
Period Ticket 16% 20% 27% 20% 18% 18%
Student etc 3% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1%
Mutli Modal Period 6% 4% 19% 14% 10% 8%
Concession 29% 32% 14% 13% 21% 25%
Other inc Smartcard 1% 3% 7% 44% 3% 21%
Table 4. 5: Changes in ticket use – England 2000/1 to 2007/8
In Brussels, STIB reports that 66% passenger journeys are made on ―general subscription‖ tickets,
which represents their various pre-paid ranges. 5% of journeys use 1 trip tickets. STIB‘s peak hour
bus speeds are 15.5km/h which is quite poor, but better than Dublin Bus, partially reflecting the
reduced boarding times that off bus ticketing provides.
In Zurich tickets are sold on a time basis with a one hour ticket at 3.90CHF (approximately €2.50) and
24 hour ticket at twice that (7.80CHF). Longer periods are also available and, unusually are sold on a
‗person day‘ basis. For example two passengers wishing to buy a three day ticket each, would be
offered a six day ticket to share, cancelling two portions each day.
Dublin Bus has advised us that they aim to simplify their fare structure to further reduce the number of
single fares available.
Changes to fare structures have potential risks, given the price sensitivity in the market place. Shorter
distance fares are more elastic than mid distance fares reflecting the feasibility of walking and cycling
as alternatives. Long distance fares are also more elastic, perhaps reflecting higher feasibility of
alternatives such as rail or additional cars.
Bus Éireann ticketing

Bus Éireann has a number of different ticket types:
 Conventional single fares but including discounted single fares for multi leg journeys.
 Returns – including midweek discounted returns, day returns and period returns.
 Student discounted singles and returns.
 Weekly 10 journey tickets – a discount on 10 singles but must be used within one week.
 Tourist based unlimited travel tickets.
Whilst the ten journey ticket is relevant for commuter services, elsewhere there may be passengers
who wish to make the same regular journey. There could be merit in considering a simple unlimited
weekly or monthly ticket, especially in provincial cities.
The major UK bus operators have developed day, week and month tickets effectively, and similar
versions are available elsewhere in Europe. Table 4.6 shows the transformation in ticket type uses in
the English Shire counties. This is all of England except for London and the metropolitan
6
conurbations . Free concessionary travel has increased journeys amongst OAPs, but day and period
tickets have increased their market share from 13% to 23%.
6
Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne & Wear, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, West Midlands
2000/1 2007/8 Notes
Cash Fare on Bus 60% 35% Some transfer to free concessions
Day Ticket 4% 8%
Period Ticket 9% 15%
Student etc 2% 1%
Multi Modal Period 3% 2%
Concession 19% 36% Introduction of free concessions
Other inc Smartcard 1% 2%
Table 4. 6: Share of passenger journeys by ticket type – English „Shire‟ Areas
Tickets have often been priced to attract optional travel. For example you may be able to make two
journeys for €3.50 (€1.75 single x 2) but a day ticket could cost €3.80 giving unlimited additional
journeys for just €0.30.
We recommend that fare levels should be set with a clear understanding of the impact of changing
one type on the usage of another. For example, if singles rose by 5% and periods by 10%, then the
former will become better value and some passengers will switch to them. The phased introduction of
smart cards in 2009 and some integrated fares on Dublin Bus provides the opportunity to review fare
structures. The bus companies and the Department of Transport should work together to;
 Increase the price differential between single and period tickets.

 Maximise usage of unlimited travel period tickets, rather than single or ten journey tickets to
encourage additional, optional travel.
The correct situation, whereby only the cash fare is regulation, should be changed. Either cash fares
and prepaid fares should both be regulated or they shall both be deregulated to facilitate the above
moves.
Dwell times
The DTO QBC Monitoring Report for 2007 measured boarding and alighting time as a percentage of
total journey time. On corridors where services benefited from significant bus priority, boarding and
alighting time was a significant portion of overall journey time.
 Malahide Road am peak: 22%

 Stillorgan QBC am peak: 21%
 Finglas QBC am peak: 19%
The issue of dwell times becomes material when bus speeds exceed a certain level. As additional bus
priority measures are implemented, measures should also be put in place to tackle the issue of dwell
times.
Overall dwell times in Dublin are higher as a result of the predominance of cash fares due to longer
transaction times for cash paying passengers, even though the exact fare system operated by Dublin
Bus‘ reduces individual transaction times compared to change giving systems. The higher proportion
of cash paying passengers compared to the UK and elsewhere in Europe offsets this, however, and a
strategy to migrate users to prepaid tickets is desirable.
 Typical time to complete cash transaction in the UK (with change facility): 7 seconds.
 Typical time to complete cash transaction on Dublin Bus (from ticket data analysis): 4 seconds.
 Typical time to complete prepay ticket transactions on Dublin Bus (from ticket data analysis): 2
seconds.
Dwell times could be reduced, particularly in city centre locations, by:
 reducing on cash fares versus prepaid fares;

 introducing on-street ticket sale machines; and
 re-examining the use of entry and exit doors is single door only on certain routes.
In London, on board cash fare purchases make up less than 5% of all transactions.
Kerbside ticketing machines

In order to reduce bus stop dwell times and improve overall journey speeds, TfL banned on-bus cash
sales from 2003 in London's West End and along all corridors where articulated buses replaced
double deck vehicles.
Kerbside ticket vending machines were installed at at every stop affected. The tickets sell adult and
child single tickets and one day bus passes.
The Fastrack bus system in Kent Thameside, operates a route with kerbside vending machines at
every stop.
In a number of towns and cities in mainland Europe, it is quite common for passengers to be unable to
buy tickets on the bus. However, since such schemes operate citywide, passengers are familiar with
the need to buy their tickets in advance and therefore kerbside vending machines tend to be available
only at the busiest stops.
While the issue of dwell times is of particular relevance for city operations, it is less material for coach
operations. However, the move away from cash transactions even on coach services can engender
customer loyalty and reduce cash handling costs. Bus Éireann currently offer a 10% discount to
customers purchasing their expressway and stage carriage tickets on line.
Ticketing and fare structure assessment

