10% of DB and BE could be privatised from 2014

Jamie2k9

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-set-to-privatise-bus-services-1.1464648

What do people think of it?

I can't see operators wanting to take on DB routes but I could with BE.

bk

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

What do people think of it?

I can't see operators wanting to take on DB routes but I could with BE.

Why wouldn't they? Private operators were quite happy to take on city bus routes for London Bus.

We already have the example of the Swords Express operating almost city type routes.

No the important questions are, if they go down this route, how will it operate:

- Is the plan to follow a London Bus type approach?
- Will the name, brand, website and the colour schemes etc. of Dublin Bus be taken over by the NTA?
- Will the ownership of Dublin Bus depots be taken over by the NTA?
- Will the ownership of Dublin Bus buses be taken over by the NTA?
- Will the private operator routes, continue to use the DB brand, colour scheme, buses and 100% fully integrate ticketing with DB transparently.

dowlingm

The difference between NTA and Transport for London is that TfL has local accountability via the Mayor (as Chairman) and the Greater London Authority.

dermo88

Teehee.....exactly as I predicted all those years ago. Watch the commies threaten a strike

end of the road

doubt it will happen, or if it does, no doubt the government will make a balls of it like almost everything else, even if private operators were interested they certainly won't except the current payment for the free travel scheme so it will be interesting times ahead for the scheme if this goes ahead

Jamie2k9

end of the road wrote: »

doubt it will happen, or if it does, no doubt the government will make a balls of it like almost everything else, even if private operators were interested they certainly won't except the current payment for the free travel scheme so it will be interesting times ahead for the scheme if this goes ahead

At least it will be a fair balance between profitable and un profitable service, I think this will put a spanner in the works for private operators more than free pass cap.

TheBandicoot

Great idea, give the 10% most profitable routes(46a,39a,145..) to private gougers, decrease or keep the same subvention so that in a few years Dublin Bus will have huge money problems, at which stage it can be presented as a failing company and all the routes can then be handed to mates of the ministers to make greedy profit from.

n97 mini

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Great idea, give the 10% most profitable routes(46a,39a,145..) to private gougers,

Gougers? Is it possible to have public sector gougers too?

TheBandicoot wrote: »

decrease or keep the same subvention so that in a few years Dublin Bus will have huge money problems,

This is not about the preservation of Dublin Bus at all costs. It's about providing an efficient service, with subvention paid to whatever operator is deemed to need it.

I hope any privatisation will stipulate last services must depart at 00.30 in line with the Luas.

markpb

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Great idea, give the 10% most profitable routes(46a,39a,145..) .....

Did you read the article or get bored after the headline?

monument

This or more extensive tendering was flagged at least two or three years ago. It's not at all a suprise.

As BK says -- how it will be done is the important part.

Hopefully it's done London style and not general UK style which has been less successful.

L1011

I sincerely hope this is coupled with the NTA taking control of the Dublin Bus name, livery, etc and having the 90% "rump" (probably the largest percentage I could ever imagine being used for that) running as CIE opf "Dublin Bus" with the tendered routes being Whoever opf "Dublin Bus".

Fracturing the brand, however weak it may be, will cause massive and needless confusion - and involve repainting the NTA owned buses also I suspect.

dublinbusdude

DB should be doing return tickets at the money machine as most UK cities do it!

fly_agaric

n97 mini wrote: »

It's about providing an efficient service

The big lie, privatisation is always about getting rent-seeking opportunities for someone or other (edit: or possibly a quick & easy way of dealing with unionised workforces that are seen as "troublesome"); if it is done well (which would be a surprise to a cynic like me) the best we can hope for I think is a dearer service that's a bit better run imo.
Dublin is alot smaller than London and the city also has (by design) a castrated and fragmented local govt. in common with the rest of Ireland. Any pressure on private operators to get things right will have to come from central govt. or its "National" Transport Agency quango.

n97 mini

fly_agaric wrote: »

The big lie, privatisation is always about getting rent-seeking opportunities for someone or other

Don't really know what that means. Long and short of it is lack of competition means lack of value for money.

