State 'can save €80m' by tendering for PSO bus services

n97 mini

Kind of surprising that all the PSO routes are given to DB and BE and we are thus not benefiting from competition.

Who knows what the figure saved would actually be, but the rule of thumb is you only get the best price if you shop around.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-can-save-80m-by-privatising-some-bus-services-527289.html

dowlingm

Does BE still have the national school bus contract, which is then subcontracted to private companies after BE takes a cut? That's a nice arrangement!

LXFlyer

I would caution who is claiming this - they do have a vested interest in saying this!!

mikemac

Well of course private bus companies are going to say that

More contracts for them, just lobbying

AlekSmart

The reality in all of this is that competitive tendering for Public Road Transport Services is already here with the assumption into power of the NTA.

The initial 5 year contracts will have to be renewed in 2014,with a Public Review process enacted in 2013 so,yes,the CTTC spokesperson is earning their keep by keeping the issue live.

However as with most of these things,the actuality can sometimes be very different to the expectation.

Whilst it might appear sensible to many that the NTA bases it's Tender awards on merely the presence of Buses on the streets,the reality is that the NTA will,in keeping with all such EU regulatory bodies,take a somewhat broader view of the tendering operators.

Thus,any companies expecting the NTA to shower them with Public Service Obligation contracts will need to get very familiar,very fast with a veritable container full of assorted other "contractual requirements" such as Staff Training and Accreditation programmes,knowledge of and implimentation procedures for as many EU directives re the Public Transport as you can shake a big stick at,as well as being required to ...."contribute" to the operation of such initiatives as RTPI,Disability Awareness and whatever next-best-thing happens along before 2014.

I get the impression that some of the major players in the private sector believe that having a lower wage base amongst it's customer facing staff,will thus allow a cheap-as-chips tender resulting in a shoo-in for them......I f I were them I would revisit that notion rapidly,as the level of investment in non-hardware infrastructure will be a surprise for many I fear

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

I would caution who is claiming this - they do have a vested interest in saying this!!

Of course they do, just as the other side have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If it is true that the PSO routes are not put out to tender it needs to change, and by all accounts that seems to be the case.

Imagine if one airline got all the PSO routes, every year, without anyone else getting a look in. Very feckin cosy indeed.

n97 mini

AlekSmart wrote: »

Thus,any companies expecting the NTA to shower them with Public Service Obligation contracts will need to get very familiar,very fast with a veritable container full of assorted other "contractual requirements" ..........

None of which is a reason not to look for the best value for money by putting it out to tender, and letting the best "man" win.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course they do, just as the other side have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If it is true that the PSO routes are not put out to tender it needs to change, and by all accounts that seems to be the case.

Imagine if one airline got all the PSO routes, every year, without anyone else getting a look in. Very feckin cosy indeed.

The Authority is under a statutory obligation to have regard to cost effectiveness and value for money in the discharge of its functions.

So as you can see it's not true at all,so no change to the relevant and recent leglislation needed....

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/public_transport.html

Legal basis for Public Transport Contracts

In 2007 EC Regulation 1370/2007 – on public passenger transport services by rail and by road was adopted. 1370/2007 creates a framework regulating how Member States award exclusive rights and pay compensation for services deemed to be PSO.

The purpose of the new Regulation (1370/07) is to ensure transparency in the award of subvention for public transport services by requiring all PSO transport services to be subject to contracts. It replaces Regulations 1191/69 and 1107/70, which regulated the payment of State Aid to public transport operators.

In preparation for EC Regulation 1370/2007 Ireland progressed legislation in two stages, the first involving the enactment of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 and the second involving the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009.

Of course it's far from a simple matter to adjudicate on and deem what is or is not a PSO routing or service as there is now an exceedingly complex formulaic methodology surrounding that.

A taste can be garnered here......

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/social_impact_estimation_methodology.pdf


I'm not sure the Airline analogy holds water (:)) as I seem to recall Ryanair and Aer Arann having a full and frank exchange of views on the now defunct PSO situation relating to domestic air routes ?

