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

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.

Transport21 Fan

Monument, because CIE doesn't provide the integrated public transport it should for the collosal sums of money pumped into it. That's my only argument. It begins and ends for me there.

I give it till 2020 before it's all gone. It is only one major strike away from this happening and the likes of the NBRU are so stupid they'll eventually push their luck too far and the public/political backlash will be their final undoing. I reckon the Interconnector pre-opening strike by the CIE unions will be their Waco.

2020 at the latest.

Diaspora

That is presuming that the interconnector arrives before 2020

I do see your point in relation to industrial relations as evidenced by the 10 coach Dart strike which was very damaging to union perceptions.

In relation to integrated networks and ticketing I believe the fault for this lies at ministerial level and needs to be tackled. Many years ago CIE did sell a day ticket vailid on everthing within the Short-Hop zone i.e Maynooth to Balbriggan to Greystones they should along with the RPA sell integrated tickets. It is felt from this perspective that the minister does not want this to happen as it would erode revenues particularly from the Kildare Commuter line where a commuter who lives in Sallins and works in Rathmines would currently buy three tickets i.e. Train to Heuston, Luas to Abbey and Bus to Rathmines. Integrated ticketing on a zonal basis would save this individual too much money.

monument

T21 - Another post yet more generic rhetoric. No direct answers to direct questions.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Monument, because CIE doesn't provide the integrated public transport it should for the collosal sums of money pumped into it.

General examples of where and how CIE’s network isn’t integrated would be brilliant.

One example where CIE is not at fault is integrated ticketing. Your friends at the RPA are charged with that matter. But it’s really not their fault, like Diaspora said there’s no movement on this issue most likely because of their boss.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

[integrated public transport and money…]That's my only argument. It begins and ends for me there.

CIE, like your pet the RPA, has only one shareholder.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

I give it till 2020 before it's all gone.

For CIE to be really “all gone” we’d want to start ripping up tracks, stations, and stops now.

For example, when/if the control of Dublin Bus and Greater Dublin Area rail services is given to a Dublin authority, it doesn’t mean CIE is “gone”, it means structures are changed.

You and the nice people in government continually try to pretend that CIE isn’t the State’s transport company.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

It is only one major strike away from this happening

Why exactly is this? What exactly do you know is going to happen if there’s “only one major strike”?

monument

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.

monument wrote:

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....

monument wrote:

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?

Since you have not challenged my statment or replied to my questions on what you have said above and your reply saying that your weren’t making a statement, there are a number of possibilities here, including…

A) You were in fact making a statement, in such case, there are a number of possibilities, including biases against bus-based transport, and/or a biases against such which is run by the state and not in private hands. All would be fine, but if you’re hiding it like this and lying about it, it’s not fine.

You’re simply not as informed on this subject as I think you are and as you usually make yourself out to be.

There would be no need for this sort of speculation if you could challenge my statement or answered my question.

Victor

Transport21 Fan, Monument - get a room.

Red Alert

Why does T21Fan think it will be all better under private bus/train/rickshaw operators:

- same gridlock
- same buslanes or lack of
- same city
- same idiot passengers
- same corrupt politicians
- same buses (mortons, dualway et al are all using the AX or Dennis Trident chassis)
- an 'overseer' body like the RPA with the same ineffectual and daft notions (like whatever fool wrote the LUAS vending machine's program)
- badly run/staffed companies like Veolia (whose speciality in france is rubbish collection) having more power to do their own thing

a privatisation agenda does not have to be a part of T21. public transport in my opinion should be owned/operated for the most part by the public/state. however CIE and the RPA have not got their house in order. the company we as taxpayers own should not be played down by the government, eager to feed their greedy backers. it should be made work, and the people in it should be made be productive. internal line managers should have results driven payscales and bonuses. expensive consultants reports should be forfeited in favour of pragmatic and achieveable plans. suddenly RPA/CIE would start to look more professional and indeed more attractive to many.

lostexpectation

Voipjunkie wrote:

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.

transport21 fan it has been suggested/pointed out that your sig quote is wrong, are you going to get rid of it?

D'Peoples Voice

Red Alert wrote:

Why does T21Fan think it will be all better under private bus/train/rickshaw operators:

- same gridlock
- same buslanes or lack of
- same city
- same idiot passengers
- same corrupt politicians
- same buses (mortons, dualway et al are all using the AX or Dennis Trident chassis)
- an 'overseer' body like the RPA with the same ineffectual and daft notions (like whatever fool wrote the LUAS vending machine's program)
- badly run/staffed companies like Veolia (whose speciality in france is rubbish collection) having more power to do their own thing

a privatisation agenda does not have to be a part of T21.

if ANYONE wants to know how T21 will work having the Public Sector running transport, it can be all summed up in this post! And someone wonders why the PDs are against the public sector running the buses.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054930828&referrerid=59211&highlight=moving+terminus

aliveandkicking

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

if ANYONE wants to know how T21 will work having the Public Sector running transport, it can be all summed up in this post! And someone wonders why the PDs are against the public sector running the buses.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054930828&referrerid=59211&highlight=moving+terminus

D'Peoples Voice - thats the side of CIE that the CIE fanboys on this forum such as Red Alert, monument and shltter etc. pretend doesnt exist and tries to pull the wool over our eyes by telling us Dublin Bus and Irish Rail provide us with a good service. That terminus still hasnt moved by the way.

I have no political bias for or against privatisation, my views are based on my lifes experience travelling on Dublin Bus and Irish Rail and lately the Luas as well as seeing how things work in other countries. I believe CIE and its group of companies are perhaps one of the most incompetent transport organisations as regards service delivery and customer service in the western world.

Connex (Veolia) are by all accounts from other countries not the best either but by jesus do they beat the hell out of DB or IE. I'll give you an example, this morning I got the Luas into work. 3 or 4 times during the journey the driver got on his microphone to inform the passengers that as it was drizzling with rain the tracks were greasy and the tram could slip and slide a bit so make sure to hold onto the hand rails and also not to worry if you hear a hissing noise as it was only sand being deposited onto the tracks to improve the grip. I kid you not - he said that 3 or 4 times, I think most passengers were flabbergasted hearing an announcement like this as everyone is so used to many (note not all) CIE heads treating passengers as an inconvenience that should be avoided.

dam099

Right now the unions do not seem to be the most immediate problem.

The most immediate problem is the government partners are deadlocked about how to go forward. They need to either decide to provide Dublin Bus with the necessary funds and authority to buy the buses they need or to face down the unions and privatise x% of routes (possibly in conjunction with reduced numbers of new buses for Dublin Bus).

The unions are not blocking anything right now as there is nothing concrete for them to block until such time as the government makes a decision. They have indicated their opposition to the PD's proposal but until such time as that proposal is also the unified position of the government the ball is in the governments court. If the government then put forward proposals that the unions oppose then we can start talking about whether the unions are now the problem.