[Article] FF/PD split widens over new bus fleet

Victor

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS-qqqs=news-qqqid=16243-qqqx=1.asp

FF/PD split widens over new bus fleet
06 August 2006 By Niamh Connolly

Tensions have increased significantly between Fianna Fail and the PDs over plans to invest €300 million of state money in a new fleet for Dublin Bus.

Tensions have increased significantly between Fianna Fail and the PDs over plans to invest €300 million of state money in a new fleet for Dublin Bus.

A proposal by Minister for Transport Martin Cullen to fund 100 new vehicles for Dublin Bus was blocked by Tanaiste Mary Harney, who insisted that the bus market be reformed before any more public money was invested in the state company.

There were heated discussions at last week’s cabinet meeting - the last before the summer break and the start of the 2007 general election campaign in the autumn. The meeting was held in Avondale, Co Wicklow.

Cullen did not present a formal memo on his plan, but there was a strong exchange of views about the PDs’ support for further investment in Dublin Bus with a shake-up of the company’s services.

Harney’s insistence that the bus market be reformed has created ongoing problems between the government parties.

Sources believe that further tensions are now likely to emerge between the Fianna Fail/PD alliance in the autumn as the smaller party seeks to define itself in the run-up to a general election.

The PDs suffered a humiliating defeat when Fianna Fail conceded last year to the demands of the trade unions that the second terminal at Dublin Airport be operated by the state. Harney argued strongly in favour of a private terminal.

The coalition partners have been in battle over the past eight months over how to expand the bus market, with Fianna Fail accusing the PDs of taking an ‘‘ideological’’ rather than a practical approach that would gain the support of trade unions.

Because of the stand-off, there is growing concern that new bus lanes on busy routes - one in Harney’s own constituency - have no vehicles to serve the travelling public.

Harney wants 25 per cent of Dublin’s bus routes serving the city centre opened to private operators.

However, the trade unions will accept competition on only 15 per cent of the new and expanding routes in the greater Dublin area.

The PDs’ insistence on a market shake-up comes amid growing controversy in Britain over the impact of a fully deregulated bus service on a passenger service.

Five of the six major bodies with responsibility for encouraging the use of public transport in Britain have told a House of Commons inquiry that deregulation was ‘‘a failed experiment’’, which had led to higher fares, increased subsidies to commercial services, and falling standards and passengers numbers.

Chris_533976

Can Cork get new buses plz, the ones we have are falling apart

lostexpectation

to ask a stupid question, why does harney get a say over buses?

ah poor cullen he really wants to provide the buses really he does...

Victor

lostexpectation wrote:

to ask a stupid question, why does harney get a say over buses? ah poor cullen he really wants to provide the buses really he does...

The government (i.e. cabinet has collective responsibility).

Red Alert

Why the upgrade frenzy - we need EXTRA buses! There's essentially a one-in one-out policy at the moment.

I think de-regulation has badly affected both the bus and train market in great britain.

the semi states would work well with complete top-to-toe reform, but not the type of reform Mary Harney of PD's/IBEC wants.

John R

Red Alert wrote:

Why the upgrade frenzy - we need EXTRA buses! There's essentially a one-in one-out policy at the moment.

It is about extra buses, the upgrade of the fleet is continuing and is funded internally.

Red Alert wrote:

I think de-regulation has badly affected both the bus and train market in great britain.

the semi states would work well with complete top-to-toe reform, but not the type of reform Mary Harney of PD's/IBEC wants.

The PDs want to break the semi-states, FF want to appease anyone who might help re-elect them.

Meanwhile one of the the fastest growing cities in Europe with the largest dependence on road based public transport has been denied much needed (and relatively cheap) improvements to the transport network for nearly 7 years.

Transport21 Fan

The coalition partners have been in battle over the past eight months over how to expand the bus market, with Fianna Fail accusing the PDs of taking an ‘‘ideological’’ rather than a practical approach that would gain the support of trade unions.

Reading this paragraph, you get the impression that the biggest issue that Fianna Fail have with the PDs is that the PDs actually stand for something other than winning elections and this is deemed somehow problematic by Bertie and Co.

BrianD

This is the type of political thinking and action (or should that be inaction) that has stymied public transport in the past.

I get the impression that certain politicains may be representing the vested interests of those who want to enter the market. Don't give Db new buses cause we'll have to have them as well.

They type of reform proposed by Harney is ridiculous and worse than Stalinist economics. We should not hand over 25% of bus routes just for the sake of it. This does nothing for the commuter. Why is Harney not calling for a planned development of public transport. All new routes identified can be put out to public tender with DB allowed to compete.

Is there any need for competition in public transport at all? If they State invested in the sector and we had an improvement in standards why have the private sector involved in the first place? The only reason there is ever calls for competition is when DB go on strike and this is a knee jerk reaction.

monument

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Reading this paragraph, you get the impression that the biggest issue that Fianna Fail have with the PDs is that the PDs actually stand for something other than winning elections and this is deemed somehow problematic by Bertie and Co.