Single ticket, on board, cash sales are high when compared to other countries.
We recommend a progressive refocusing of the fare structure, to transfer people onto pre-paid or
longer duration tickets. A full smart card integrated ticketing system, with electronic purse capability,
will significantly assist in implementing such a move.
The current situation whereby only the cash fare is regulated should be changed.
4.4 Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are currently rolling out an AVL control system (AVL). The rollout is
planned to be completed in mid 2009 for Bus Éireann and mid 2010 for Dublin Bus. The system will
provide a facility to locate every bus in the fleet in real time. The AVL system provides the platform on
which a RTPI system can be implemented. This will enable route controllers to more efficiently
manage the service, respond to service interruptions, plan journey times and respond more effectively
to traffic congestion. Such systems are now common place in the bus industry.
RTPI can provide up-to-date information to customers on actual bus arrival and departure times. This
information can be made available on electronic displays at bus stops, in addition to mobile phone and
other mobile devices and on the internet. We believe that RTPI is an important feature of a customer
orientated bus service. For a relatively small capital investment, significant improvements can be
made to the customer experience. We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any
regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date.
Bus Éireann already offers RTPI solutions to customers through SMS texting and on the internet. In
2009, Bus Éireann will undertake a pilot electronic display RTPI project across the Gateway cities in
conjunction with the roll out of its AVL system.
Dublin Bus do not currently offer RTPI information for their services. The RTPI project is estimated to
cost Dublin Bus in the region of €5.4m with an additional cost of approximately €3m for Dublin City
Council for the associated infrastructure (poles, connection to fibre optic cables, electricity etc.).
While funding for the project is available under Transport 21, we understand regulatory obstacles have
delayed the rollout of RTPI. We understand Dublin City Council is in discussions with Department of
Transport to resolve the regulatory issues. These issues need to be resolved as a matter or urgency.
RTPI assessment
We believe that RTPI is an essential feature of a customer orientated bus service.
For a relatively small capital investment, very significant improvements can be made to the customer
experience.
We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an
early date.
4.5 Capacity and operating hours
We were asked to examine service variations during weekdays and weekends and the extent of peak
and off peak provision. The table below shows the level of services currently during the week:
Dublin Bus
Dublin Bus Services Buses deployed Relative to weekday inter peak
Weekday morning peak services 1032 133%
Weekday inter peak 774 100%
Saturday services 690 89%
Sunday services 472 61%
Table 4. 7: Dublin Bus deployment
Dublin Bus has over 250 vehicles dedicated to peak service provision. While some of these could be
used to provide additional off peak services, the cost of this is material.
When benchmarked against other operators, the level of Saturday and Sunday provision is broadly
comparable.
Saturday provision is consistent with most other operations at 89% of the off peak weekday level. On
Sundays there appears a greater level of service provision than in the UK market. However this
reflects significant differences in the markets. Traditionally Sunday trading was banned in England and
Wales (but not Scotland) and although introduced some years ago is generally restricted to six hours
per day for major shops.
An appraisal of passenger data shows average loadings per bus on a Saturday to be 95% of weekday
off peak and Sunday to be 90%. Allowing for the impacts of a lower frequency on passenger numbers
this suggests that the comparative service levels are broadly appropriate.
Figure 4.5 shows this as an index of the peak hour (08:00-08:59=100). This shows that mid-morning
passenger levels drop to 40% of the peak hour and this grows to 50% by early afternoon but the
afternoon peak is less severe but longer.
Unlike trams and trains where the asset cost is high, on a bus network our experience shows that
7
operating a bus throughout the day is around 55-60% higher than peak hour only operation. As
shown in the graphs, demand is much lower off peak (40-50% of peak patronage from c70% of
supply). This is not an easy market to grow, especially when cost economies are required.
7
For this purpose we assumed daytime operation = 12 hours, peak only operation = 6 hours. Evening operation
has been excluded from the estimate.
Passenger Demand
12,000
10,000
8,000
Passengers
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour
Donnybrook
Harristown
Figure 4. 4: Passenger demand
Passenger Index
120
100
80
Passenger Index (0800=100)
60
40
20
0
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour
Donnybrook
Harristown
Figure 4. 5: Dublin Bus passenger index
Table 4.8 shows how the issue of capacity varies across the network. This estimates the average load
on each route at its busiest point – and does not present the total passengers. To calculate this we
have identified where the busiest point is using the ticket machine data to model passenger boarding
and alighting patterns. We then calculate what the total passengers on board at this point as a
percentage of the total passengers for the route. This percentage is then applied to the passengers by
hour to derive the peak and off peak average load.
Dublin Bus has advised that they apply a 8% uplift to the recorded ticket machine passenger numbers
to address problems with occasional non-recording of zero fare journeys by drivers. We have therefore
applied a similar factor to the raw data in order to produce the figures in the above table.
Average passengers per bus at busiest point
Morning peak inbound Inter peak inbound Afternoon peak outbound

4/4A 64 55 72
7 98 76 85
11/11B 69 35 60
13/13A 69 56 70
14/A 70 72 75
17A 75 51 66
18 53 39 52
27B 60 57 77
40 Group 72 35 51
45 64 44 59
46A 82 71 76
83 43 52 40
128 84 49 83
140 66 29 66
145 87 66 93
Table 4. 8: Loading analysis – Sample services
Bus capacity for the above routes is as follows:
 Articulated buses (Route 4/a): 52 sitting, 93 standing, 145 total.

 Tri Axle buses (Route 46A): 91 sitting, 32 standing, 123 total.
 Standard double deck buses (other routes): 76 sitting, 15 standing, 91 total.
The morning peak hour analysed represents 08:00 to 09:00 which, as shown elsewhere, has the
highest passenger numbers of any hour during the day. Even within this there are peaks, seasonal
variation and day to day variation which could result in significant capacity issues given how close the
average is to the seated capacity in some cases and that four routes are commonly overloaded.
There is significant spare capacity on certain routes especially in the inter peak, such as the 40 group
of services.
Bus Éireann Averag e Daily flow of B us E ireann P as s eng ers by C ity S ervic es and T ime of Day, 2007
12.0
10.0
8.0
% of Daily F low
6.0
C ork
G alway
L imerick
Waterford
4.0
2.0
0.0
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
T ime of Day
Figure 4. 6: Bus Éireann analysis showing average daily passenger flows for city operations
Source: Bus Éireann
City Services (excl. rural) Buses deployed Relative to weekday inter peak
Weekday morning peak services 58 104%
Weekday inter peak 56 100%
Saturday services 49 88%
Sunday services 32 57%
Table 4. 9: Bus Éireann analysis showing average daily passenger flows for city operations
Source: Bus Éireann
Figure 4.6 and Table 4.9 indicate that passenger flows and resource deployment for the city
operations of Bus Éireann have similar features to that of Dublin Bus.
Bus Éireann operate stage carriage and inter city services in a manner designed to ensure
passengers are not left behind due to the bus being full. Typically, this is managed in one of two
ways;
 Where demand for a particular scheduled departure regularly exceeds the capacity of a single
vehicle, more than one bus is allocated to the service (e.g. certain peak commuter services)
 Where demand for a particular scheduled departure exceeds the capacity of a single vehicle on
particular days or occasions, more than one bus is allocated to the service. This is usually
sourced from sub contractors (e.g. Friday evening intercity services)
With regard to the first scenario, demand could be met in some cases by the use of larger vehicles,
thereby reducing the number of drivers required. Bus Éireann have recently entered a number of
double deck tri-axle coaches into service along a number of commuter routes into Dublin. Bus
Éireann have highlighted a concern that currently double deck buses and coaches are subject to a
speed restriction which significantly restricts the efficient operation of such vehicles. Given the recent
increase in the number of double deck coaches operated by the company, we recommended that a
decision on the issue of speed restrictions is made at the earliest opportunity.
Operating hours
Dublin Bus has introduced a number of earlier departures on certain routes in recent years. The latest
departure from the city centre for any regular bus service is 23:30. The time of the last departure has
not changed for a significant period of time.
The current operating hours for Luas indicates potential demand for bus services with longer operating
hours.
Service Route 46A LUAS (green)