One thing is for sure N97 mini.and it's the requirement for a Bus-Full of Economists,Accountants,Social Studies Lecturers and perhaps a Jesuit or two to decide upon this PSO award...the most obvious absentee from it all will be actual Public Transport operators and their staff....;)

Just don't be expecting any miraculous hugely cheaper yet more efficient and widespread Public Transport Services as a result of all this posturing....it ain't gonna happen thataway...:(

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course they do, just as the other side have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If it is true that the PSO routes are not put out to tender it needs to change, and by all accounts that seems to be the case.

Imagine if one airline got all the PSO routes, every year, without anyone else getting a look in. Very feckin cosy indeed.

As Alek points out both DB and BE have PSO contracts for their services until 2014. At that point they may well lose/gain services depending on the review and tendering process.

The CTTC are fully aware of this.

dowlingm

n97 mini wrote: »

Imagine if one airline got all the PSO routes, every year, without anyone else getting a look in. Very feckin cosy indeed.

You should look back through the PSO awards over the years... not to mention what happened when entrants like Euroceltic and Loganair left their routes. Not saying Aer Arann had an unfair advantage but a major part of their business model was PSO cash backstopping their non-PSO routes and therefore they made sure to get as many as they could.

CIE

Just what kind of regulations are preventing fully-private operation of city bus services, i.e. on revenue out of the farebox alone?

n97 mini

CIE wrote: »

Just what kind of regulations are preventing fully-private operation of city bus services, i.e. on revenue out of the farebox alone?

Eddie Hobbs was on the TV a few years ago going on about how a private operator applied to run a service between Galway and Limerick to be told by the Dept that there was already an operator (BE) on that route and there was no room for another one.

His point, which I would full agree with, is let the market decide when there are enough, not some faceless civil servant in Dublin.

Cookie_Monster

CIE wrote: »

Just what kind of regulations are preventing fully-private operation of city bus services, i.e. on revenue out of the farebox alone?

common sense.

you can't just have private operators coming in willy nilly, cherrypicking profitable routes. If they are going to allow private operators then it needs to be done very carefully, blocks of routes including PSO and non profitable routes must go along with the profitable ones to ensure customer service take priority over rev gen.

Bad as DB can be, if whole sale private operation is allowed in Dublin I think it'd be a total disaster, done in a jobs for the boys fashion that serves no one but the companies. you'd also undoubtedly end up with huge duplication and waste

n97 mini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Bad as DB can be, if whole sale private operation is allowed in Dublin I think it'd be a total disaster,

Luas is proof that involving the private sector can deliver the best solution, which I think most people would agree is the capital's best form of mass transit, even tho it has its own worts.

Losty Dublin

n97 mini wrote: »

Eddie Hobbs was on the TV a few years ago going on about how a private operator applied to run a service between Galway and Limerick to be told by the Dept that there was already an operator (BE) on that route and there was no room for another one.

His point, which I would full agree with, is let the market decide when there are enough, not some faceless civil servant in Dublin.

Eddie got that one wrong. Citylink have been on that route since 2007, Lord knows how long the DoT sat on their application before then!

n97 mini

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Eddie got that one wrong. Citylink have been on that route since 2007, Lord knows how long the DoT sat on their application before then!

I did say a few years ago. Could have been 2006! Probably was...

schemingbohemia

Is this not a re-issuing of the same point they (CCTC) made last year?

bk

If private operators do enter Dublin city services for instance.

Then they need to follow the London bus model. They should be made use the same spec of bus, with the same livery and branding, use DB bus stops, tickets the same cost as DB, tickets fully integrated with DB, use the same website for route planning, timetables, etc.

In other words the costumers shouldn't even realise that they are using a different bus company.

The last thing we want is a mess of incompatible tickets, etc.

LXFlyer

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Is this not a re-issuing of the same point they (CCTC) made last year?

Yes.

They know full well there are PSO contracts in place until 2014.