Reading that paragraph, and the following makes me think the PDs are taking an "‘ideological’’ rather than a practical approach"...

The PDs’ insistence on a market shake-up comes amid growing controversy in Britain over the impact of a fully deregulated bus service on a passenger service.

Five of the six major bodies with responsibility for encouraging the use of public transport in Britain have told a House of Commons inquiry that deregulation was ‘‘a failed experiment’’, which had led to higher fares, increased subsidies to commercial services, and falling standards and passengers numbers.

dam099

I'm all for privatisation where it is warranted (e.g Aer Lingus & Eircom) I'm just not sure its the best approach for public transport. However if the article is correct and

a) The unions have already conceded 15% per cent of the new and expanding routes in the greater Dublin area can be dergulated
b) The experience in the UK is that it has not worked well

then surely the sensible approach would be to try it out on the 15% the unions will agree to and see if it actually can be made to work (learning from the UK's mistakes)?

shltter

dam099 wrote:

I'm all for privatisation where it is warranted (e.g Aer Lingus & Eircom) I'm just not sure its the best approach for public transport. However if the article is correct and

a) The unions have already conceded 15% per cent of the new and expanding routes in the greater Dublin area can be dergulated
b) The experience in the UK is that it has not worked well

then surely the sensible approach would be to try it out on the 15% the unions will agree to and see if it actually can be made to work (learning from the UK's mistakes)?

The problem with that is that the PDs want 25% of the existing routesfor their business buddies that they know they can make a tidy profit on while the tax payer will be left to fund the unprofitable parts of the system.

They have no interest in providing public transport or building up a business they want a ready made meal ticket handed to them on a plate.

As some one has already pointed out we have the fastest growing economy and population in the EU but our capital cities bus based public transport fleet is stuck on a level that was inadequate 10 years ago never mind the hundreds of thousands of extra people working and commuting now.

The PDs have shown their true colours they care far more about putting money in the pockets of their fat cat friends and could not give a toss about the misery that trying to commute in this city causes ordinary people.

What is the point in the CIE trade unions sitting down and negoiating with the Minister for Transport if the guy can not hold up his end of the deal. This is not the first time that this has happened.

Transport21 Fan

BrianD wrote:

This is the type of political thinking and action (or should that be inaction) that has stymied public transport in the past.

Unlike the massive amount of CIE union industrial action which has only made Irish people cherish and remain loyal to public transport?

Public transport in Ireland became terrible for three simple reasons:

1. Lack of Government Support until very recently
   
2. Self-Serving CIE Unions
   
3. Unimaginative CIE managers

in that order.

BrianD wrote:

I get the impression that certain politicains may be representing the vested interests of those who want to enter the market. Don't give Db new buses cause we'll have to have them as well.

You might be correct here and I agree this is something we should be very careful of - but how is this any worse than the Labour Party working for the CIE unions which are just as much as a vested interest as IBEC?

Who is representing the public transport user in all this? Not the unions - they have shown time and time again that they consider the Irish public transport users as nothing more than a pawn to be employed as hostages during industrial unrest.

How is a person who wants to just get the bus or train to work expected to view the CIE unions as their ally against "vested interests" when the CIE unions have made an artform of demonstrating their contempt for the public transport users in this country during the last 60 years?

BrianD wrote:

They type of reform proposed by Harney is ridiculous and worse than Stalinist economics.

AFAIK she hasn't killed 40 million people yet.

BrianD wrote:

Is there any need for competition in public transport at all? If they State invested in the sector and we had an improvement in standards why have the private sector involved in the first place? The only reason there is ever calls for competition is when DB go on strike and this is a knee jerk reaction.

The question at the top of this paragraph was answered by your statement at the bottom. There would be no push for privatisation of public transport in this county if the CIE unions behaved like public servants which is what they employed to do.

If the CIE unions and management provided quality public transport I would defend them and be against any calls for privatisaiton. But CIE unions have a long and terrible history of being a self-serving joke and CIE management a shower of muppets. They only have themselves to blame for the "P" word being constantly branded about.

It's as simple as that.

BrianD

Yes but whose interest do the private operators care about - their passengers or shareholders? Like their public counterparts they have other interests that they are serving. They also operate as monopolies that have no competition on the routes they will operate so there is no onus to offer higher standards or offerings. Nor are they immune to union activity. They'll also be getting a generous subsidy from the State.

Stating that 25% of routes should be opened up to private operators is simply ridiculous especially when the PD's and current government have yet to put an integrated transport plan into operation into place that will take us into the future. Of course they won't do that. Two reasons - "breaking the eggs" will cause to much consternation for the PD's business buddies in the short term while FF are more concerned about what the voters might think. Privatisation is not the cure to a problem that has not been diagnosed properly.

Private transport in this country in this country is nothing to write home about. In my view its pretty lazy and shoddy. The RPA are CIE in a different guise - same attitudes and pretty darn incompetent and just like the public sector are highly reliant on overpaid and underqualified consultants to tell them pretty much what they knew already. The private operators of the Luas are obviously so proud of their service that they are unable to put their name on anything to do with the service.