First Service to city (mon - fri) 06:25 05:30
Last Service from city (mon - sat) 23:30 00:30
First Service to city (Sat) 07:00 06:15
First Service (Sun) 09:30 06:45
Table 4. 10: Operating hours
It should be noted that extending existing operating hours is likely to lead to a net increase in costs as
passenger numbers may not cover the entire cost of operating the additional services. However,
without an extension in operating hours, a significant difference in service levels will continue to exist
between Luas and bus operations.
Nitelink, an outbound only express late night service from the city centre along key corridors with
limited pick up points, is operated 6 nights a week by Dublin Bus. Passenger numbers have fallen in
recent years. Management attribute this to the increase in the numbers of licensed taxis.
Bus Éireann have recently introduced 24 hour operations on a number of inter city services. For
example, there are now hourly services between Belfast and Dublin 24 hours a day, 7 day a week.
The Eastern Region Development Plan including plans for many 20 hour a day services, subject to
funding. Like Dublin Bus, the operating hours for city services have not changed significantly in recent
times.
Capacity and operating hours assessment

Current levels of peak provision of services at Dublin Bus are warranted, although some routes have
relatively low average loadings even at peak hours. When benchmarked against other operators, the
level of Saturday and Sunday provision is broadly comparable.
The introduction of larger Bus Éireann vehicles on certain routes may reduce the need to have
additional buses operating certain services to meet demand.
Bus Éireann have recently introduced 24 hour services on certain intercity routes. The majority of
other services operated by both companies cease at c.23:30. The daily operational hours for Luas are
longer. There is a case for taking a more integrated approach to the hours of operations of public
transport services in the Greater Dublin Area, though there are cost implications for extending hours of
operation of bus services.
4.6 Fleet acquisition and replacement
Replacement bus programme

In recent years a rolling replacement bus programme has been in place at both companies. The
buses are part funded by the Exchequer. Maintaining a low fleet age has a number of advantages:
 Environment – newer engines generally more efficient.

 Accessibility – wheelchair accessible target for entire fleet by 2012 dependent on maintaining
programme.
 Maintenance – lower age of fleet equates to lower cost of maintenance per kilometre.
 Reliability for customer – less breakdowns.
 Attractiveness for customer – easier to attract new customers onto modern fleet.
 Consistency – large, irregular orders of new buses perpetuates the difficulty of dealing with a large
number of buses reaching retiring age all at once.
Figure 4. 7: Dublin Bus average age of fleet
Fleet expansion
A number of factors indicate that fleet expansion is not an immediate issue for either company;
 Falling passenger numbers

 Rationalisation plans to address forecast losses
 Capacity increases in existing fleet, particularly in the case of Dublin Bus.
Our analysis shows that the current fleet size is adequate to service current demand. We favour
optimising the existing network and extracting full value from the existing fleet before considering
future fleet expansion. The need for fleet expansion should be reviewed in the future in light of
changing external circumstances and internal improvements in efficiency. Examples of external
factors are:
 The traffic management plan for Transport 21 city centre Metro and Luas construction may require
significant increase in bus modal share.
 Traffic or demand management plans introduced may offer a ‗step change‘ in bus priority thus
increasing demand (e.g. bus gate at College Green or introduction of road user charging).
 Sustainability agenda requiring significant modal shift.
Fleet acquisition - Deployment
The Department of Transport issued approval for the purchase of 100 additional buses for Dublin Bus
in September 2006. The buses were delivered between September and December 2006. The new
buses were deployed over an extended period of time. Of these 100 additional buses, 18 have yet to
be used for fleet expansion. Table 4.11 sets out the deployment of the first 82 vehicles. The
remaining vehicles entered service in recent months but have been used to replace older buses rather
than expand the fleet.
Since December 2006, Dublin Bus has introduced 82 buses to the following areas:
PVR
rd
A 3 December 2006, Ellensboro Tallaght 2
rd
B 3 December 2006, Finglas 2
th
C 10 December 2006, R145, Bray, North Wicklow 9
th
D 4 March 2007, R151, South Clondalkkin QBC 14
E 22nd May 2007, Malahide to Rathmines 3
nd
F 22 May 2007, Knocklyon 6
G 29th July 2007, Ballymun/Merrion QBC 7
H 30th September 2007, Ballycullen/Knocklyon 2
I 19th November 2007, Part 2 Merrion (R4A) 1
J 19th November 2007, Clongriffin R128 15
K 29th November 2007, Finglas (pre 140 service) 4
th
L 10 February 2008 Finglas R140 (remainder) 8
73 = 82 fleet
Table 4. 11: Deployment of fleet delivered in autumn 2006
The company explained that the staggered deployment of the 100 additional buses was due to the
requirement to hire and train new drivers and maintenance staff combined with gaining licences for the
additional services which they were to operate.
The 100 additional buses cost in the region of €30m. Given the substantial capital cost involved in
acquiring new vehicles, a programme should be in place in advance of the delivery of such vehicles to
ensure the valuable new assets are deployed as soon as possible.
Fleet acquisition and replacement assessment

A number of factors indicate that fleet expansion is not an immediate issue for either company:
 Falling passenger numbers