Cookie_Monster

n97 mini wrote: »

Luas is proof that involving the private sector can deliver the best solution, which I think most people would agree is the capital's best form of mass transit, even tho it has its own worts.

Luas is a closed system with no competition on it (obvious there are other modes of transport). It only has two lines, hardly comparable with taking entire chunks of Dublin and allocating 20+ bus routes with a degree of overlap and direct competition.

Cookie_Monster

bk wrote: »

If private operators do enter Dublin city services for instance.

Then they need to follow the London bus model. They should be made use the same spec of bus, with the same livery and branding, use DB bus stops, tickets the same cost as DB, tickets fully integrated with DB, use the same website for route planning, timetables, etc.

In other words the costumers shouldn't even realise that they are using a different bus company.

The last thing we want is a mess of incompatible tickets, etc.

Of course all this is plainly obvious to you and me, do you think, even for a minute, that that is actually how they'd choose to do it though?

n97 mini

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Luas is a closed system with no competition

It was put out the tender, that's the difference.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

If private operators do enter Dublin city services for instance.

Then they need to follow the London bus model. They should be made use the same spec of bus, with the same livery and branding, use DB bus stops, tickets the same cost as DB, tickets fully integrated with DB, use the same website for route planning, timetables, etc.

In other words the costumers shouldn't even realise that they are using a different bus company.

The last thing we want is a mess of incompatible tickets, etc.

I'm sorry bk,but that is not what we are used to round these parts...

Take the Integrated Ticketing "scheme"......

http://www.transport21.ie/Projects/Integrated_Ticketing/Integrated_Smart_Card_Ticketing_in_the_Greater_Dublin_Area.html

You could not make this up.....knowledge based economy my hat.....

The integrated smart card will subsequently be rolled out to cover services provided by private bus operators, Irish Rail (DART and commuter rail) and Bus Éireann on a pilot basis following completion of the necessary development, testing and commissioning of their systems. Testing and roll-out for these service providers will commence in early 2011. The single smart card, with ePurse capability, will replace the interim smart cards throughout 2011.

Sounds good eh....?

Then we go to the RPA.....

http://www.rpa.ie/en/its/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.rpa.ie/en/its/Pages/ITSandCommercialTransportOperators.aspx

And perhaps best of all...the FAQ's......

Q8: Why can’t you just link up the existing Luas and Morton’s smart cards?

Both of these systems are based on different equipment and are based on proprietary with incompatible designs.

Q10: What is so complicated about the project?

The project is to provide a common payment method and a common smart card for all transport providers in Dublin.

Q11: Why does the project cost so much?

The key factors impacting the cost are as follows:

(a) have to integrate with existing legacy equipment

(b) we are contributing towards the cost of new smart enabled equipment for operators

(c) there are no off-the-shelf systems that we could just buy that meet our requirements

(d) we have to get each transport operators’ equipment supplier to implement modifications to our specification

(e) we have to cater for the complexities of the existing ticketing arrangements

(f) we have to ensure that the card and transactions are secure

(g) we wish to also cater for the DSFA (Department of Social and Family Affairs) Free Travel Scheme

(h) we have to establish a helpdesk

(i) we have widened the project scope

(j) The increase is due to the longer implementation period for the project and the associated price inflation, increased contributions for the transport operators to reflect the cost of integration, the increased public transport investment under the Transport 21 plan, and inclusion of the technical requirements for the “Free Travel” link-up with DSFA. The budget also includes provision for contingency.

And so on,and so forth....If anybody can see evidence of forward planning or even reasonable thought in all of this then please speak now or forever hold your silence....:(

CIE

n97 mini wrote: »

Luas is proof that involving the private sector can deliver the best solution, which I think most people would agree is the capital's best form of mass transit, even tho it has its own worts.

I wouldn't go that far. If they were 100 percent private and not using any public monies for capital and operating revenue, maybe things would look good on their part; but they're a PPP. They had plenty of state-held land available to them to build on too. I'd still want the system to have been built (at least) to be convertible to tram-train, for flexibility's sake.