To be frank, I agree with a lot of what you saw about the CIE unions and their negative influence. However, it think that this is just a symptom of the lack of Government action and investment in public transport. I notice that Harney is calling for the bus market to be reformed and not public transport to be improved for the people of Dublin. Perhaps her thinking is not far from the thinking of CIE unions as you see it.

monument

That what you and the PDs are suggesting is an ideology based approach that the evidence suggests was a “failed experiment” in the UK.

You are trying to claim that add another "vested interest" is going to solve everything without backing it up, while the UK experience is that it makes things worse.

Transport21 Fan

when it comes to either full union mandated semi-state, versus full privatisation run by fat cats in public transport I say a pox on both their houses.

A well regulated mix of both works best - eg; Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia etc...

Either way the current arrangment is not working. CIE is Dev-era leftover long passed its sell-by date and increased investment appears to only make it more of a protecton racket for the NBRU. This simply has to stop once and for all. The passengers are being screwed - not the CIE unions with their fake victim complexes and complete disregard for the people who pay their wages via taxation and the fare box. They have no right to assuming any moral high ground when it comes to this debate.

I think the general move towards more private operators and the growing profile of the RPA in terms of rail transport provision is overall a good idea. The less power CIE has the better it is for public transport in Ireland.

John R

A discussion on which method is best is fine, the big problem here is that ACTION is needed now and the spat between bertie and harney is stopping any progress.

The simple facts are that there needs to be a big expansion in the number of buses on the streets ASAP and that is only going to be achieved by the increase of the DB fleet. They are the only company that has the resources to accomadate the aquisition, storage, maintenance and operation of 200 extra buses within a short timeframe.

The PDs can bleat on about private operations but in the time they have been in power what has been done about laying the groundwork for workable private operations? Nothing.

Many of the people who IMO are behind the demands for privatisation were hoping for a deregulation situation where the state operation would be artificially carved up into bits they could buy at knockdown prices as happened in the UK.

For a number of years the DoT have been promoting a bizarre mix of the status quo in the public sector along with trying to encourage private operators to grab new routes up in a free-for-all giveaway.

That has been a failure, apart from a few exceptions it has not been an attractive option for small-medium sized operators, profitable routes in city transport are few and many of the attempts have lost considerable amounts of money. The big companies are not interested in small one-off routes either.

John R

Transport21 Fan wrote:

when it comes to either full union mandated semi-state, versus full privatisation run by fat cats in public transport I say a pox on both their houses.

A well regulated mix of both works best - eg; Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia etc...

If by that you mean tightly controlled franchise operations then that system has one major downside; it is very expensive. Far more so than the current system which despite the evil unions is extremely frugally managed.

None of the big operators would run the bus service on the current Dublin Bus budget, not without big fare increases and service cuts, there is no profit margin in it and those companies demand big margins.

Transport21 Fan

Can anyone explain to me how adding 200 extra buses to the gridlock in Dublin will improve public transport?

What use is this without proper bus lanes and doing something like banning single occupant cars at rush hour. It's just 200 extra buses stuck in traffic.

Transport21 Fan

John R wrote:

None of the big operators would run the bus service on the current Dublin Bus budget, not without big fare increases and service cuts, there is no profit margin in it and those companies demand big margins.

If the service vastly improved I suspect that most people would gladly pay higher bus and train fares.

Victor

Certain routes are over subscribed and adding capacity and frequency just might improve both that and attract car users and use road space free up by port-bound HGVs. Fewer cars, less congestion.

But yes, removing other restrictions is important.

John R

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Can anyone explain to me how adding 200 extra buses to the gridlock in Dublin will improve public transport?

What use is this without proper bus lanes and doing something like banning single occupant cars at rush hour. It's just 200 extra buses stuck in traffic.

Both are necessary but the idea that the additional buses are unnecessary is bunk, as is the daft inference that 200 buses is going to worsen the gridlock.

The fact is that there are a number of bus lanes now with no services on them. Particularly on orbital roads. Fingal CC are turning the N32 lane back to a hard shoulder as there has been no bus service on it for over a year and motorists are always complaing to Joe Duffy et al about it.

Some DunLaoghaire councillors have said that they won't allow the Rock Road bus lane be used until there is additional buses put on the routes serving it. TBH it is an extremely ignorant vote-whoring stance as the bus routes on that corridor (despite the proximity to DART) are extremely busy and the bus lanes once finished will cut through the slowest part of the corridor.


There is also the issue of the new developments around the city which are in general poorly served. In many cases the bus services are only introduced months or years after the developments. By then people are already car reliant and will not give up the motors easily. There should be capacity tom put in frequent services as the developments are being built so that people moving in already have a proper service to use from the start.

I wholehartedly agree that hardline anti-car commuting measures are necessary but the basics of a good bus service needs to be there as well, that means enough buses on enough high-frequency routes to serve most of the population of the city.

There is also the current bus users to consider, the fleet is being spread more thinly than ever, outside of the major routes the service frequency to many areas is dropping, there are not enough buses to go around and priority is being given to the well used routes.