 Rationalisation plans to address forecast losses
 Capacity increases in existing fleet, particularly in the case of Dublin Bus.
Fleet replacement on a rolling basis can be justified in terms of maintaining the current average age of
the fleet with consequential advantages for the environment, maintenance, reliability, and passenger
comfort.
4.7 Licensing
While the review of current licensing arrangements is not specifically part of our Terms of Reference, it
is highlighted due to the fact that both companies cite this area as a significant restriction of their
efficient operation. We understand that the recently passed Dublin Transport Authority 2008 and a
planned revision to the 1932 Act are seen as a means to create a more coherent approach to
licensing.
The issue of licensing and the apparent restriction the current regime places on developing a coherent
network has been raised by a number of stakeholders, in addition to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. In
areas where a private operator has a licence, changes and enhancement to services operated by
Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann can be restricted.
The Road Transport Act, 1932, as amended, is the primary legislation governing the provision of
national passenger services by private bus operators. Section 7 of the Act prohibits the operation of
passenger road services except under licence granted by the Minister for Transport.
Under the Transport Act, 1958, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are exempt from the requirement to hold
Passenger Road Licences, but the companies may not, without the consent of the Minister, initiate or
alter any passenger road services so as to compete with a licensed private service.
Section 25 of the 1958 Act restricts the initiation and alteration of passenger road services.
Subsections read as follows;
(1) The Board shall not, without the consent of the Minister, initiate any passenger road service or alter
any passenger road service for the time being operated by it so as to compete with a licensed
passenger road service.
(2) If any question arises whether any existing or proposed service or alteration does or would so
compete the question shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final.
(3) The Board shall comply with such directions as may be given to it by the Minister for the purposes
of this section.
Since 2001, the Department has implemented notification procedures in respect of the introduction of
new or revised services by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The procedures are designed to ensure that
the companies do not announce or introduce services that may serve to pre-empt the introduction of
licensed services by private operators or prior applications by private operators. The procedures are
also designed to ensure fair treatment for the companies, enabling them to introduce new or revised
services in an orderly and speedy fashion and provide a mechanism to enable them to comply with
their obligations under the Transport Act.
The companies are required to notify the Department of proposed changes to existing services at least
four weeks prior to their introduction and proposals to introduce new services to existing services.
Where proposed new services, or changes to existing services, made by Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann
could potentially give rise to competition with an existing licensed service provided by a private bus
operator, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are required to obtain the consent of the Minister under section
25 of the Transport Act 1958.
In cases where Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann propose introducing new or amended service on a route
which overlaps with a proposed private sector service, as set out in a licence application,
consideration of such a Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann proposal deferred pending the finalisation of private
operators application. The Department deals with applications from both State and private operators
for services on a specific route on a first-come first-served basis.
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann concerns regarding current licensing regime
Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann believe the current approach to licensing restricts their ability to operate
in an efficient manner.
Both companies cite examples of where they believe Private Operators have been permitted to ―cherry
pick‖ profitable routes which hinder their ability to provide a comprehensive, integrated network of
services. Bus Éireann also cite instances where intercity licences have been granted for services at
times close to similar scheduled services of Bus Éireann. Bus Éireann state that in some instances,
where their applications are given partial clearance, the overall proposal becomes unviable. By way of
example, Bus Éireann cite a submission for an efficient clockface application for a new amended
service, but the partial clearance prevents a cost effective return journey.
Dublin Bus believes the difficulties in the licensing area have arisen because of a lack of a precise
definition of ―competition‖ in the 1950 Act and that the Department have interpreted ―competition‖
narrowly – that it exists where services may compete ―in any way‖ with a licensed private service
rather than taking a broader view concerning themselves with cases where there is potential for
competition to exist in a ―significant way‖.
Where the Department ejects a proposal to note a new or amended Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann
service, on the grounds of potential competition with a licensed operator, Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann
may apply for Ministerial approval to note the service. Section 25 of the 1958 Transport Act permits
the authorisation of such potentially competing services, if approved by the Minister. Bus Éireann have
sought such approval in a small number of cases.
The Department state that they administer the Road Transport Act 1932 and the Transport Act 1958 in
a manner that is fair to both the State Companies and private operators. However the Department
acknowledges that there is a need to replace the existing legislation with a modern system of licensing
that provides for a level playing field and facilitates the optimum provision of public bus services. The
Department state that the examination of applications for licences is centred on the issue of demand.
Where the Department determines that existing services are not meeting demand, irrespective of
whether they are being provided by the State Companies or not, the Department will grant a licence.
Blanchardstown example
Dublin Bus has highlighted current difficulties in reorganising their services in the Blanchardstown area
due to the existence of a licensed service. In this case, the private licence is in place primarily to
serve traffic between Blanchardstown and the Airport. The Dublin Bus network in Blanchardstown is
primarily a radial set of services to the city centre.
We have reviewed correspondence between Dublin Bus and the Department of Transport in this case.
We suggest that to assist the assessment process, Dublin Bus should supply detailed analysis
supporting their changes dealing with a range of issues from customer service, including demand
analysis, to cost and network efficiency. In the event that the existence of a licensed service prevents
the complete redesign of the network as proposed by Dublin Bus, alternatives should be developed to
achieve what improvements are possible.
Licensing assessment
The current licensing regime is characterised by an approach that is reactive rather than proactive.
The licensing regime is for commercial bus operations – it is matter for bus operators to determine
whether or not the introduction of a particular bus service will be commercial.
However, such licences do impact directly and indirectly on the PSO networks operated by Dublin bus
and Bus Éireann.
The current licensing regime will be replaced in the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill. The
establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority is expected to improve matters in the Greater Dublin
Area through a more coordinated approach to procuring public transport services.
5. Recommendations
Our report recommends a series of measures primarily aimed at creating a more effective and
appropriate bus network for Dublin combined with a range of operational improvements for both Dublin
and Provincial services. Our proposed measures build on the considerable investments made to date
in bus fleets and related infrastructure and take into account the deteriorating financial position of both
companies.
Both companies are currently implementing cost reduction programmes. We set out below additional
comments and recommendations.
5.1 Dublin Bus recommendations

There is a clear opportunity to create a simplified bus network and schedule which is more reliable,
easier for customers to understand and more cost effective to operate.
We recommend the development of a simpler and more efficient network with the following key
principles:
 Redesign network based on most recent pattern of demand/demographics.

 Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
 Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.
 Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to improve
reliability and reduce the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.
 Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail
centres.
 Achieve enhanced Value for Money from service provision.
We recommend a number of actions to improve scheduling efficiency and effectiveness:
 Redeploy ―Peak only‖ buses from Harristown (in context of network redesign.
 Introduce intermediate timing points along routes.
 Eliminate ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.
 Eliminate routes operating to garages with no apparent customer demand.
The above programme of work represents fundamental change for the company. It should be treated
as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be
required if this programme is to be successful.
These changes need to be made in a coordinated way and with the needs of the customer at the
centre. It is an integrated set of recommendations. An ad hoc approach to picking certain elements
and ignoring others is likely to be less successful.
Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Dublin Bus is progressing with cost
reduction initiatives. Our detailed analysis of the Finglas Corridor indicates that significant cost
savings can be achieved following a strategic redesign of services across the whole network that
enhances services for the majority of customers. It will take longer, and require modest investment to
make such strategic changes, but in the long term these will yield better results and ultimately
strengthen the financial state of the company.
We are of the view that a through review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors be
5.2 Bus Éireann recommendations
The scope for significant cost savings in Bus Éireann is limited as the current network design and
schedules are largely efficient.
Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Bus Éireann is also progressing with a
cost reduction programme. It is likely that some service reduction will be required to return the
company to financial stability. Any service rationalisation should be carefully planned to ensure the
entire integrated network is not undermined.
5.3 General recommendations

In addition to the specific comments set out above, we recommend the following:
Congestion
We recommend the acceleration of existing bus priority programmes, elimination of ―pinch points‖ and
integration of AVL with Dublin‘s Traffic Management System. We support the introduction of the bus
gate proposals at College Green. In addition we recommend that a study be carried out to assess the
feasibility of all demand management schemes such as bus gates, increased parking charges and
road user pricing to identify the best way to reduce congestion and increase the efficiency of bus
transportation.
Ticketing
We recommend an increased move to cashless transactions. This requires a progressive refocusing
of the fare structure which aims to increase single fares at a higher rate than pre-paid tickets, making
the latter more attractive to users. This will reduce boarding times and engender loyalty to public
transport amongst users. This may require full regulation or full deregulation of fares. The current
situation whereby only cash fares are regulated shall be changed. A full smart card integrated
ticketing system, with electronic purse capability, will significantly assist in implementing such a move.
Incentives should be in place to encourage the move away from cash fares. The introduction of ‗on
street‘ ticket vending machines at key locations, similar to Luas stops, will further reduce bus dwell
times.
Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

We believe that RTPI is an essential feature of a customer orientated bus service. For a relatively
small capital investment, very significant improvements can be made to the customer experience. We
recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early
date
Licensing
The recently passed Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 and a the proposed National Transport
Authority Bill are a means to modernise the regime governing the regulation of the bus market through
introducing public service contracts for PSO market and a more coherent approach to licensing.
PSO objectives
All parties will benefit from greater clarity around the policy and objectives of PSO payments. We
understand that greater clarity will be achieved through the provisions of the Dublin Transport
Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract regime.
Fleet acquisition
We recommend the retention of the fleet replacement programme at both companies to maintain the
current average age of the fleet with consequential advantages for the environment, maintenance,
reliability, and passenger comfort.
All of our recommendations should be relatively inexpensive to implement as we do not call for major
new capital investments. Rather we are recommending redesign work to optimise the use of major
investments already made. We set out details of how our recommendations could be implemented
below.
5.4 Action plan