As for so-called "public service obligations", isn't Network Direct designed to minimise the number of such obligations, by restricting bus service to the busiest corridors and cutting down on so-called service "duplication"? (Oh where is the bus to Blessington that used to run on Lower Kimmage Road and Fortfield Road to get to Templeogue Road, eh...back when there wasn't all this public interference in private enterprise and all...)

antoinolachtnai

Dublin Bus is charging the taxpayer and fare payer over 4 euros per vehicle kilometer.

In Scotland, the cost is around a half of that. (see http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=scotland%20buses%20cost%20per%20vehicle%20mile&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.dft.gov.uk%2Fstatistics%2Ftables%2Fbus0408.xls&ei=9gy5Tp73KMyGhQfPg6DIBw&usg=AFQjCNHPcTywpsdsO09SAuOLdE0JXs7Mfg)

It is ridiculous that these routes are not put out to tender.

A twenty percent reduction in unit costs would allow the service to be increased in scope by 20 percent.

As it stands, Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann have the right to hold on to these routes for as long as they want them. That is what the law says. There is no plan to put routes out to tender in 2014. That is just a story that Dublin Bus tells the Unions when they want to annoy them and kick them around a bit.

See Section 52 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act:

(a) Dublin Bus has an exclusive right to continue to provide the public bus passenger services that it provides in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1958 and section 8 of the Act of 1986 within the city of Dublin and the counties of Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and contiguous areas,

(b) Bus Éireann has an exclusive right to continue to provide the public bus passenger services that it provides in accordance with section 7 of the Act of 1958 and section 8 of the Act of 1986 within the GDA except in so far as such services are provided by Dublin Bus under paragraph (a), and

(c) the services to which the exclusive rights referred to in this subsection shall be set out in the public service contracts made under subsection (3)(a).

foggy_lad

n97 mini wrote: »

Kind of surprising that all the PSO routes are given to DB and BE and we are thus not benefiting from competition.

Who knows what the figure saved would actually be, but the rule of thumb is you only get the best price if you shop around.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-can-save-80m-by-privatising-some-bus-services-527289.html

Bus Eireann already has contractors operating regularly on many of their intercity and commuter journeys for less than they can do themselves so why not let the routes be put to tender and get some much needed value for money? The same could be done with railway lines.

n97 mini

CIE wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far.

What far? I didn't say it's was private, I said it involved the private sector.

I think the bus PSO thing will be the same. The only way to get the best value for money is to involve the private sector.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far. If they were 100 percent private and not using any public monies for capital and operating revenue, maybe things would look good on their part; but they're a PPP. They had plenty of state-held land available to them to build on too.

You mean the same way that both public and private bus companies benefit from the state building roads for them?

n97 mini

bk wrote: »

In other words the costumers shouldn't even realise that they are using a different bus company.

Of course they should. A private operator is only going to survive if they can demonstrate to customers that there is a better bus company than DB.

If a private operator can provide a service at a lower cost than DB, would you insist that they charge the higher price for it? If it's profitable should they be pocketing the increased profit? I can imagine the threads on here...

markpb

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course they should. A private operator is only going to survive if they can demonstrate to customers that there is a better bus company than DB

In fairness, customers are a terrible way to decide how good or bad a public transport operator is. Yes, they should have an input but the hard facts that come from a proper monitoring system is the only true way to decide. Customers are like eyewitnesses to a crime: totally unreliable and have terrible judgement.

schemingbohemia

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course they should. A private operator is only going to survive if they can demonstrate to customers that there is a better bus company than DB.

If a private operator can provide a service at a lower cost than DB, would you insist that they charge the higher price for it? If it's profitable should they be pocketing the increased profit? I can imagine the threads on here...

Can you provide a successful example of the unfettered competition you are suggesting above? It was tried in Manchester and other cities and inevitably ends up with a race to the bottom with the customer losing out at the end of it as bus companies pull out as routes become uneconomical.

The only way to do this properly is to follow the Transport for London model with competitive tendering for bundles of routes, where good routes are bundled with not so good routes.