This creates a knock-on effect on the minor routes, as frequency drops the route becomes less attractive and so on.

westtip

Transport21 Fan wrote:

"Ireland's domestic service economy remains uncompetitive and its public sector inefficient. That means relatively high costs for energy, transportation and business services, and higher living costs for workers...much of the blame lies with public-sector unions that have successfully won the right to have their salaries "benchmarked" to the private sector, without a similar benchmarking for productivity, job security, vacations or fringe benefits. " - The Washington Post, July 2006 .

At long last someone says it as it is. Good on you for finding this quote from the WP, glad to see some observers are finally copping on - instead of this back clapping crap we have in our own papers.

hewlett

Victor wrote:

Tensions have increased significantly between Fianna Fail and the PDs over plans to invest €300 million of state money in a new fleet for Dublin Bus.

A proposal by Minister for Transport Martin Cullen to fund 100 new vehicles for Dublin Bus was blocked by Tanaiste Mary Harney, who insisted that the bus market be reformed before any more public money was invested in the state company.

Just as a side issue - roughly how much does a bus cost?

€300 million seems a lot of money for 100 extra buses! Or am I missing something from the original article?

MarkoP11

AV/AX class double decker is about 150,000 GBP

hewlett

MarkoP11 wrote:

AV/AX class double decker is about 150,000 GBP

150,000 GBP is roughly 220,000 euro

This would give a total of around €22 million rather than €300 million for 100 of them.

I realise that there is probably more to it than just the base cost of a bus, but that is quite a significant difference.

MarkoP11

You would buy a 100 30m Luas trams for that kind of money, or about 170 DART or railcar coaches, the numbers don't add up

The Transport 21 budget for Dublin Bus is €529 million

There is some creative accounting here

Transport21 Fan

John R wrote:

Both are necessary but the idea that the additional buses are unnecessary is bunk, as is the daft inference that 200 buses is going to worsen the gridlock.

It would of been daft if I had of stated this, which I didn't. I asked a question, not issued a statement.

Transport21 Fan

hewlett wrote:

Just as a side issue - roughly how much does a bus cost?

€300 million seems a lot of money for 100 extra buses! Or am I missing something from the original article?

100 extra drivers?

D'Peoples Voice

dam099 wrote:

The experience in the UK is that it has not worked well

that statement should be banned on boards.ie! It simply is not true!
Ask yourself which is Dublin more like Rural Devon or London.
London you might say, well I have news for you, privatization in London has been an astounding success while privatization in Devon has been a disaster.
Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.

'What rubs salt into the wound for MPs in the regions is that while my constituents have to make do with a deregulated free-for-all, London's regulated buses are enjoying record public investment and massive growth in ridership. If regulation is good enough for London it should be good enough for cities like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.'

The release of the survey follows the publication last week of new DfT figures for bus patronage which showed bus use in London increased by 5.3% last year while in PTE areas it declined by 2.8%. This is consistent with longer term trends [3]

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/FB44CAB8E3FDCF7080256A380057560C/$file/New+poll+shows+regional+MPs+want+London.doc
We should nearly have a sticky of this link! (page 2 especially)
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/BBE4D6D8-5732-4B1E-92DD-B8C52C2D77D1/0/20051219Busbriefing.pdf

Just to repeat again for those who refuse to accept that the London market and rural England are the same, they are not! Hence if Dublin is to be privatized, guess what, the proposals are based on the London model not the rural England model, hence we can expect higher patronage on our buses.

Of course for FF TDs this goes way over their heads!

BrianD

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Can anyone explain to me how adding 200 extra buses to the gridlock in Dublin will improve public transport?

What use is this without proper bus lanes and doing something like banning single occupant cars at rush hour. It's just 200 extra buses stuck in traffic.

Certainly a lot more for the commuter than 25% of bus routes being privatised. However, their use will not be maximised without the introduction of an integrated transport master plan.

In the immeditate term, I would guess that the 200 buses would replace older buses or could be used to improve frequency on existing bus corridors. Certainly their arrival would be welcome.

lostexpectation

westtip wrote:

At long last someone says it as it is. Good on you for finding this quote from the WP, glad to see some observers are finally copping on - instead of this back clapping crap we have in our own papers.

sorry who wrote that I don't see it in t21 ramblings, (yes I sneeked a peek)

Voipjunkie

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

that statement should be banned on boards.ie! It simply is not true!
Ask yourself which is Dublin more like Rural Devon or London.
London you might say, well I have news for you, privatization in London has been an astounding success while privatization in Devon has been a disaster.
Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.


http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/FB44CAB8E3FDCF7080256A380057560C/$file/New+poll+shows+regional+MPs+want+London.doc
We should nearly have a sticky of this link! (page 2 especially)
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/BBE4D6D8-5732-4B1E-92DD-B8C52C2D77D1/0/20051219Busbriefing.pdf

Just to repeat again for those who refuse to accept that the London market and rural England are the same, they are not! Hence if Dublin is to be privatized, guess what, the proposals are based on the London model not the rural England model, hence we can expect higher patronage on our buses.

