Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
10% of CIE bus routes to be privatised
Options
Comments
-
no bus operator can be called efficent when it has the dwell time dublin bus.has. some of the routes would be at.least a third quicker with a proper.multi door system and fare system with better spaced stops if.not.more. some routes the dwell time end.to end.is.more.than.the.driving time
but as one driver said less dwell rime equals less time to complete a route. Equals less vehicles to run a timetable equals need.for less drivers. so it is.not.in.his.intrest.to use.his.middle.doors since he believes it.could affect his.job security
of course the fact.that a faster more direct.less.waiting around.service would attract.more.demand.is.lost.on such people0 -
I've had a look at the NTA document, I cannot see how they accept TUPE - they say it may apply, but not necessarily so.
If the DB staff have to transfer, then it's tupe, if they don't then it's not.
It's actually poorly written. The "either" only appears to state one option, then the other one is in a new sentence on the next page. I read it as a company taking all the routes has to take the staff, but a company taking some routes will not have to.
The use of the word "would" is a definitive as you know tupe applies to all or part of a business, if tupe "would" apply if you transferred all routes, it also applies if you transfer some routes, the reason it may not apply is that " Dublin Bus may have downsized in anticipation so they could absorb the drivers displaced, so they would not need to type, but type applies it is only whether DB and the unions play ball with how the NTA would like it to happen.0 -
It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.
I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.
Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.
The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.
The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.
I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.0 -
SandyfordGuy wrote: »no bus operator can be called efficent when it has the dwell time dublin bus.has. some of the routes would be at.least a third quicker with a proper.multi door system and fare system with better spaced stops if.not.more. some routes the dwell time end.to end.is.more.than.the.driving time
but as one driver said less dwell rime equals less time to complete a route. Equals less vehicles to run a timetable equals need.for less drivers. so it is.not.in.his.intrest.to use.his.middle.doors since he believes it.could affect his.job security
of course the fact.that a faster more direct.less.waiting around.service would attract.more.demand.is.lost.on such people
Lol so centre doors use is a well thought out plan to secure jobs by increasing running time, is there not a specific thread for conspiracy theories ?
Centre door use has always been an issue of safety, poorly designed stops little to zero enforcement of parking regulations and a desire to hold drivers responsible for passengers exiting via these doors is what scuppered there use.
It is now unfortunately culturally engrained in Dublin even when the doors are used now people walk past them to force their way out the front door.0 -
People are going to the front door as they are not sure if the middle doors will open and miss their stop'
I have missed my stop a few times because of this' in other cities the doors will open regardless if anyone is waiting at them if it is safe to do so and this will encourage people to use them
like it or not the fact dublin bus had middle doors for years and did not use them makes people expect them not to open and some drivers do not use them at all.
I did complain about this and was told it would be dealt with since it was only when this one driver was on this route they did not open at any stops. The answer by dublin bus was to allocate a different type of bus to that driver since they told me they dealt with it.0 -
Advertisement
-
In dublin middle doors have loud alarms and sliding plug doors a camera and a screen drivers can see this is deemed unsafe.
Meanwhile in other countries they manage with no camera no screen and no sliding doors just folding ones.
Are we also going to remove all doors on the trams and trains too since there are many doors here so therefore even more unsafe than a bus since on a bus a driver won't have a screen for each door as on his bus.0 -
currins_02 wrote: »It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.
I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.
Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.
The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.
The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.
I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.
So let me get this right the operator monitors it's own performance and says if it meets the targets set by the state? Such things shoukd.be.monitored.by a neutral Third party who decides that!!!!
it's like.enteeing a competition and being the judge as well a clear conflict.of.interest0 -
Yep seems so0
-
Really? You are trying to equate a train station or tram stop with bus stops ?SandyfordGuy wrote: »In dublin middle doors have loud alarms and sliding plug doors a camera and a screen drivers can see this is deemed unsafe.
Meanwhile in other countries they manage with no camera no screen and no sliding doors just folding ones.
Are we also going to remove all doors on the trams and trains too since there are many doors here so therefore even more unsafe than a bus since on a bus a driver won't have a screen for each door as on his bus.