The following key enablers are currently underway and should continue to be prioritised by the
responsible agencies:
General action points for bus companies and Responsible Suggested due
stakeholders date
Quality Bus Corridors: Rollout of new schemes QBN Project Office (Dublin Ongoing
and measures to address pinch points agreed City Council)
between bus companies, local authorities and
quality bus network office.
Automatic Vehicle Location Systems Bus Éireann and BAC 2009 Bus Éireann
and 2010 Dublin
Bus
AVL integration with traffic management (light Dublin City Council 2010
SCATS) to deliver bus priority.
Demand Management / Feasibility study Department of Transport 2009
Cashless transactions and Integrated ticketing: RPA / Integrated Ticketing 2010

Smart card integrated ticketing system, with Board
electronic purse capability.
Establish Dublin Transport Authority: Act passed Department of Transport 2009

in 2008 to set up Authority responsible for surface
transport in Greater Dublin Area including the
procurement of public transport infrastructure and
services.
Fast track Real Time Passenger Information Department of Transport 2009

(RTPI)
Reform current licensing regime and regulation of Department of Transport 2009

fares
Give greater clarity around objectives behind PSO Department of Transport 2009
payments
The following are action points for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann
Specific action points for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to progress Suggested due
date
Cost Reduction Programmes Immediate
Dublin Bus Jun 2009

 Corridor Redesign - Pilot
 Network Redesign – Entire network Jun 2009 – Dec
2010
Bus Éireann Jun 2009

 Detailed cost benefit analysis of services along each corridor
 Consider alternative options as part of rationalisation process, including Jun 2009
 Explore greater use of subcontracting
 Explore synergies with RTP and HSE
Implement Changes Jun 2009 – Dec
2010
Dublin Bus
The implementation of a full redesign of the Dublin Bus network will be a complex and challenging task
which will involve many stakeholders – customers, staff, local authorities, key public agencies and
private sector organisations.
Below we set out some key guidelines:
 Obtain strong commitment from government and company management.

 Develop a comprehensive list of stakeholders; assess their specific needs, issues and concerns.
 Communicate appropriately, frequently and with accountability.
 Allocate sufficient expertise and resources to do the work properly.
 Establish and maintain a process by which change can be implemented.
 Assess risk and mitigate appropriately.
We recommend that these changes be approached as a strategic programme of work and that
suitable leadership, expertise and resources be assembled from the start.
Rollout of actual changes can be approached on a phased or incremental basis. This has the benefits
of allowing the new design principles to be tried out on a pilot basis first so that customer reaction can
be gauged and built into subsequent rollouts. We suggest the following phases:
 Phase 1: Assemble the team, plan the programme of work and initial consultations
 Phase 2: Design and implement a Pilot
 Phase 3: Design and rollout out new services to remaining corridors
We estimate the initial phases 1 and 2 could be set up and implemented in a 6 month timeframe. We
set out below an indication of the number of weeks required to implement a redesign of services on a
given corridor. It assumes Department of Transport approval for the changes is received in a timely
manner. To ensure this is achieved, we recommend Dublin Bus meet with the Department early on in
the process to agree a general set of parameters to minimise contentious issues. An example of the
steps and time required in redesigning services for a corridor are set out below. Work on a number of
corridors could be carried out in parallel, subject to the availability of relevant personnel.
Week Action Notes
1 Decide on concept Need to clearly define network, service and

quality parameters
2-3 Discuss and agree concept and key
parameters within company. Design customer
consultation literature. Brief all staff and take
views on board
4 Consult customers and local authority officers. Concentration on overview rather than detail
Issue first Press Release of proposals
5 Present outline proposals to key interest Opportunity to develop sponsorship or
groups including local authorities alternatives
6 Modify concept (if necessary) on basis of
comments received
7-10 Detailed design of services; Seek Department Ensuring compliance with frequency and
of Transport Approval simplicity parameters. Secondary or other
services to satisfy PSO obligations as
required
11 Make arrangements for customer care
training; Agree and order signage; Specify
and commission publicity
12 Second Press Release with initial network,
publicity and quality details.
13 Finalise publicity
14 Issue network and route Guides Supported by a clear explanation of changes
and telephone and internet support for
customers
15 Undertake household promotional mailing With possible targeted money-off vouchers
for initial period
16 Formal launch. Erect signage and information.
Final press release for launch.
Dublin Bus operates services along fourteen radial routes:
Figure 5. 1: Dublin Bus - Main radial corridors
Appendix I
Finglas corridor case study

Introduction
Following our initial review of the Dublin Bus network and services, it was agreed with both Dublin Bus and
the Department of Transport that an in-depth study would be carried out for one corridor with the following
objectives;
 Address apparent route complexity.

 Address apparent route duplication.
 Address apparent excess capacity.
 Identify potential for enhancing services and identifying cost savings.
We studied the Finglas corridor in detail and developed a conceptual network redesign, details of which are
set out below:
Current services
The majority of services in the Finglas area operate along the Finglas Road, the N2 (―the Finglas Corridor‖).
Services along the Finglas corridor are made up of
 Routes 40/A/B/C/D: Long established Finglas services operating from Parnell Square in the city.
 Route 140: New Transport 21 route offering cross city service to Lesson Street with regular 10 minute all
day frequency.
Service 40 city – Finglas (McKelvey Avenue)

This is one of five components of the 40 group. It is the most frequent with 72 departures from the City
Centre on a weekday. Departure times vary with intervals of 15 minutes (37 times), 10 minutes (16 times),
20 minutes (12 times) as shown below. Appendix Table 1 shows the stage to stage movements for service
40. These represent the modelled two way flows between each stage based on an average weekday in April
20088. This shows that by far the bulk of the passenger demand is from the McKelvey Avenue to Finglas
village including the Plunkett Avenue, Barry Road and Mellows Road section. Prime destination in the City
Centre and local Finglas journeys account for around 25% of total passengers.
8
Monday 31 March to Friday 25 April, Monday to Friday only.
Total Parnell St.
7 7 Mountjoy Square
35 33 2 Dorset St. (North Circular Road)
94 78 4 11 Whitworth Rd. (Wigan Rd.)
81 63 4 9 5 Finglas Road (Harts Corner)
74 54 3 8 4 6 Finglas Rd. (Glasnevin Cemetery)
96 68 4 10 6 7 2 Finglas Rd. (Dublin Ind. Est.)
304 206 12 29 17 22 7 11 Finglas Rd. (Royal Oak)
417 256 15 37 21 28 9 13 39 Finglas Rd. (Ardmore Hotel)
659 380 22 54 31 41 13 20 57 40 Finglas Rd. (Corner Wellmount Rd.
1,871 1,019 58 145 84 111 35 53 154 108 102 McKelvey Avenue
3,638 2,163 123 303 169 216 66 97 250 148 102 Total
Appendix Table 1: Passenger movements, Service 40
Source: Dublin Bus ticket machine data
Service 40A city – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)

This supplements the 40, but diverts at Finglas Village via Farnham Drive, St Helena‘s Road and
Cardiffsbridge Road, before rejoining the 40 via Barry Avenue but terminating just short of McKelvey Avenue
at St Margaret‘s Road. Intervals vary between 10 and 15 minutes for much of the day, with extended gaps
where service 40C is operated instead. 59 journeys are operated.
60
50
40
Interval (mins)
30
20
10
0
07 5
08 5
08 0
08 5
09 0
09 0
10 5
10 0
11 5
11 0
12 5
12 5
13 0
13 0
14 5
14 5
15 5
16 5
16 0
17 5
17 0
17 0
18 5
19 0
19 5
20 5
21 5
22 0
23 5
5
1
:3
:0
:3
:5
:2
:4
:1
:3
:1
:5
:2
:5
:1
:5
:1
:5
:2
:0
:2
:0
:2
:5
:3
:0
:4
:3
:2
:3
:2
:
07
Appendix Figure A: Intervals between departures Service 40A Parnell Square
Passenger figures are summarised in Appendix Table 2. Total demand is about 78% of service 40 levels for
81% of the trips with 22% of passengers making local journeys in Finglas.
Total Parnell St.