Of course for FF TDs this goes way over their heads!

This is complete horse **** privatisation in london was a complete disaster what has rectified the situation is that responsibility for transport in london was handed over to Ken Livingston who has injected massive subsidies and introduced congestion charging


The proposals for dublin include none of the things that have improved the situation in london they are based on the proposals that were a disaster that saw the TFL having to issue a direct subsidy to bus drivers who were not there employees in an effort to keep them at work.

If the massive injection of cash and congestion charging had happened under the old system then there would have been huge improvements under that system. In fact it could be argued that the improvements might have been better as the subsidies would have been going to provision of services instead of to the profit margins of large multination transport companies.

And the other fact that you are ignoring is that in fact Dublin is more like the smaller cities in the UK than it is like london so compare it to Manchester or leeds or liverpool rather than a city 10 times bigger.

dam099

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

that statement should be banned on boards.ie! It simply is not true!
Ask yourself which is Dublin more like Rural Devon or London.
London you might say, well I have news for you, privatization in London has been an astounding success while privatization in Devon has been a disaster.
Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.

I did qualify my post with "if the article is correct".

My point was more that we don't know if privatisation will work or not in Dublin until we try it so instead allowing the situation to remain gridlocked with no investment in the meantime and commuters suffering the consequences the PD's should compromise and take the union up on their offer of 15% of new routes as a trial and see does it work. If it does then fine expand it to more routes or if it doesn't scrap the idea or retool the framework so it does work before progressing further.

Chris_533976

If they only spent a bit of money on kicking the asses of the people who park in Bus Lanes, they might have a bit more success and wouldnt need more buses.

John R

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

that statement should be banned on boards.ie! It simply is not true!

People who think they understand articles that are beyond their comprehension should be banned TBH.

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Ask yourself which is Dublin more like Rural Devon or London.
London you might say, well I have news for you, privatization in London has been an astounding success while privatization in Devon has been a disaster.
Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.


http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/FB44CAB8E3FDCF7080256A380057560C/$file/New+poll+shows+regional+MPs+want+London.doc
We should nearly have a sticky of this link! (page 2 especially)
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/BBE4D6D8-5732-4B1E-92DD-B8C52C2D77D1/0/20051219Busbriefing.pdf

Just to repeat again for those who refuse to accept that the London market and rural England are the same, they are not! Hence if Dublin is to be privatized, guess what, the proposals are based on the London model not the rural England model, hence we can expect higher patronage on our buses.

Of course for FF TDs this goes way over their heads!

I have news for you. The PTE areas highlighted in that report ARE NOT RURAL AREAS. They comprise most of the large urban areas in the UK except for London.

The seven PTEs in Great Britain are:

* Centro – which covers West Midlands, and serves centres such as Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton;
* GMPTE – which covers the Greater Manchester area;
* Merseytravel – which operates throughout Merseyside and covers Liverpool;
* Metro – which caters for local transport issues in West Yorkshire, including those of Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Leeds;
* Nexus – which serves the Tyne & Wear region, including Newcastle and Sunderland;
* South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive – which works to improve local transport issues throughout South Yorkshire including Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield; and
* Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive – which operates throughout Strathclyde, including Glasgow.

All of those are much closer to Dublin in size and population than London.


Also if you actually lunderstood the relevance of the figures for London in that article you will see that the main improvements in patronage, mileage and fare decreases have happened in the last 5 years under the control of TfL. Before that the original deregulated privitisation model had been failing in London as well.

It is only with the massive funding and almost complete control over service provision from TfL has the bus service in London been improving.

Things were so bad when they took over that TfL had to introduce direct bonus payments to the bus drivers employed by the private companies in order to provide a wage high enough to keep enough staff to cover services.


The reason that TfL style operations have so far not been brought in anywhere else in the UK is because it is very expensive to set up and run. It also requires a huge political commitment, London is unique in that one man had the authority to set up an initially unpopular system and commit the resources and backing to ensure it's long term success.

What do you think the chances of any Irish politicians doing that are? It is just not going to happen here, if we get large scale privatisation it is going to be the cheap and nasty version.

gilroyb

The 15% the unions are offering are routes that Dublin Bus could have expanded into but never got around to it. They are the worst of the bus routes around. 25% of all routes does seem a bit high for an initial change, but I think that whatever the percentage is, it should be on all routes, not just new ones.

The state can sell the routes for a set time period to make it so the company can only make normal profits, rather than an excessive profits people here are worrying about.

Transport21 Fan

westtip wrote:

At long last someone says it as it is. Good on you for finding this quote from the WP, glad to see some observers are finally copping on - instead of this back clapping crap we have in our own papers.

It's superb and refreshing isn't it.

The Washington Post is perhaps the last good major newspaper in the US since the New York Times went Neocon. Full article here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062001541.html

Transport21 Fan

BrianD wrote:

In the immeditate term, I would guess that the 200 buses would replace older buses or could be used to improve frequency on existing bus corridors. Certainly their arrival would be welcome.