I suggest you get out and look at some of the bus stops in this city, bus stops with no footpath, that buses can't fit into, that constantly have parked cars, private coaches, or are being used as a taxi rank. I have yet to see any of those issues on the Luas or train network. Have you ?0 -
currins_02 wrote: »It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.
I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.
Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.
The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are
such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.
The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.
I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.
First off deloitte was not commissioned by CIE it was Noel Dempsey who commissioned that to prove his belief that DB was inefficient and wasting tax payers money it found the opposite.
Second the NTA set the targets and monitor them including surveys and inspections, times for DB are all on the RTPI which is operated by the NTA, they have all that information at their fingertips it is not just DB telling them they are on time the proof is there on the RTPI.
The targets are set by the NTA and DB meets andnexceeda them, it is disingenuous to then just dismiss that and claim those targets are no good, remember the NTA will be setting the targets for any private operators as well.
On TUPE, it is case by case, the NTA have accepted TUPE would apply, if you are saying will the NTA, governmemt , and any private operator try their best to get out of TUPE then yes I agree 100% of course they will, but that will be a matter for unions and their members to ensure doesn't happen.
Lastly I have no idea how BE operate but DB clean every bus everyday and then buses are deep cleaned every couple of weeks.0 -
Advertisement
-
currins_02 wrote: »Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.
A quick comment on this.
I would say that on Deloitte, it was not commissioned by CIE - it was commissioned by an openly sceptical Minister for Transport, who was questioning the efficiency and effectiveness of the two companies. Noel Dempsey was anything but convinced about that, so I'd actually suggest that it has far more relevance than you suggest.
It did find serious issues in the way Dublin Bus designed routes, schedules, and rosters.
I'd also say that most of the report's recommendations for improvements have been ones that any of us who have been observing public transport in Ireland for some time have been advocating for a long time.
The Deloitte report was a turning point in terms of how public transport schedules, rosters, and the network are designed here - we finally started to get corridor scheduling, with clockface and regular intervals. We have still got some way to go, but that report has been the main driver of the changes we have seen, and as such I certainly wouldn't dismiss it in such an offhand way.0 -
Really? You are trying to equate a train station or tram stop with bus stops ?
I suggest you get out and look at some of the bus stops in this city, bus stops with no footpath, that buses can't fit into, that constantly have parked cars, private coaches, or are being used as a taxi rank. I have yet to see any of those issues on the Luas or train network. Have you ?
There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.0 -
I was on an 11 the other day and the driver stopped at stops whenever the bell sounded even if there was nobody waiting, he also opened both doors at most stops where people were getting off and most people used the centre doors.There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.
If all drivers were to say "exit through the middle doors" to people that approach the front near stops it might be helpful to get people trained to using the middle doors again.0 -
Yes report was comissioned by Noel D's department which effectively owns CIE so cannot be termed independent or impartial, no more than the Mazar's report by the private sector can claim the same. For me the truth lies somewhere between both reports - maybe that's simplistic but so be it. I'm not dismissing the reports off hand, what I was trying to say is that for a state comissioned report into a state body to say that body is highly efficient deserves some scepticism as does a private (and hence anti state) report which says they are highly inefficient. I take both and look at the middle ground.
The RTPI is only in place, in my understanding in the last year or 2 and as someone who stood at Drumcondra on the 14th of May waiting on a bus which never appeared I would have doubts on it's accuracy (the RTPI indicated a time of arrival which never happened). I don't use DB alot so I can't say how common that is. Just my own experience. Wrote an email to DB on 15th May, got an acknowledgement back and nothing since.
Most of the results, according to the NTA themselves are in the main based on survey responses from CIE/DB/BE. That is their stated position. Is it not uncanny that in all but a couple of the parameters they scored 100% in pretty much every area? Surely that in itself would indicate the leeway is too loose, target is too low or the survey is being smudged? In some areas the target is 98%, what do CIE score - 98%!!!, uncanny that, based on their own survey responses. I am not just dismissing them but it should you a sole function of the NTA or an independent intermediary to survey the results, it should not in any way be down to CIE to respond by way of a survey or otherwise.
The cleaning one states something like the vehicle should be vacuumed before EVERY service (forgive me haven't got it here to read and on a phone so a pain in the a$$ to look up), never mind daily supposed to be before the service. Simply not happening I would beleive and I know it's not even happening daily on some BE PSO routes I have cause to use.