3 3 Mountjoy Square
1,668 981 42 143 64 131 28 34 111 69 65 Finglas (St.Margaret's Road)
2,847 1,773 76 254 110 220 46 54 161 88 65 TOTAL
Appendix Table 2: Passenger movements, Service 40A
Service 40B city – Finglas (Toberburr)

The 40B provides 12 journeys each way (plus 5 Finglas-Toberburr shorts). It carries just 430 passengers per
day, an average of 18 per journey. 140 passengers/day travel to/from the unique section from Lanesborough
to Toberburr, 76 to/from the Jamestown Road area and the remainder (215) to points served by other 40
group services.
Total Parnell St.

0 0 Mountjoy Square
48 33 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 Finglas Village(Drake Inn)
12 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Jamestown Rd. (Clune Rd.)
32 18 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 Jamestown Rd. (Sycamore Rd.)
32 18 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 Dubber Cross
12 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Rockmount House
9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Newtown House
6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 The Ward Road
112 63 3 8 4 5 3 1 2 1 3 17 1 1 1 0 Toberburr
430 275 14 34 17 22 11 4 6 4 6 32 2 1 1 1 TOTAL
Appendix Table 3: Passenger movements, Service 40B
Service 40C city – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)
The 40C is a diversion of Route 40A via Tolka Valley Road and St Helena‘s Road. Its unique sections
account for 139 passengers/day (25% of the total). 12 journeys per day are provided with an average load of
23 passengers.
Total Parnell St.

1 1 Mountjoy Square
41 28 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 St. Helena‘s Road(Tolka Valley)
98 65 2 8 5 10 2 1 3 2 Cardiffsbridge Road
311 201 6 24 16 29 5 3 11 7 8 Finglas (St. Margaret‘s Road)
556 374 12 44 28 50 8 6 15 10 8 TOTAL
Appendix Table 4: Passenger movements, Service 40C
Service 40D city – Tyrrelstown

The 40D follows Route 40C from City to Cardiffsbridge Road before diverting to Tyrrelstown. There is a 10
minute peak frequency against the peak flow from the city in the morning and from Tyrrelstown in the
afternoon to service demand to and from Ballycoolin Industrial Estate. 2-4 buses per hour are provided off
peak, though not at consistent even intervals.
The 40D is the busiest of all the 40 group services. It has 44 journeys from Parnell Square compared to the
72 on Route 40, yet carries 11% more passengers. 12% of passengers travel to the common section with the
40C in Finglas, and 77% of passengers travel to/from the unique section beyond Finglas towards
Tyrrelstown.
Total Parnell St.

3 3 Mountjoy Square
173 125 7 13 8 12 2 2 4 St. Helena‘s Road(Tolka Valley)
342 240 13 26 15 23 4 4 8 10 Cardiffsbridge Road
196 132 7 14 8 12 2 2 4 5 8 Cappagh Hospital
50 33 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 Cappagh Rd. (Cappoge Cottages)
63 42 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 Cappagh Rd. (North West Ind. Est
113 74 4 8 4 7 1 1 2 3 4 2 0 1 Cappagh Rd. (Rosemount Ind. Est.
621 401 21 43 24 38 7 7 13 16 24 11 3 3 10 B'Coolin Rd. (Ballycoolin Ind. E
587 369 20 39 22 35 6 6 12 15 22 10 2 3 10 16 Blanchardstown Corporate Pk.
1,497 926 49 99 56 88 15 15 30 37 56 25 6 7 24 39 24 Tyrrelstown
4,054 2,665 142 282 157 243 42 41 76 89 119 50 12 14 44 55 24 TOTAL
Appendix Table 5: Passenger movements – Service 40D
Service 140 city (Leeson Street) – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)
The 140 is a relatively new service introduced to serve developing areas. The terminus is advertised as St
Margaret‘s Road, but is actually Hampton Wood.
The 140 operates every 10 minutes during the day and every 20 minutes in the evening and on Sunday. It
serves the developing area of Hampton Wood/Poppintree, and this accounts for 29% of its patronage, 13%
more comes from the section it shares with the 83 and 45% from stops along Finglas Road, shared with the
40 group. 41% of passengers travel cross river in the city centre.
Total Wilton Terrace

2 2 Leeson St. (Pembroke St.)
11 4 8 Dawson Street
188 32 62 94 O' Connell Street
73 7 13 19 35 Western Way
65 6 11 17 30 2 Broadstone
266 22 43 65 117 9 11 Phibsboro Shopping Centre
172 12 24 37 66 5 6 21 Finglas Road (Harts Corner)
148 10 20 30 55 4 5 17 6 Finglas Rd. (Glasnevin Cemetery)
136 9 18 27 50 4 5 16 6 2 Finglas Rd. (Dublin Ind. Est.)
247 17 33 49 89 7 8 28 10 3 3 Finglas Rd. (Royal Oak)
370 25 48 72 131 10 12 41 15 4 5 7 Finglas Rd. (Ardmore Hotel)
442 29 56 85 153 11 15 48 18 5 6 8 7 Finglas Rd. (Opp. Finglas Village
274 17 34 52 93 7 9 29 11 3 4 5 4 6 Finglas Rd. (Mellowes Park)
214 14 26 40 72 5 7 23 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 St. Margaret‘s Road(McKelvey Road
568 35 69 104 188 14 18 59 22 6 7 10 9 11 7 6 Charlestown Avenue Extension
566 35 68 103 186 14 18 58 22 6 7 10 9 11 7 6 6 Jamestown Road (Hampton Wood Rd.
708 44 85 129 232 17 22 73 27 8 9 13 11 14 9 8 8 St. Margaret‘s Road
4,450 318 616 922 1,497 110 137 412 146 39 43 57 44 47 25 20 14 1TOTAL
Appendix Table 6: Passenger movements – Service 140
Summary of existing services

