THE idea that Dublin Bus must "make a profit" in order to survive, or else run the risk of losing out to private operators, shows how slavishly we have adopted one of the most malign features of Thatcherism.
In Britain, as we know, nearly everything which used to be in the public realm has either been sold off or is up for sale. Even the railway tracks where the recent accident occurred near Watford, caused by a failure to invest £7 million in automatic train protection, are now part of the private sector.
British cities have become mesmerisingly difficult to circumnavigate, as privately operated companies compete with each other for Buses of different shapes and sizes, with logos and liveries have turned bus stops into virtual marketplace, leaving outsiders unfamiliar with the territory wondering how on earth chaos can possibly add up to an integrated port policy.
Sheffield's Supertram is one of its casualties: it has "failed", not because of some inherent defect in the system, but due to deregulated free market competition from privately run buses offering cheaper fares.
Everyone who uses public transport would like the fares to be cheaper. But it is surely not in the public interest that private operators can move in to cream off peak hour patronage, while providing no more than a skeleton service in the leaner, much less lucrative, off peaks. Profit, not public service, becomes the ruling factor, and everyone loses out, apart from the operators.
THATCHER'S perception, and that of Tories in general, is that public transport is a residual service for those poor, unfortunate people who can't afford a car. To a large extent, that is our perception, too.
Apart from the DART and the CityGold service on the Dublin Cork line, it is hard to imagine middle class people conscious of their place in the pecking order of society using public transport especially the unreliable, inefficient, frequently dirty, diesel belching double deckers run by Bus Atha Cliath.
What we have done is to plug ourselves into the Anglo American car culture. Fuelled by economic growth, new car sales have soared and the capital is being choked to death by its own traffic.
Fixing catalytic converters to car exhausts will, in time, help to reduce pollution levels. But even if every car in the city was an eco friendly machine running on hydrogen, electricity or vegetable oil, there would still be the problem of congestion. And although there is some respite at present because of the holidays, it is glaringly obvious that Dublin is heading for gridlock.
Yet the largest single category of development under construction in the city centre is multistorey car parking, aided by generous tax incentives. These major schemes, in places such as Clarendon Street, Jervis Street, Middle Abbey Street and Schoolhouse Lane, behind the Mansion House, are all in addition to the estimated 40,000 plus parking places, on street and off street, legal and illegal, which already exist within the canal ring.
It is the availability of such ad lib car parking which explains why so many commuters can shun public transport and drive their personal chariots into town.
Meanwhile, as the car parking providers continue to enrich themselves, Dublin Bus worries about its long term survival. According to its chief executive, Donal Mangan, the situation now facing the company is "serious and urgent", with substantial cost reductions required if it is to remain viable.
An internal cost review calculated that £8 million could be saved, mainly by cutting its annual payroll bill of £61 million, a bill described as "loo high" by Mr Mangan, in a document circulated to the trade unions.
Absenteeism had reached "unacceptable levels"; delays and costs associated with achieving changes in routes and work practices were also unacceptable"; management and administrative staff numbers were "too high"; and an "exorbitant" sum of more than £9 million had to be set aside in 1995 to meet public liability, or "compo" claims.
Given that another review has identified potential savings of up to £30 million a year in Iarnrod Eireann's costs, it is clear that there is still quite a lot of feather bedding in the public transport sector, feather bedding which not even the trade unions could possibly justify.
And while this is being sorted out, in order to keep the CIE group afloat and reduce its quite staggering level of borrowings, now standing at £200 million, its chief executive, Michael McDonnell, is seeking a 10 per cent fares increase, across the board. What this would mean in Dublin, for example, is a minimum bus fare of 60p.
Dublin Bus "lost" £3.8 million last year, on top of a Government subvention of £7 million. What's more, the subvention is being reduced to £2.5 million this year and is due to be abolished in 1997.
This puts the company in an extraordinarily disadvantageous position compared to its counterparts on the Continent. Even as things stand, it is expected to recover 96 per cent of its costs from the fares box and, before too long, this will rise to 100 per cent.
The equivalent "recovery rates" for public transport systems in other European cities are starkly different. Only London and Madrid come close, with figures of 79 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively. Elsewhere, it varies from 62 per cent in Lisbon to 44 per cent in Helsinki, 40 per cent in Vienna, 34 per cent in Stockholm, 25 per cent in Amsterdam and just 10 per cent in Rome.
WHAT can we deduce from this other than the conclusion that cities with such heavily subsidised systems place a real value on public transport? In Paris, where only 33 per cent of the cost of running its superb Metro, RER and bus services is recouped from fares, maintaining an efficient, and affordable, public transport system is regarded as vital to the proper functioning of the city.
Indeed, the level of subsidy is met in part by a payroll tax on all employers in and around the French capital because it is in their interests that employees get to work on time.
Not much chance of that here, however. Even if CIE succeeds in eliminating excess costs, it seems destined to remain the Cinderella of the public sector, with Michael Lowry and the Department of Transport breathing down its neck. Yet we do not expect that public hospitals, schools, fire brigades or sewage treatment plants should "pay their way", as if they were commercial operations.
Why should we ignore the evidence from Europe and expect that public transport, so vital to the well being of society, and cities in particular, should have its "performance" measured by the crude yardstick of a profit and loss account?