As I say, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say anything else other than the monitoring and reporting of standards in the current PSO system is flawed, that's more to do with the NTA than CIE. I agree and I hope the NTA do police every operator doing PSO in future (private or state) and like the UK I beleive it should be a case of monitoring set services over a day or week creating averages and working from that. No operator should be asked to grade themselves in ANY area which in most areas is what the NTA in their own report state has been happening to date. Accurate RTPI should tackle some of this but my experience in May would tell me it is not working 100% just yet.0 -
currins_02 wrote: »Yes report was comissioned by Noel D's department which effectively owns CIE so cannot be termed independent or impartial, no more than the Mazar's report by the private sector can claim the same. For me the truth lies somewhere between both reports - maybe that's simplistic but so be it. I'm not dismissing the reports off hand, what I was trying to say is that for a state comissioned report into a state body to say that body is highly efficient deserves some scepticism as does a private (and hence anti state) report which says they are highly inefficient. I take both and look at the middle ground.
The RTPI is only in place, in my understanding in the last year or 2 and as someone who stood at Drumcondra on the 14th of May waiting on a bus which never appeared I would have doubts on it's accuracy (the RTPI indicated a time of arrival which never happened). I don't use DB alot so I can't say how common that is. Just my own experience. Wrote an email to DB on 15th May, got an acknowledgement back and nothing since.
Most of the results, according to the NTA themselves are in the main based on survey responses from CIE/DB/BE. That is their stated position. Is it not uncanny that in all but a couple of the parameters they scored 100% in pretty much every area? Surely that in itself would indicate the leeway is too loose, target is too low or the survey is being smudged? In some areas the target is 98%, what do CIE score - 98%!!!, uncanny that, based on their own survey responses. I am not just dismissing them but it should you a sole function of the NTA or an independent intermediary to survey the results, it should not in any way be down to CIE to respond by way of a survey or otherwise.
The cleaning one states something like the vehicle should be vacuumed before EVERY service (forgive me haven't got it here to read and on a phone so a pain in the a$$ to look up), never mind daily supposed to be before the service. Simply not happening I would beleive and I know it's not even happening daily on some BE PSO routes I have cause to use.
As I say, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say anything else other than the monitoring and reporting of standards in the current PSO system is flawed, that's more to do with the NTA than CIE. I agree and I hope the NTA do police every operator doing PSO in future (private or state) and like the UK I beleive it should be a case of monitoring set services over a day or week creating averages and working from that. No operator should be asked to grade themselves in ANY area which in most areas is what the NTA in their own report state has been happening to date. Accurate RTPI should tackle some of this but my experience in May would tell me it is not working 100% just yet.
Unless we are reading different reports, Deloitte did not say Dublin Bus was effective - in fact it said anything but.
The result has been a massive change in the DB network and the schedules in the past 3 years.
There is work to be done on the RTPI but it will never be 100% accurate due to unforeseen events - this was a completely new process and yes there are some areas where the stop schedules need revising - but it has made a huge difference to using public transport - I use the apps constantly when I'm out and about, and by and large it is accurate. I use at least 4 different buses every day, so that gives me some experience of the system.
But, if you are near the terminus, it will take the schedule up until 2 minutes before departure when it switches to the bus itself. If a bus is cancelled, for example, and for whatever reason the controller doesn't take it off the system, it will continue to appear until it switches to the bus. There is still that human element that can create issues - which I suspect is what happened here.0 -
There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.
It is easier to just be consistent, then passengers know what to expect rather than this time you open then next time you don't, you end up with passengers in confusion not knowing which way to head, then they are standing at the centre doors waiting to get off they don't open, meanwhile at the front door intending passengers think no one is getting off and start to board, suddenly the people who were at the centre door are now tryng to push their way through the boarding passengers and the whole thing is a mess. Next stop those passengers who witnessed the chaos of the last stop just ignore the centre door and head for the front door whether it opens or not and on it goes.
I agree it should be the norm but that won't happen while, trucks, cars and private coaches use bus stops as handy parking bays, while taxi drivers use them as overflow taxi ranks, while road planners make them too short to fit a bus into etc etc0
Advertisement