Current services may appear complex to customers due to the number of route variations and lack of fixed
interval timetables.
The sole deviation of Route 40C from 40A is also served by the 40D. The 40B does not serve the main
Finglas residential areas.
The introduction of Route 140, without adjusting the existing network in Finglas, has lead to significant
excess capacity along the route. The following graphs, based on an average of the 20 weekdays in April
2008 show the total passengers by journey across the main part of the day.
Figure B shows the inbound journeys to the city, with some heavily loaded peak journeys, yet there are also
some lightly loaded peak journeys. A similar situation occurs in the afternoon peak, Figure C, and we believe
this represents buses running in pairs – in some cases as scheduled. Inter-peak journeys rarely carry more
than 30 passengers, and the counter peak movements provided by the 40D are apparent. Figure D shows
the scheduled departures from the City Centre on the 40 group showing how the interval, though commonly
at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes. The graph shows the derived actual frequency, taken
from average waiting time information calculated using ticket machine data. This shows that for much of the
day a 7-10 minute interval is delivered – instance of buses running in pairs are treated as one journey in
these calculations.
The graphs exclude Route 140 services. The capacity of vehicles operating on the Finglas corridor is c.90
persons.
100
90
80
.
70
Passengers per Journey
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0700
0720
0745
0800
0820
0850
0915
0940
1000
1035
1110
1140
1210
1245
1310
1340
1415
1445
1520
1545
1610
1640
1705
1730
1750
1820
1900
1945
2030
2110
2200
2245
2325
Appendix Figure B: Passengers per journey 0700-2000 towards city
90
80
70
.
60
Passengers per Journey
50
40
30
20
10
0
00
20
40
05
35
55
15
40
10
45
20
00
35
05
40
05
35
10
40
05
35
00
20
45
05
35
05
45
30
20
00
07
07
07
08
08
08
09
09
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
22
Appendix Figure C: Passengers per journey 0700-2000 from city
Appendix Figure D: Route 40/A/B/C/D scheduled terminus departures from city centre
Demographic analysis
The following maps show two key demographic indicators from the 2006 census, overlaid by the bus routes
under review:
 Population density
 Car ownership
Figure E shows the population density, represented by the total persons per square kilometre. The red
shaded areas have the highest density of population and include parts of Finglas West and Finglas South.
Figure F shows the percentage of households who do not have access to a car. Much of the Finglas area
has low car ownership with almost half of households in Finglas South and Finglas West not having a car.
Areas of dense population and low car ownership have a high bus market potential and our design proposals
focus on serving these. The maps relate back to 2006 and predate some of the development north of Finglas
which has prompted expansion of services.
Appendix Figure E: Population density
Source: 2006 Census
Appendix Figure F: Households without a car
Source: 2006 Census
Conceptual design
We have developed a conceptual network design offering an opportunity to both enhance services for the
majority of customers in Finglas, through greater service coordination and simplification, while also reducing
the cost base of operating services along the Corridor for Dublin Bus. The design can be summarised as
follows:
 Two standard pattern Finglas to city centre services (South City terminus). City centre services reduced
to two core routes, from the current six, with integrated timetables offering a combined 5 minute peak
frequency and 7.5 minute off peak frequency.
 Additional peak journeys providing two way flows to city centre and Tyrrelstown and a residual off peak
service to areas unserved by the main routes. Ensuring peak demand is catered for, while services to
Tyrrelstown are maintained.
 A local Finglas service, ensuring access to Finglas village is maintained
 Other minor changes to other Finglas services not using the Finglas corridor
Current service 140 in its role as serving new development beyond existing routes has developed new links
but also has substantial overlap with the 40 group and the 83. In order to address this, whilst still serving the
new developments we propose to revise service 140 (under the new number 40) to run from Hampton Wood
via St. Margaret‘s Road, McKee Avenue, Jamestown Road, Finglas Main Street and the current route to
Leeson Street.
The current 40 group would be combined into a single service (40A) from McKelvey Road via Plunkett
Green, Barry Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road, and Tolka Valley Road before following the new
40 to Leeson Street.
Route X40 would follow the current 40D route from Tyrrelstown, providing extra peak capacity over the 40A
route through the St Helena‘s Road area before running non stop from Glasnevin Cemetery to Parnell
Square and O‘Connell Street. Against the flow and off peak journeys to/from Tyrrelstown would serve all
stops.
The X40 would allow the 40A to focus on passengers from the Plunkett Green area with the X40 helping to
serve the St Helena‘s Road district. The X40 should attract a higher share of the passengers due to its faster
route and this should ensure that the 40A has sufficient peak capacity to effectively serve Finglas Road.
Route 83 would be curtailed to run between Finglas Main Street and Kimmage via its current route.
The design would leave some areas currently served by the 40 group services without a direct service to the
city along the Finglas corridor. However, alternatives will be available:
 Charleston Avenue extension – which would be served by extending the 19/A to Lanesborough
roundabout
 Whitworth Road – reduced to service X40, but also served by Route 13
 Links to Finglas centre from Barry Road, St Helena‘s Road which would be served by the new local
service 240.
Details of the conceptual design follow below.
Service 40
New Route 40 would replace the 140 and parts of the 83 from Hampton Wood via St Margaret‘s Road,
McKee Avenue, Jamestown Road, Main St, Finglas Road, Botanic Road, Phibsboro Road, Mountjoy Street,
Parnell Square, O‘Connell Street, Kildare Street, Lower Leeson Street to Wilton Terrace offering the
following frequencies.
 10 minute service 06:30-10:00 using 12 peak vehicles with end to end running time of 41-56 minutes.
 15 minute service 10:00-15:00 using 6.5 inter peak vehicles with end to end running time of 40-46
minutes.
 10 minute service 15:00-18:30 using 12 peak vehicles with end to end running time of 49-56 minutes.
 20 minute service 18:30-20:30 using 4.5 buses with 37-39 minutes running time.
 30 minute service 20:30-23:30 using 3 buses with 35-36 minutes running time.
Saturday services would run every 15 minutes during the day, Sundays every 20 minutes with the evening
pattern matching weekdays.
Service 40A
This would replace the 40 group and commence from McKelvey Road via the current 40/40A/40C route via
Plunkett Green, Barry Road then as 40A/C/D via Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road and as 40C/D via
Tolka Valley Road to Finglas Road from where the proposed new 40 Route would be followed to Leeson
Street.
The timetable pattern would match that of the 40 above, with buses inter-timed on the common section into
and out of the City. The PVR would be 11, reducing to 6.5 inter peak, 4.5 early evening and 3 late evening.
Driver flexibility to operate both Route 40 and Route 40A is assumed.
Two morning journeys and two afternoon peak journeys would extend to Toberburr replacing the busiest
journeys on Route 40B.
Service X40
This would commence at Tyrrelstown and follow the current 40D route via Ballycoolin Road, Cappagh
Hospital, Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road, Tolka Valley Road, Finglas Road, Whitworth Road, Dorset
Street, Parnell Square to O‘Connell Street. The service pattern would be:
 Morning Peak: Every 12 minutes Tyrrelstown – City non stop from Glasnevin
 Morning Peak: Every 12 minutes City-Tyrrelstown all stops
 Inter Peak: Every 30 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops
 Afternoon Peak: Every 15 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops
 Afternoon Peak: Every 15 minutes City-Tyrrelstown non stop to Tolka Valley Road.
 Evening: Every 45 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops
Seven peak vehicles would be required.
Service 83
As noted above the 83 would be replaced by the 40 in Charlestown and would be truncated to commence at
Finglas Main Street, but otherwise would be unchanged to Kimmage.
A 15 minute daytime and 20 minute evening service would be provided, Peak hour running time would be
80-85 minutes depending on direction and time, inter-peak would be 64 minutes whilst evening services
would take 51-53 minutes.
12 peak and 10 off peak vehicles would be required reducing to six in the evening.
Service 240
Service 240 to bridge the gaps created in the Finglas area by focusing the proposed 40A on direct links to
the city centre.
The 240 would provide a single direction circular from Finglas Village via Main Street, Wellmount Road,
Farnham Drive, St Helena‘s Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, Deanstown Road, Kilshane Road, Ratoath Road,
Rathvilly Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, Mellowes Road, Barry Road, Barry Avenue, Plunkett Green, Plunkett
Avenue, Casement Road, Finglas Road, Mellows Road to Main Street. A 20 minute service using one bus
would be provided.
No Route Peak Inter Peak Early Eve Late Eve PVR9 I-PVR10
40 St. Margaret‘s Road – Leeson Street 10 15 20 30 12 6.5
40A McKelvey Road-Leeson Street 10 15 20 30 11 6.5
X40 Tyrrelstown-City 12/15 30 45 45 7 3
83 Kimmage-Finglas 15 15 20 20 12 10
240 Finglas Local Service 20 20 20 20 1 1
Total 43 27
Appendix Table 7: Summarises the proposed network, frequency and resources
Table 8 summarises the resources required compared to the current network. It includes one additional
vehicle on service 19 to serve the Charleston Avenue extension. We have not drafted driver duties for the
services; however we do not envisage buses running empty to/from Harristown simply for driver change-
overs. If breaks are not possible in the City Centre we advocate use of a crew shuttle car to take drivers
to/from their bus thereby reducing transfer costs substantially.
Current Proposed
Service PVR I-PVR Service PVR I-PVR
40/A/B/C/D 28 22 40/40A 23 13
83 13 13 X40 7 3
140 12 12 83 12 10
240 1 1
19 (Extra) 1 1
Contingency 2 2
Total 53 47 46 30
Appendix Table 8: Resource summary
Source: Dublin Bus Ticket machine data
9
PVR: Peak Vehicle Requirement (the highest number of vehicles in the peak period needed to operate the service)
10
I-PVR: Inter Peak Vehicle Requirement (the highest number of vehicles between the morning and evening peak
needed to operate the service)
Appendix Figure G: Existing services
Appendix Figure H: Conceptual design
Savings
We have discussed our conceptual design with Dublin Bus management. This version takes into account a
number of changes suggested by the Company including extending journey times at certain times of the day
and increasing the PVR to ensure enhanced reliability.
Cost
We have used a costing template provided by Dublin Bus to evaluate the operating costs of the proposals
We estimate total costs would fall by c.17%, assuming indirect costs do not change. This equates to c.
€2.1m.
Revenue
The majority of passengers will benefit from a simplified and more frequent service while some passengers
will experience a change such as having to walk further to access an enhanced service.
The successful launch of Route 140 demonstrates that customers respond to services that offer a direct
alignment, fixed interval departures and a cross city terminus.
We modelled a range of revenue assumptions up to a worst case scenario of revenue falling by 15%. In all
scenarios the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.
As mentioned above, there are many other options that could be considered while keeping to the key
principles of simplification, de-duplication, even clockface departures and better customer service. We
accept that any redesign will require a change in services and behaviour for customers. For example some
customers will get an enhanced service at their customer locations while other customer may need to walk a
little further to access the enhanced service.
Dublin Bus accept that there is some scope for reviewing the service pattern in the Finglas area and state
that they have commenced a review of services taking account of the concepts in this report. Dublin Bus
state it was their intention to make adjustments to the level of service in the area when the passenger trends
start to stabilise, following the introduction of Route 140.
We understand that Dublin Bus has recently begun an internal review of services along the Finglas network.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms, and their
respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organization of member firms around the
world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a
global strategy executed locally in nearly 140 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of
approximately 150,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas—audit, tax,
consulting, and financial advisory services—and serves more than 80 percent of the world‘s largest companies,
as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing
global companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, and, for regulatory and
other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas. As a Swiss Verein
(association), neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other‘s
acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the
names ―Deloitte,‖ ―Deloitte & Touche,‖ ―Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,‖ or other related names.
These materials and the information contained herein are provided by Deloitte & Touche and are intended to
provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and are not an exhaustive treatment of such
subject(s).
Accordingly, the information in these materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal, investment,
consulting or other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole
basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action
that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. These
materials and the information contained therein are provided as is, and Deloitte & Touche makes no express or
implied representations or warranties regarding these materials or the information contained therein. Without
limiting the foregoing, Deloitte & Touche does not warrant that the materials or information contained therein will
be error-free or will meet any particular criteria of performance or quality. Deloitte & Touche expressly disclaims
all implied warranties, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, title, fitness for a particular
purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy. Your use of these materials and information
contained therein is at your own risk, and you assume full responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use
thereof. Deloitte & Touche will not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive
damages or any other damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, statute, tort (including, without
limitation, negligence) or otherwise, relating to the use of these materials or the information contained therein.
If any of the foregoing is not fully enforceable for any reason, the remainder shall nonetheless continue to apply.
© 2009 Deloitte & Touche. All rights reserved
Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cost and Efficiency Review

