20 privatised Dublin Bus routes announced

ballooba

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but 20 routes have been announced for tender by the NTA. Mainly orbital and local routes. I personally welcome the competition.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/more-than-20-dublin-bus-routes-to-be-privatised-1.1614767
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/some-bus-routes-to-be-privatised-616033.html

L1011

This reads like an operation attempting to "prove" that private contractors can't make it work on the DB side anyway.

ballooba

Do you mean because these are less profitable routes? It certainly avoids the arguments with regard to cherrypicking by private operators if that is the case. I'd be interested in more detail, the NTA has nothing on their website surprise surprise. Send out a press release but don't upload it on your own website.

LXFlyer

Let's be clear about this - this will be the formal announcement following the public consultation that was held a couple of months back.

Consultation Paper:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/1._Consultation_Paper_-_Dublin_Bus_September_2013.pdf

Economic Analysis:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/2._Economic_Analysis_of_Direct_Award_Bus_Contract_in_the_Dublin_Market_-_Dublin_Bus_September_2013.pdf

Technical Report:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/3._Technical_Report_on_Contract_Options_-_Dublin_Bus_September_2013.pdf

Report on Current Contract:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/4._Performance_Report_on_Current_Dublin_Bus_Direct_Award_Contract_September_2013.pdf

The routes outlined at that stage were all of the orbital and local routes.

Dublin Bus can also tender for the routes - there is nothing to say that they can't retain them.

noelfirl

Was discussed a bit before when the economic analysis was pubished -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057037486

Looks like being exclusively the orbital and local routes in Dublin in the first instance.

L1011

ballooba wrote: »

Do you mean because these are less profitable routes? It certainly avoids the arguments with regard to cherrypicking by private operators if that is the case. I'd be interested in more detail, the NTA has nothing on their website surprise surprise. Send out a press release but don't upload it on your own website.

That its not a mix of routes - I would have expected a bundle containing a number of low/non-profitable heavily subsidised routes alongside a smaller number of "big" routes.

n97 mini

A lot of Dublin bus routes are woefully badly designed.

Are private contractors ever going to be able to participate in designing routes?

SilverLiningOK

This I imagine will mean bad news for the public . This type of thing usually favours profit over service. Must read through it later. Privatisation does not always deliver what people expect.

cgcsb

The routes in question aren't exactly heaving with commuters, I wonder why any private enterprise would be interested? does the government intend to distribute a % of DB's subvention to another company?

aliveandkicking

cgcsb wrote: »

The routes in question aren't exactly heaving with commuters, I wonder why any private enterprise would be interested? does the government intend to distribute a % of DB's subvention to another company?

I think that will be the case since I doubt the routes on offer are in any way profitable without a subvention. The government/NTA will guarantee a minimum amount for the company to operate the route thus ensuring the company makes a profit. What i believe will also be the case will be the eventual winners of the tenders will be strong supporters/benefactors of the parties in government. This of course will be purely coincidental.

bikeman1

Does anyone have a list of the DB routes?

From what I can make out: 184,185,45a,17,76,33a????

ballooba

cgcsb wrote: »

The routes in question aren't exactly heaving with commuters, I wonder why any private enterprise would be interested? does the government intend to distribute a % of DB's subvention to another company?

These are PSOs. Same as the PSO air routes we used to have. They are subsidised AFAIK.

ballooba

aliveandkicking wrote: »

What i believe will also be the case will be the eventual winners of the tenders will be strong supporters/benefactors of the parties in government. This of course will be purely coincidental.

And Labor's source of funding is???

LXFlyer

To answer all of the questions raised above, look at the consultation document that I linked above.

It is ALL of the orbital and local routes that are likely to be up for tender.

Carawaystick

This will test if there's any notion in the nta of introducing integrated ticketing.