Quinntan

n97 mini wrote: »

Don't really know what that means. Long and short of it is lack of competition means lack of value for money.

Competition doesn't necessarily guarantee value for money. In the case of the deregulation of the market in Britain, for example, it's increased fares despite falling costs for motorists.

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110214/text/110214w0006.htm

etchyed

bk wrote: »

- Is the plan to follow a London Bus type approach?

monument wrote: »

Hopefully it's done London style and not general UK style which has been less successful.

The fact that the word 'tendering' has been used would indicate that it is indeed a London-style approach rather than a rest-of-Britain free for all.

I'm not sure whether the bundling of profitable and unprofitable routes is done in London, but it's presumably done elsewhere. Actually, I'm not sure why we always end up discussing London when stuff like this comes up. There are tendered private bus services all over the world. The deregulated bus market in the rest of Britain is pretty unique, to the best of my knowledge, an anomaly that nobody really wants to emulate.

MYOB wrote: »

I sincerely hope this is coupled with the NTA taking control of the Dublin Bus name, livery, etc and having the 90% "rump" (probably the largest percentage I could ever imagine being used for that) running as CIE opf "Dublin Bus" with the tendered routes being Whoever opf "Dublin Bus".

Fracturing the brand, however weak it may be, will cause massive and needless confusion - and involve repainting the NTA owned buses also I suspect.

Although I agree with you to some extent, I think "massive" may be a bit of an overstatement. Ideally, the capital's bus services wouldn't be operated by buses in a mishmash of different liveries, but as long as there's integrated information and ticketing, it wouldn't be the end of the world. At the end of the day, if a bus has got a familiar route number on the front display, people aren't really going to care what colour it is.

The fact that the NTA plans to replace all bus stops with its own neutrally-branded ones would suggest that there is no plan to commandeer the Dublin Bus brand and operate private services under it.

Re: "NTA owned buses" - if services are put out to tender, presumably the private operators would have to provide the vehicles?

Victor

n97 mini wrote: »

Don't really know what that means. Long and short of it is lack of competition means lack of value for money.

Not absolutely. If a monopolist is an efficient, breaking up the monopoly may introduce new costs.

Quinntan wrote: »

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110214/text/110214w0006.htm

Are you referring to any particular part of that long page?

cdebru

n97 mini wrote: »

Don't really know what that means. Long and short of it is lack of competition means lack of value for money.

is it the death knell of the free travel scheme and hopefully political interference in what services are operated (Bertie and the 51a).


depends on what way it is done, the NTA collects all the revenue and just pays for the service provided. Or the private operator retains the revenue and the NTA tops it up with whatever subvention is needed.

Will private operators be prepared to carry so many for free? Will the payment from social protection be increased? Or will it go the way of the free bins once Dublin city council handed it over to private operators?

Quinntan

Victor wrote: »

Not absolutely. If a monopolist is an efficient, breaking up the monopoly may introduce new costs.

Are you referring to any particular part of that long page?

"Data from the independent ONS suggests that between 1980 and 2010 the real cost of motoring, including the purchase of a vehicle, declined by 10%, bus and coach fares increased by 54% and rail fares increased by 55% in real terms."

monument

etchyed wrote: »

The fact that the word 'tendering' has been used would indicate that it is indeed a London-style approach rather than a rest-of-Britain free for all.

I'm not sure whether the bundling of profitable and unprofitable routes is done in London, but it's presumably done elsewhere. Actually, I'm not sure why we always end up discussing London when stuff like this comes up. There are tendered private bus services all over the world. The deregulated bus market in the rest of Britain is pretty unique, to the best of my knowledge, an anomaly that nobody really wants to emulate.

I was going to say London and across the world but left it at London as that's the example that most of know or that more of us know than any other example.

etchyed wrote: »

Although I agree with you to some extent, I think "massive" may be a bit of an overstatement. Ideally, the capital's bus services wouldn't be operated by buses in a mishmash of different liveries, but as long as there's integrated information and ticketing, it wouldn't be the end of the world. At the end of the day, if a bus has got a familiar route number on the front display, people aren't really going to care what colour it is.