That's fair enough then. What is the average age of the current BD fleet?

monument

Victor wrote:

Certain routes are over subscribed and adding capacity and frequency just might improve both that and attract car users and use road space free up by port-bound HGVs. Fewer cars, less congestion.

But yes, removing other restrictions is important.

Yes, of cource, and as John R said there the new QBC which apprently need new buses etc etc.

But I think T21 knows this or if he doesnt he should. I was thinking the post quoted below is even beyond him....

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Can anyone explain to me how adding 200 extra buses to the gridlock in Dublin will improve public transport?

What use is this without proper bus lanes and doing something like banning single occupant cars at rush hour. It's just 200 extra buses stuck in traffic.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

It would of been daft if I had of stated this, which I didn't. I asked a question, not issued a statement.

I’ve noticed this in some of his posts, their content has to be challenged before he make clear what he means.

I simply don’t believe that he needed to ask the question. I think he's more informed and intelligent then to have a need to ask such. Put simply, it’s bull**** that it wasn’t a statement.

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

that statement should be banned on boards.ie! It simply is not true!... Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.

Lets look at what she said...

Five of the six major bodies with responsibility for encouraging the use of public transport in Britain have told a House of Commons inquiry that deregulation was ‘‘a failed experiment’’, which had led to higher fares, increased subsidies to commercial services, and falling standards and passengers numbers.

Can you for sure say that "five of the six major bodies with responsibility for encouraging the use of public transport in Britain" did not say such to the House of Commons?

If you’re going to try to dismiss what someone has said try countering what they have actually said, and countering what they use to back their words (in this case, what was said to the House of Commons).

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Just to repeat again for those who refuse to accept that the London market and rural England are the same, they are not! Hence if Dublin is to be privatized, guess what, the proposals are based on the London model not the rural England model, hence we can expect higher patronage on our buses.

Can you confirm that A) TfL was not one of the five of the six major bodies, and that none of the five was city based?

lostexpectation wrote:

sorry who wrote that I don't see it in t21 ramblings, (yes I sneeked a peek)

It’s from the Washington Post (maybe from an editorial, maybe from the letters section???) , and is in T21’s sig.

John R wrote:

People who think they understand articles that are beyond their comprehension should be banned TBH...

I have news for you. The PTE areas highlighted in that report ARE NOT RURAL AREAS. They comprise most of the large urban areas in the UK except for London.

Even worse, looking up, but not understanding detailed reports.

John R wrote:

...The reason that TfL style operations have so far not been brought in anywhere else in the UK is because it is very expensive to set up and run. It also requires a huge political commitment, London is unique in that one man had the authority to set up an initially unpopular system and commit the resources and backing to ensure it's long term success.

I can think of posters here who probably still don’t like anything about that man.

One way or another, Dublin first of all needs a mayor and councils with the powers like their London counterparts. Central government having so much power over transport in Dublin is just farcical, illogical, and undemocratic.

John R

Brian is wrong about that, the 200 buses that all the fuss is about are additional buses, not replacements.

There is a continuous replacement programme ongoing which is paid for as part of the normal funding of DB.

There will be at least 100 new fleet replacement buses this year, half of which are in service already.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

That's fair enough then. What is the average age of the current BD fleet?

About 6 years old, well over half the fleet is now wheelchair accessable dating from 2000 onwards.

The aim is to replace buses around the 12 year mark, there are some older ones (13-14 years) still in use, mainly as they have taken out newer minibuses and single deckers early to replace them with larger capacity double deckers.

Dublin Bus have one of the newest fleets anywhere for an operator of their size. Certainly outside of London there is no large fleet that is as young, buses dating from the early '80s are still a common sight in many fleets.

Busses withdrawn are now not being scrapped anymore, they still have considerable life left in them and are being transferred into the BusEireann schools fleet or in the case of the double deckers being sold on to private operators, mainly in the UK.

SeanW

How long is this BS between FF and the PDs about bus expansion been going on now?

The real kicker is that with a few exceptions, Joe Bloggs and Jane Q. Customer doesn't really give a sod about public or private ... they just want to go to a bus stop and get a bus ... That's the real measure here, buses on the streets. And it looks like the gov't has simply failed.

Voipjunkie

westtip wrote:

At long last someone says it as it is. Good on you for finding this quote from the WP, glad to see some observers are finally copping on - instead of this back clapping crap we have in our own papers.

No it is wrong the areas mentioned energy and transportation are semi state companies namely CIE and the ESB and Bord Gais anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the Irish economy would know that employees in those companies are not covered by the benchmarking arrangements and never have been.

High costs as they exist in the transportation field are due to government policy that the user pays the cost and that subsidies are kept to a minimum. Even allowing for that the costs compare favourably with the rest of the EU.

In the energy field the cost of electricity has been pushed up to allow for a margin for resellers to make a profit when they enter the market. The massive increases in recent years have not been brought about by the unions but by government policy.

And lastly it is laughable to blame the public sector unions for benchmarking IF it is a bad deal for the Irish public at large then the people to blame are the people who negoiated the deal on behalf of the Irish public namely the Government.