If your suggestion was followed only certain routes would be bid for in Dublin - 46a, 145, 9 and a few others. This would mean that Dublin Bus would probably end up with the dregs which would mean the Government subsidy would go up! Subsidy up, profits into private sector, what's the benefit for customers there?

antoinolachtnai

As it stands in Dublin, the vast majority of the route network could be provided on a profitable basis. The reason is that most of the 'social' aspect of the network has been or is being eliminated as a result of Network Direct. Every route of any size is viable or close to viable, not just the 46a, the 145 and the 9. The viability issues that would arise would come from operational issues like congestion and passenger types, not from passenger numbers.

As I say, the price per km in Scotland is much lower than the DB price per km. If our costs were in line with Scotland, our transport system would be making a big profit every year.

But nobody is suggesting that it would be turned into a free-for-all. That is a completely different issue. What is being suggested is to put routes out to tender.

The TfL model is certainly a good one, or at the least one that there are major lessons to be learned from. A colleague of mine was the person who made the decision to paint the buses red again in London and he feels the same way about it. Section 57 of the DTA (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0015/print.html) suggests that this is also what the legislators had in mind (The minister at the time of drafting had considered this matter and had received representations from experts). However, the NTA has decided not to follow the TfL model, and to keep all the different brands for the different modes and companies and to introduce a new brand as a layer on top of all these brands. This seems like a serious error to me, but I have questioned them at some length about it, and they are absolutely determined that this is how they want to do it.

This is another reason to feel fairly certain that the NTA has no intention of putting anything out to tender. If they were going to do so in 2014, they would have to begin clarifying the brand issue almost immediately (it would take two or three years to put a new brand in place.)

n97 mini

markpb wrote: »

In fairness, customers are a terrible way to decide how good or bad a public transport operator is. Yes, they should have an input but the hard facts that come from a proper monitoring system is the only true way to decide. Customers are like eyewitnesses to a crime: totally unreliable and have terrible judgement.

Well, even though it's the Luas, a lot of people would know it's Veolia running it. I don't think they would have agreed to it if they had to hide their brand.

n97 mini

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Can you provide a successful example of the unfettered competition you are suggesting above?

Where did I suggest that? How do you stretch allowing customers to know there is another company(s) involved to meaning unfettered competition?

n97 mini

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

However, the NTA has decided not to follow the TfL model, and to keep all the different brands for the different modes and companies and to introduce a new brand as a layer on top of all these brands. This seems like a serious error to me, but I have questioned them at some length about it, and they are absolutely determined that this is how they want to do it.

While I would probably be in favour of more unity than they're suggesting (like a common colour), brand separation can work, as it does in the UK rail system.

antoinolachtnai

That is true, but outer-suburban and interurban services are quite a different thing from city services.

Having all different colours and branding of buses on the roads in London definitely did not work, and it was certainly one of the problems of bus privatization elsewhere in the UK.

In practice, taking the number 11 bus route, say, and one day changing the color and style of all the vehicles would lead to an awful lot of confusion. This confusion would be a very practical problem - people would be reluctant to travel on the new bus and would want to wait for their usual bus to arrive -. It's actually a pretty conservative marketplace. It could be remedied, but it would be an awful lot of expense, which would then have to be repeated for every contracted route, and for every time the contract shifted.

Not to say it is the only way to do it, but if you are going to have a central contracting model with a single set of quality standards, it seems to make sense to have a single brand.

schemingbohemia

n97 mini wrote: »

Where did I suggest that? How do you stretch allowing customers to know there is another company(s) involved to meaning unfettered competition?

Well what's the point in letting people know they're on a different bus if the route they're going on has no choice?

If you're now saying you're in favour of the TfL model in most situations the customer is not going to have a choice as to which bus company to use to get to their destination so how is having different branding going to help them?

schemingbohemia

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As it stands in Dublin, the vast majority of the route network could be provided on a profitable basis. The reason is that most of the 'social' aspect of the network has been or is being eliminated as a result of Network Direct. Every route of any size is viable or close to viable, not just the 46a, the 145 and the 9. The viability issues that would arise would come from operational issues like congestion and passenger types, not from passenger numbers.