A core part of an integrated transport system is integrated branding -- that works the world over.

etchyed wrote: »

The fact that the NTA plans to replace all bus stops with its own neutrally-branded ones would suggest that there is no plan to commandeer the Dublin Bus brand and operate private services under it.

Dublin Bus could still be reserved local / city services -- err... as in London!

The bus stops able to take other brands would be useful for other services.

etchyed wrote: »

Re: "NTA owned buses" - if services are put out to tender, presumably the private operators would have to provide the vehicles?

I can't see why that would be required.

etchyed

monument wrote: »

A core part of an integrated transport system is integrated branding -- that works the world over.

Core? I think it's a 'nice to have', really. Don't get me wrong, I would like for it to happen too.

Dublin Bus could still be reserved local / city services -- err... as in London!

The bus stops able to take other brands would be useful for other services.

The part of my post that this responds to was not an opinion or a suggestion, just a statement about what appears to be actually happening.

I can't see why that would be required.

I can't see why it wouldn't. The NTA has a regulatory role, and a role of procurig services. I don't see why it should get into the business of owning vehicles. This issue is quite separate from the branding, though. With the exception of the Borismaster (which is different for all kinds of reasons), TfL does not own London buses, but still stipulates that they have to be painted red.

AngryLips

What is the argument in favour of privitastion in this case?
To reduce fares?
To reduce exchequer subvention?
To improve services?

It seems odd to me that the Troika would be involved in this unless there was some ideological imperative to satisfy.

n97 mini

Victor wrote: »

Not absolutely. If a monopolist is an efficient, breaking up the monopoly may introduce new costs.

The consumer has no influence over costs when there is a monopoly involved. This is bad.

Amirani

AngryLips wrote: »

What is the argument in favour of privitastion in this case?
To reduce fares?
To reduce exchequer subvention?
To improve services?

It seems odd to me that the Troika would be involved in this unless there was some ideological imperative to satisfy.

Mainly the second one I'd imagine. Though there could be some improvements around increased operating hours and better frequency that follow as a result (though the opposite could happen on some routes).

Amirani

n97 mini wrote: »

The consumer has no influence over costs when there is a monopoly involved. This is bad.

I think we'll still essentially see a monopolistic scenario in that there won't be multiple providers running the same route. Each route will still be monopolised so consumer influence will still be very limited.

n97 mini

NiallSparky wrote: »

I think we'll still essentially see a monopolistic scenario in that there won't be multiple providers running the same route. Each route will still be monopolised so consumer influence will still be very limited.

No, but operators will be awarded routes based on criteria like cost. This is consumer influence, albeit indirect.

Amirani

n97 mini wrote: »

No, but operators will be awarded routes based on criteria like cost. This is consumer influence, albeit indirect.

That's a fair point. I hadn't really considered that.

devnull

I'm not saying this will work out right in Ireland because you know things rarely do in this country, but the idea of putting 10% out there first is a good one, as it allows a comparison between the publicly run Dublin Bus and the services that are run by a private operator by people so we can see exactly what the differences are without committing to the whole hog.

A monopoly of any kind of service is bad, be that private sector or public sector, it always does nothing for efficiency, so if this is to happen long term we need to make sure that we don't do it in a way that allows a large operator to crush smaller ones to gain a monopoly like we have seen in the UK for instance outside London.

How it needs to be laid out is with the NTA in control like TFL are in London and therefore many of the things people are worried about would not be possible since the operators would be tendering for routes set in criteria made by the NTA. Merely by having competition for tenders, it means that companies have to up their game, offering something innovative or more efficient, in order to beat the others to the tender, rather than the default position of now knowing that whatever you say, they have to pick you.

Most of all there needs to be service targets and performance targets built in to these tenders for all operators of PSO services. If you do not meet certain criteria that you agreed in the contracts without exceptional circumstances, which should be defined in the tender itself, the NTA should have the ability to end the contract early or apply penalties, putting the passenger at the forefront of the services.