Victor

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Why someone like Niamh connolly is employed in a newspaper like the Indo when clearly she can't do 5mins research.

Erm, she works for the Sunday Business Post.

D'Peoples Voice

John R wrote:

People who think they understand articles that are beyond their comprehension should be banned TBH.

What I said is true, privatization has not been a disaster in ALL of the UK.
Spin it whatever way you like, yes they may have had to alter the system in London with TFL, but the fact remains that it is incorrect to say it is a disaster when patronage has risen by such large numbers(congestion chrgs aside).
All I'm saying is that journalists etc cannot make broad statements saying that privatization IS a disaster in ALL of the UK, when it is untrue!

John R wrote:

The reason that TfL style operations have so far not been brought in anywhere else in the UK is because it is very expensive to set up and run. It also requires a huge political commitment, London is unique in that one man had the authority to set up an initially unpopular system and commit the resources and backing to ensure it's long term success.

What do you think the chances of any Irish politicians doing that are? It is just not going to happen here, if we get large scale privatisation it is going to be the cheap and nasty version.

What journalists and unions should be doing is pressurizing the government into implementing a system which London has proven can work. Unions are tell ing us they are against privatization because customers suffer when we know better, they are really trying to keep their jobs.
How many union members thought of their customers when they took wild cat strikes on a cold wet morning!

dRNk SAnTA

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

What journalists and unions should be doing is pressurizing the government into implementing a system which London has proven can work. Unions are tell ing us they are against privatization because customers suffer when we know better, they are really trying to keep their jobs.
How many union members thought of their customers when they took wild cat strikes on a cold wet morning!

QFT.

Am I not right in thinking that what happened across the UK was a deregulation of the bus market and it has been a disaster. But what is being proposed here is the licencing out of 25% of DB routes to private operators on rolling contracts. i.e. the same type of deal between RPA and connex with performance related conditions.

I'm assuming here but I imagine you'd not really know one private operator from another as they'd all be under the same logo and be dealt with by the new DTA. The only big changes for passengers would be (hopefully) an increase in performance and reliability on the route.

Either way Dublin Bus as is just isn't good enough for a modern city. They've taken no proactive steps in reviewing their network, they don't show too much of an interest with regards to integrating with other modes, they're infatuated with An Lar. Any change requires permission from the unions and as we've seen in other threads the drivers demand compensation at every opportunity e.g. even adding 300m to the end of a route!

There HAS to be some reforms and it would make me sick to see DB get this money without making some changes. I'm tired of unions deciding what can happen with regards to public transport in Ireland, i don't remember voting them into power!

MarkoP11

It should of course be noted that to change a route or add one Dublin Bus has to go on bended knee to the Minister for permission

There have been two very decent route review documents in the last few years , there implementation has been on hold for 2 basic reasons

1) More services particularly to further outreaches of city -> need more buses
2) Department of Transport won't allow new routes until it works out the competition/priviatsiation game plan

The problem is the investment decisions are made by central government not at local level (I'm thinking London here)

John R

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

QFT.

Am I not right in thinking that what happened across the UK was a deregulation of the bus market and it has been a disaster. But what is being proposed here is the licencing out of 25% of DB routes to private operators on rolling contracts. i.e. the same type of deal between RPA and connex with performance related conditions.

You'd be wrong. Nowhere has any specifics been laid out as to how the privatisation would work.

If current practice is to continue then licences would be handed out to almost anyone with NO conditions whatsoever. None of the private operators in the city have any conditions placed upon them regarding service levels, fares, bus standards.

In fact they can withdraw services completely and still hold on to the licences thereby blocking other private operators and CIE from running services over those routes.

For example; Aerdart, stopped operating nearly 2 years ago but the licence is still valid so no one else can legally operate on the N32.

Or how about Aircoach, they still hold the licence for the Airport-Kildare-Portlaoise service even though they stopped running it last year.

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

I'm assuming here but I imagine you'd not really know one private operator from another as they'd all be under the same logo and be dealt with by the new DTA. The only big changes for passengers would be (hopefully) an increase in performance and reliability on the route.

There is no certainty that the DTA will have these powers and more importantly a large fund of cash to pay for it's set up and running as well as much increased subventions to "increase performance and reliability on the route"

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

Either way Dublin Bus as is just isn't good enough for a modern city. They've taken no proactive steps in reviewing their network, they don't show too much of an interest with regards to integrating with other modes

You mean apart from the multiple reports and plans that they have produced whose reccomendations have consistently been ignored.

I assume you have actually read them and believe them to be wrong, or is it that you are just uninformed and talking out of your arse?

Here, just in case are some of the recent ones

2006 review: http://www.dublinbus.ie/images/upload/news/DublinBusNetworkReview.pdf

2000 report: http://www.dublinbus.ie/about_us/pdf/swilson.pdf

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

they're infatuated with An Lar.

An oft-quoted complaint amongst those who think they know better. Let me ask you then which routes to the city centre would you like to see cut in order to serve other areas? The fact is that the routes to/from the city are by far the most heavily used. Without additional resources there is no point in trying to run more services as there is not enough buses to cover them.