As I say, the price per km in Scotland is much lower than the DB price per km. If our costs were in line with Scotland, our transport system would be making a big profit every year.

But nobody is suggesting that it would be turned into a free-for-all. That is a completely different issue. What is being suggested is to put routes out to tender.

The TfL model is certainly a good one, or at the least one that there are major lessons to be learned from. A colleague of mine was the person who made the decision to paint the buses red again in London and he feels the same way about it. Section 57 of the DTA (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0015/print.html) suggests that this is also what the legislators had in mind (The minister at the time of drafting had considered this matter and had received representations from experts). However, the NTA has decided not to follow the TfL model, and to keep all the different brands for the different modes and companies and to introduce a new brand as a layer on top of all these brands. This seems like a serious error to me, but I have questioned them at some length about it, and they are absolutely determined that this is how they want to do it.

This is another reason to feel fairly certain that the NTA has no intention of putting anything out to tender. If they were going to do so in 2014, they would have to begin clarifying the brand issue almost immediately (it would take two or three years to put a new brand in place.)

I think you're adding 2+2 and getting 25. My understanding is that there is no choice for the NTA as to whether the routes go out to tender or not.

antoinolachtnai

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I think you're adding 2+2 and getting 25. My understanding is that there is no choice for the NTA as to whether the routes go out to tender or not.

Section 52 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 says exactly the opposite.

bk

n97 mini wrote: »

Well, even though it's the Luas, a lot of people would know it's Veolia running it. I don't think they would have agreed to it if they had to hide their brand.

While those of us with an interest in public transport know, the vast majority of ordinary people on the street have no idea. They just know it as the Luas.

I've no problem with the companies having a sub branding on their buses, for instance something like Dublin Bus by Veoila, Dublin Bus by First, Dublin Bus by Dublin Bus, etc.

In fact London Buses have exactly that, they carry the name of their transport company, but they are still all distinctly recognisable as London Bus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Bus_route_23_Oxford_Street_031.jpg

But more importantly, you pay the same fare on all London Buses. The same weekly/multi tickets work across all companies and there is a single website with the route planners, timetables etc.

Again, no problem putting the name of the company next to the route information on this website, etc. Just as long as we don't end up with a separate site and iphone apps for Veoila, First, etc.

Intercity Bus coach routes it isn't as big a deal, they can have separate branding, sites, etc., but even then there should still be a certain level of integration. There should be one site run by the NTA with a route planner letting you know the various private options available and at least linking to their site. And ideally they should all be sharing bus stops and stations.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Intercity Bus coach routes it isn't as big a deal, they can have separate branding, sites, etc., but even then there should still be a certain level of integration. There should be one site run by the NTA with a route planner letting you know the various private options available and at least linking to their site. And ideally they should all be sharing bus stops and stations.

That single route planner is apparently exactly what is planned for www.transportforireland.ie

http://www.transportforireland.ie/national-intermodal-journey-planner

markpb

lxflyer wrote: »

That single route planner is apparently exactly what is planned for www.transportforireland.ie. http://www.transportforireland.ie/national-intermodal-journey-planner

Good stuff. It's great to see this happening although I'd question the sanity of spending money developing yet another journey planner when Google will provide one free of charge. It's good enough for Los Angeles, Washington, Atlanta, Boston and Sydney but not for us apparently. I'm all for progress but wasting money is just silly.

bk

markpb wrote: »

Good stuff. It's great to see this happening although I'd question the sanity of spending money developing yet another journey planner when Google will provide one free of charge. It's good enough for Los Angeles, Washington, Atlanta, Boston and Sydney but not for us apparently. I'm all for progress but wasting money is just silly.

I think we should have both.

A dedicated route planner (and apps) make sense for locals who routinely use the service as you can give more information.

However visitors might not know where to go to get this route planner and would instead find Google Transit easy to use.