Neverless with it being on the horizon and in the press, I'd expect the state companies to go on a charm offensive now to try and drum up support for it not to happen, as that is what normally happens in a lot of industries leading up to a new tender, so don't be surprised if this happens.

foggy_lad

That 10% seems an odd figure, why not 20% or 50%? I see this latest rambling from the minister as being the start of telling us how the recently announced rural transport schemes are goung to be overhauled. This will invovle removing many of the current operators and seeking new tenders for the routes, some of which may cover urban areas.

devnull

10% is a start to see how it performs I'd guess.

bmaxi

I've never really been convinced by the argument for privatisation. The main failing IMO, of all state agencies is accountability, if you continue to provide someone with a comfortable existence when they contribute little in return, the recipe is there for failure. Every state agency from Fas to CIE is a disaster in terms of structure, the buck never stops.
You'll often hear the expression "That would never happen in the private sector" and it is probably correct but maybe the answer is to run the state agencies to a private sector model, rather than dismantle them. It would be painful for all concerned at the start but at some stage the bullet has to be bitten.
It must be remembered that state control of public transport was originally deemed necessary because private operators were making such a mess of the public transport system particularly in Dublin, and we all know to our cost, how effective state regulation of the private sector has been.

n97 mini

Probably the biggest difference is probably unionisation, and how that affects us as consumers. Typically unionised labour is more costly leading to a more costly service, and by definition non-unionised labour does not go on strike.

bmaxi

n97 mini wrote: »

Probably the biggest difference is probably unionisation, and how that affects us as consumers. Typically unionised labour is more costly leading to a more costly service, and by definition non-unionised labour does not go on strike.

The unions need to realise that they have responsibilities other than the taking of industrial action. Surely it is in the interest of their members that a company remains viable, no company=no jobs=no members. again though, weak and unaccountable management is a factor here. Perhaps the spectre of privatisation will concentrate minds on both sides.

devnull

Last time there was a threat of privatisation there was a strike if I remember correctly?

TheBandicoot

n97 mini wrote: »

Probably the biggest difference is probably unionisation, and how that affects us as consumers. Typically unionised labour is more costly leading to a more costly service, and by definition non-unionised labour does not go on strike.

So how should workers stand up for themselves if not through unionisation? How do they ensure they get a living wage? That their working conditions are safe?

Yes, unionised labour leads to a more costly product/service. The alternative is getting a cheaper item/bus fare but paying the cost in the form of extra social welfare needed to top up pitiful wages to a liveable standard, in the cost of social problems and petty crime caused by low wages, and so on.

monument

It's not really privatisation if Dublin Bus already don't own the routes and their contracts are due to end.

devnull

TheBandicoot wrote: »

Yes, unionised labour leads to a more costly product/service. The alternative is getting a cheaper item/bus fare but paying the cost in the form of extra social welfare needed to top up pitiful wages to a liveable standard, in the cost of social problems and petty crime caused by low wages, and so on.

Wages can go down further without needing to go to that level, nobody is expecting them to go to minimum wage or less, besides, going below minimum wage would be illegal and would not be able to happen anyway.

I'm not sure how social welfare even comes into this? Since it was my understanding that if you work full time you don't qualify for social welfare if you are on a proper contract?

devnull

monument wrote: »

It's not really privatisation if Dublin Bus already don't own the routes and their contracts are due to end.

Indeed - but both you and me know that is not how it's going to be presented by the unions. Their PSO contract is simply coming to an end, nobody has a right of extension. Maybe they need to get a certain Mr Branson from across the water on their case if they would like that though

bmaxi

devnull wrote: »

Last time there was a threat of privatisation there was a strike if I remember correctly?

No doubt it will this time too, it depends on who has more stomach for the fray. The Government are going to say they are obliged to go ahead with it, quoting the usual need to cut borrowing. Labour can't deny this as they have already used the same words to justify cutting SW, special needs, pensions etc., public sympathy is unlikely to be with the unions As I said the bullet will have to be bitten.

bmaxi

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So how should workers stand up for themselves if not through unionisation? How do they ensure they get a living wage? That their working conditions are safe?