of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann

2. Effectiveness and appropriateness of the current network of services ......................................... 35

3. Operational efficiency .................................................................................................................... 56

4. Issues affecting both companies ................................................................................................... 73

Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................ 103

Scope and basis for review

Background to the review

For Dublin Bus, we examined two contrasting garages:

For Bus Éireann, we chose three garages serving different markets:

 Broadstone (Dublin) – commuter and expressway services.

We analysed ticket data to determine:

 Passenger levels on each route by time of day.

 Approach to network design.

Part II – Assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network

Part III – Assessment of the operational efficiency of both companies

Part IV – Issues adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and

Part V – Conclusions and implementation

Dublin Bus passenger analysis

Figure A: Dublin Bus passenger numbers

Bus Éireann passenger analysis

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

2008 2009 2008 2009

Gross loss (99.7) (115.8) (46.2) (66.5)

PSO 85.8 85.2 36.9 41.5

Operating loss (13.9) (30.6) (9.3) (28.5)

Retained deficit (9.9) (31.5) (10.3) (29.5)

Table 1: Profit and loss extracts

Dublin Bus Bus Éireann

Figure C: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann retained surplus and PSO

Public Sector Obligation (PSO)

 Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%

Dublin Bus network

A. Complexity of network and services

B. Coordination of services along core corridors

C. Instances of bus ‗bunching‘

D. Direct routing of services

F. Marketing and information provision

G. Achieving value for money from service provision

C. Instances of bus „bunching‟

 Ensuring departures on routes are set at even headways.

Source: Dublin Bus ticketing data

D. Direct routing of services

 Clockface departures or high frequency headways (e.g. ―every 6 mins‖).

F. Marketing and information provision

 Bus stop information

G. Achieve enhanced value for money from service provision

 City and town service

Dublin Bus Bus Éireann

Figure E: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann operating costs in 2007

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2007

Dublin Bus operational efficiency

Source: Dublin Bus management information

Figure G: Dublin Bus Passenger index; numbers through the day

Source: Dublin Bus ticketing data

Bus Éireann operational efficiency

Balance between express and stopping services

Ballymun Rd. (Glasnevin

Mount St. (Holles St.)

Run mean (min) Stages

Figure H: Service 4 to Blackrock – Morning peak

Source: Dublin Bus ticketing data

Ballymun Rd. (Glasnevin

Mount St. (Holles St.)