Do you see now why the request for a big fleet increase is so important.

The fact is 200 extra buses would only just bring the fleet up to the level that they were promised in the NDP. This expansion was blocked back in 2000/1 by the same shysters that are still blocking it with the same pathetic privatisation (get rich quick scheems for our cronies) agenda while doing nothing on the ground whatsoever to provide for the city's transport needs.

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

Any change requires permission from the unions and as we've seen in other threads the drivers demand compensation at every opportunity e.g. even adding 300m to the end of a route!

There HAS to be some reforms and it would make me sick to see DB get this money without making some changes. I'm tired of unions deciding what can happen with regards to public transport in Ireland, i don't remember voting them into power!

Blah Blah, same anti-union crap as always. The fact is the DoT have blocked far more changes to the Dublin Bus network than the unions have.

They completely blocked a plan to introduce at least one regular 24hour all stops route, DB were all set to start but eventually had to drop it as they didn't get permission.

There should have been an extention over a year ago to the one of the Tallaght routes to serve the new developments in the Ellensborough area but this still hasn't been passed by them.

There are dozens of similar examples of this.

No, you didn't vote for the unions. Their job is to represent their members who pay them to do so, and their members quite rightly want them to resist the real possibility of deregulation and a situation where overnight their jobs become worthless low paid sh!t as happened in many parts of the UK.

You voted in the government politicians (or opposition ones if you had any sense) and it is their failure to represent your interests that is at fault. It is they who are holding back the limited improvements DB could make with their current budget and it is they who have witheld funding for needed investement for years while they bicker about stupid ideological concerns and internal power plays.

Yes DB are providing a service which often is slow, infrequent and does not serve enough of the city. That doesn't mean that it is poor because of their failures, there are far more aspects out of their control that are important, the main one being the complete lack of any commitment from all aspects of our national and local government to the operation of an effective bus service.

Whatever the name on the side of the bus will have FA effect on the service as long as the environment it operates in remains the same.

lostexpectation

monument wrote:

It’s from the Washington Post (maybe from an editorial, maybe from the letters section???) , and is in T21’s sig.

link is broke t21

monument

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

All I'm saying is that journalists etc cannot make broad statements saying that privatization IS a disaster in ALL of the UK, when it is untrue!

Again, she did not simply say such. You're still trying to make out she did and not that "Five of the six major bodies with responsibility for encouraging the use of public transport in Britain" told a House of Commons inquiry that deregulation was ‘‘a failed experiment’’.

If you are unable to directly challenge someone has wrote it would be best if you didn’t put words in their mouths.

MarkoP11 wrote:

The problem is the investment decisions are made by central government not at local level (I'm thinking London here)

What I said at the end of my last post

This is however a government which has taken away powers from local governments, sometimes placing it in their own hands or sometimes to unelected officials (if the locals don't make the 'right' choice, hint). None of the major parties have a substantial problem with this so my hopes aren’t high.

Transport21 Fan

John R wrote:

Brian is wrong about that, the 200 buses that all the fuss is about are additional buses, not replacements.

There is a continuous replacement programme ongoing which is paid for as part of the normal funding of DB.

There will be at least 100 new fleet replacement buses this year, half of which are in service already.



About 6 years old, well over half the fleet is now wheelchair accessable dating from 2000 onwards.

The aim is to replace buses around the 12 year mark, there are some older ones (13-14 years) still in use, mainly as they have taken out newer minibuses and single deckers early to replace them with larger capacity double deckers.

Dublin Bus have one of the newest fleets anywhere for an operator of their size. Certainly outside of London there is no large fleet that is as young, buses dating from the early '80s are still a common sight in many fleets.

Busses withdrawn are now not being scrapped anymore, they still have considerable life left in them and are being transferred into the BusEireann schools fleet or in the case of the double deckers being sold on to private operators, mainly in the UK.

Then DB needs these buses so. But I fail to see why this does not mean DB routes cannot be sold to the private sector - the arguments are not mutually inclusive to each other. Competition is good for the public transport user. Any kind of monopoly is bad - be it private or semi-state. Right now in buses we only have a public monoploy - I really cannot see where the logic of retaining all bus services in the hands of DB is.

I am not happy about the PDs holding bus investment to randsom any more than the CIE unions hold the passengers to randoms. As I said previously, a pox on both their houses as neither cares about the commuters.

monument

T21 - As you haven’t taken issue with what I have said (here) about your postings, can I take it you have no issue with what I have said?

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Then DB needs these buses so. But I fail to see why this does not mean DB routes cannot be sold to the private sector - the arguments are not mutually inclusive to each other.

So far, you have failed to back that up.

No one is saying there are no problems, but you are not letting us know how these problems will be fixed without creating others.

You’re argument so-far is pretty much “privatisation is great”, just using more words.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Competition is good for the public transport user. Any kind of monopoly is bad -

Not so in the UK apprently.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

I really cannot see where the logic of retaining all bus services in the hands of DB is.

I don’t think our logic is compatible, so can you explain this statement too.