Yes, unionised labour leads to a more costly product/service. The alternative is getting a cheaper item/bus fare but paying the cost in the form of extra social welfare needed to top up pitiful wages to a liveable standard, in the cost of social problems and petty crime caused by low wages, and so on.

It's more the restrictive practices and the virtual unsackability of dead weight within the public service which is costly.

TheBandicoot

devnull wrote: »

going below minimum wage would be illegal

Yes, and that is only because unions fought for recognition of the concept of a minimum wage. Without unions or some form of organised labour laws and rights like that will just be eroded over time. It's a constant struggle.

As for the social welfare, you're right, sorry. I was thinking more of the American situation where you can get people working two jobs and also claiming food stamps, as the companies they work for are happy to pay them the lowest they can get away with and allow the state to pick up the tab to keep the person alive. I fear a regime like that becoming more widespread here in Ireland.

bmaxi wrote: »

It's more the restrictive practices and the virtual unsackability of dead weight within the public service which is costly.

Fair enough, but that's something that can be(and has, over the years) be worked at and reformed through negotiation. I suppose it's a matter of perspective, what some might see as "restrictive practises" other might see as practises that lead to better quality of life for employees. What one might see as unjustifiably high wages another might see as proper wealth distribution among members of society.

n97 mini

TheBandicoot wrote: »

So how should workers stand up for themselves if not through unionisation?

Many workers consider our extensive and modern employment law to be sufficient protection, and do not see the need to be unionised.

Many view unions as harking from a different era.

TheBandicoot

n97 mini wrote: »

Many workers consider our extensive and modern employment law to be sufficient protection, and do not see the need to be unionised.

Sure, no problem with that. I myself am not unionised either(though I am seeing the beginnings of an awareness among workers that the current status quo is not working in my industry). But laws can be repealed or changed, and someone has to be there to lobby for the worker's side of things when such amendments or new laws are proposed. IBEC is hardly going to speak out in that case. Every industry should ideally be unionised or have some kind of collective representation, since no one else is going to stand up for the employees of that industry.

n97 mini wrote: »

Many view unions as harking from a different era.

An era before our extensive employment law, an era we can return to if we do not ensure capitalist/libertarian interests have that law changed for the worse.

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

Indeed - but both you and me know that is not how it's going to be presented by the unions. Their PSO contract is simply coming to an end, nobody has a right of extension. Maybe they need to get a certain Mr Branson from across the water on their case if they would like that though

It is perhaps worthwhile to pause a moment and sidestep the rush to abolish Unions and/or the principle of Organized Workforces per se...;)

The NTA's perception of it's options is somewhat more considered,nay restrained even...

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Public-Consultation-on-2014-Bus-Public-Service-Contracts.pdf

The Authority is currently considering:
-
Whether it should enter into new direct award contracts with the current contracted
parties or whether it should undertake competitive tenders in relation to some or all of
the services; and
-
What contracts should be formulated to allow for the needs of passengers to be met,in order to put appropriate contracts in place from 2014.

A little further on the NTA expands on its remit a tad.....

5. Parallel market soundings
The NTA will undertake, in parallel with this consultatio
n,a market consultation with Irish and international bus operators.

This market consultation will explore issues such as the appetite to enter the Irish market, the size,duration and nature of
potential contracts, timeframes for possible tendering and issues regarding mobilisation, depot facilities and integration requirements..

It is worth noting that the closing date for submissions to the NTA on it's obligatory consultation process was the 11th July 2012.

Therefore,the report considered by the Cabinet this week has been a further 12 months in consideration,so it is NOT a surprize,nor a sudden indication of a Policy Change.

The fact that the NTA had to seek out-of-juristiction participants willing to express an interest in the process was,IMO,a very early indication that things have altered very significantly in this regard.