I used Google Transit in both Barcelona and Boston recently and it was absolutely amazing. So easy to use as a visitor.

Someone in the NTA should be fired if they don't make the data available to Google Transit.

Stevek101

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If they were going to do so in 2014, they would have to begin clarifying the brand issue almost immediately (it would take two or three years to put a new brand in place.)

Transport for Ireland branding has already appeared on some Bus Éireann double deckers. In the new year it'll become more visible across all operators.

n97 mini

bk wrote: »

I've no problem with the companies having a sub branding on their buses, for instance something like Dublin Bus by Veoila, Dublin Bus by First, Dublin Bus by Dublin Bus, etc.

Except it can't be Dublin Bus by Veolia without rebranding Dublin Bus the bus company, at least to Dublin Bus Electric Ireland or something.

bk wrote: »

Just as long as we don't end up with a separate site and iphone apps for Veoila, First, etc.

Absolutely.

bk

Stevek101 wrote: »

Transport for Ireland branding has already appeared on some Bus Éireann double deckers. In the new year it'll become more visible across all operators.

But is that not a sub brand to Bus Eireann.

What we are talking about is Transport for Ireland being the primary brand (with it's own distinctive colour scheme) and Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus, etc. being the sub brand.

See my link above to London Bus.

BTW I just checked, Goggle Transit now works for 448 cities around the world, so it is quiet embarrassing that Dublin doesn't have it.

antoinolachtnai

That is what we are talking about, but it is not what the NTA are doing.

dowlingm

Ideally the data would be provided to Google but then a business case made for a separate planner which could add extra features. For instance, a wheelchair passenger might need options which route via stations with elevators or whatever rather than the shortest possible route.

For example:
http://www3.ttc.ca/Trip_planner/index.jsp

CIE

markpb wrote: »

You mean the same way that both public and private bus companies benefit from the state building roads for them?

No, because nobody else can run on Luas' tracks except Luas, where they have their own alignment, and where they don't, other vehicles cannot actually use the tram tracks. The roads are shared by all road vehicles (save dedicated lanes e.g. bus/bicycle lanes), and even with pedestrians on the footpath (hopefully) on the same alignment.

antoinolachtnai

There appears to have been a difficulty in relation to the NTA releasing data to Google. If you feel strongly about this matter, you should certainly email transportforireland and tell them how useful you think it would be.

NTA has brought in the company that did the London journey planner. I'm not a fan of the London journey planner myself, but it certainly does have a lot of features.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

As it stands, Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann have the right to hold on to these routes for as long as they want them. That is what the law says. There is no plan to put routes out to tender in 2014. That is just a story that Dublin Bus tells the Unions when they want to annoy them and kick them around a bit.

See Section 52 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act:

All quite true in a narrow-bodied way...however if one takes a slightly wider focus of the same Section 52,it can be seen thus...

52.— (1) Save where a licence is granted by the Minister under the Road Transport Act 1932 or where otherwise provided by law—

(6) (a) The Authority may at any time review a direct award contract entered into under this section and may following such a review unilaterally make amendments to such contract.

(d) Where the Authority proposes to carry out a review to which paragraph (b) refers or enter into the direct award contracts to which paragraph (c)(ii) refers, it shall invite and consider submissions from the holder of the direct award contract in question and from any other interested parties, including users of the public bus passenger services that are the subject of the contract.

(8) (a) The Minister may, where he or she considers it appropriate in order to achieve the Government’s transport objectives or to ensure compliance with an act of an institution of the European Community, issue directions at his or her sole discretion to the Authority and, as appropriate, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Irish Rail in relation to the provision of public passenger transport services to which this section relates.


(b) Where the Minister issues a direction under this subsection, the Authority and Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or Irish Rail, as appropriate, shall comply with that direction.

While I can see where Antoin is coming from,or heading for....I would not agree that the NTA is proposing to do nothing in relation to it's new powers.....We now have a tendering regime,with a 3 years left until it's first outing under sail.....I'm confident that the process will reveal quite a bit more about service provision than many might think....;)