Not many years ago,visits to Dublin by "Business Development Teams" of ALL the UK's Major Bus Operators were commonplace,and the entries in the Dept of Transport's Visitors Book will reveal some very well known UK Bus Industry "Big Names".

Dublin,is in fact,one of the most comprehensively and recently studied cities in these islands from the Bus Service perspective,and it is often very illuminating to hear some of the thinking from across the water.

Devilman40k

devnull wrote: »

Wages can go down further without needing to go to that level, nobody is expecting them to go to minimum wage or less, besides, going below minimum wage would be illegal and would not be able to happen anyway.

I'm not sure how social welfare even comes into this? Since it was my understanding that if you work full time you don't qualify for social welfare if you are on a proper contract?

Not true.. if you are working full time and have family of certain size (and earn under a prescribed amount) social welfare DOES come into play so the state effectively subsidizes these working families (not agreeing or disagreeing with this - just pointing out that it could cost the state)

cdebru

Devilman40k wrote: »

Not true.. if you are working full time and have family of certain size (and earn under a prescribed amount) social welfare DOES come into play so the state effectively subsidizes these working families (not agreeing or disagreeing with this - just pointing out that it could cost the state)

Correct Family income supplement is the payment.

I believe some staff at Dublin Bus were in receipt of this payment.

cdebru

bmaxi wrote: »

It's more the restrictive practices and the virtual unsackability of dead weight within the public service which is costly.

None of the CIE companies are part of the public service and sackings and redundancies are not uncommon in any of the companies.

sdanseo

dermo88 wrote: »

Teehee.....exactly as I predicted all those years ago. Watch the commies threaten a strike

If only this were a laughing matter. If it does go ahead, the unions will hold it up for months or years with pointless bickering about pay and conditions.

Working in the private sector makes you work hard to earn money, because the private sector sees value in money. Poor bus drivers won't like that you see.

Infini

Well this is definitely gonna cause trouble. Problem in CIE is bad management simple as that. Privatization doesnt make things better it just reduces the quality of service. Biggest issue is this is coming at a time when conditions for regular workers in both companies are at breaking point in terms of looking for pay cuts off regular workers and reduced working conditions (management are a different story) and with strike threats at both BE and IE as well looming it could get alot worse.

sdanseo

Infini2 wrote: »

Well this is definitely gonna cause trouble. Problem in CIE is bad management simple as that. Privatization doesnt make things better it just reduces the quality of service. Biggest issue is this is coming at a time when conditions for regular workers in both companies are at breaking point in terms of looking for pay cuts off regular workers and reduced working conditions (management are a different story) and with strike threats at both BE and IE as well looming it could get alot worse.

Pay them all minimum wage or a 50% pay cut whichever is greater and cut the subvention, then tell them that if they work hard enough to make a profit it gets evenly distributed among them.

I'd give the (pointless) WRC a survival time of about 8 seconds.

The quality of service, frankly, is irrelevant when the four companies combined cost the state hundreds of millions a year in losses.

end of the road

sdeire wrote: »

Pay them all minimum wage

LOL, the long hours and some of the people they have to deal with and being unable to do anything about it and you want to pay them minimum wage?

sdeire wrote: »

or a 50% pay cut

the wage they get isn't major anyway so a 50 % pay cut would be way to much

sdeire wrote: »

cut the subvention

and have fairs sky rocket? great idea

sdeire wrote: »

tell them that if they work hard enough to make a profit it gets evenly distributed among them.

they can't make a profit unless more people start using the service, its as simple as that, the only way that can happen is if management improve the services and attract customers.

sdeire wrote: »

The quality of service, frankly, is irrelevant when the four companies combined cost the state hundreds of millions a year in losses.

actually it isn't irrelevant, if it was better more people might use it meaning less money being spent by the state and less losses, the fact is if you want a state run or even a public service transport system then you will have to pay for it, privatisation will only do so much but the state will still have to pay subvention, even with drivers on minimum wages at the end of the day the only thing that will most likely matter is money for the shareholders IMO. frankly i'm happy with DB, yes they could do things better but at least i know what i'm getting