Are people in Skerries, Rush and Lusk going to have to pay 2 times to go to Dublin now, or wait for a 33 instead of taking a 33a and changing in Swords? Will t90 tickets be accepted on the new service?

ballooba

I think as LXFlyer says that there are answers to a lot of those questions in the documents linked. Whether the answers change as the detail is driven out is another question. You would think that interchange would be a mandatory requirement.

end of the road

this will all end in tears and a very expensive bill for the tax payer, this isn't about competition but private companies which our EU overlaurds are most likely shareholders in getting all our public services, no amount of conditions layed down by the NTA will satisfy me as i don't trust them anyway, competition is good generally but only with private company against private company or private companies doing their own thing to complament state run services, privatisation of public services under the guise of "competition" doesn't work, infact ireland and britain being similar culturally means failure and more expence generally, the odd route might work but their usually run by local operators who know the communities they serve inside out, tue EU don't care about competition, its all about their state operators or companies the boys are shareholders in

LXFlyer

And what exactly have the NTA done so far that has resulted in you "not trusting them".

Point me to something bad that they have introduced?

LXFlyer

For clarity, the Dublin Bus routes listed in the consultation paper were:

Orbital:
17, 17a, 18, 75, 76, 76a, 102 and 104

Local:
33a, 33b, 44b, 45a, 59, 63, 111, 114, 161, 184, 185, 220, 236, 238, 239, 270

bikeman1

lxflyer wrote: »

For clarity, the Dublin Bus routes listed in the consultation paper were:

Orbital:
17, 17a, 18, 75, 76, 76a, 102 and 104

Local:
33a, 33b, 45a, 59, 63, 111, 114, 161, 184, 185, 220, 236, 238, 239, 270

Thanks for this LX. The pdf link would not open on my phone.

My local 102 is on the list. Can't imagine how that route doesn't stand up on its own. Its a great route, well used with a huge varity of journeys possible.

Same can be said for the 17,17a, 18 and 75. Busy routes with good patronage and multi journeys throughout the route.

LXFlyer

Bear in mind the NTA will now take on the risk element - the operators will get a fixed sum, subject to performance criteria.

n97 mini

I presume this is about getting it done cheaper, not better? Like the 239 is borderline unusable, and will remain that way?

roboshatner

They announce this a few day after the price increase....absolute joke

LXFlyer

roboshatner wrote: »

They announce this a few day after the price increase....absolute joke

This was announced months ago.

What has it got to do with the fare increase?

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

I presume this is about getting it done cheaper, not better? Like the 239 is borderline unusable, and will remain that way?

The NTA will be responsible for dictating service levels and timetables.

The operators will be responsible for operating the service.

dfx-

lxflyer wrote: »

For clarity, the Dublin Bus routes listed in the consultation paper were:

Orbital:
17, 17a, 18, 75, 76, 76a, 102 and 104

Local:
33a, 33b, 45a, 59, 63, 111, 114, 161, 184, 185, 220, 236, 238, 239, 270

and strangely the one bus 116 and 118 would survive the description as they operate to the city centre..

I just made up the list by myself and was surprised how many orbital routes there were, despite having been on them all. 23 of them.

Typically, you'll have DB feeding into orbital routes operated by another company and vice versa. What's the chances they won't sync together...

MYOB wrote: »

That its not a mix of routes - I would have expected a bundle containing a number of low/non-profitable heavily subsidised routes alongside a smaller number of "big" routes.

There's profitable routes in that orbital mix I'd say. Bundle the low loads of the 44Bs and 238s, 59s and 33Bs with the 17A, 75s, 76s and 45As

TheBandicoot

lxflyer wrote: »

Point me to something bad that they have introduced?

The topic this thread is about.

end of the road

lxflyer wrote: »

18, 76, 76a

lol, the private operators are queueing up as we speak to operate the 18, a route where you could be waiting anything up to an hour for a bus, the 76 can be longer, can see hundreds of operators wanting to apply for such extremely proffitable routes such as the 18 and 76, this is like something that could have featured in on the busses (for those of you wondering its an old british comedy which is rather funny IMO)

stop

the usefulness of the orbital routes will be badly damanged if they are not usuable with t90/rambler/ (jaysuz I hope) leap capping! Will there be seperate caps per operator or by mode?

would have liked to seen this kind of detail released by the nta.

LXFlyer

I think people are barking up the wrong trees here.

It's fairly clear from reading through all the documentation that what is going to happen is that the NTA will take over responsibility for scheduling, ticketing and marketing.

The bus companies (including DB) will be just operators.

Therefore all the tickets will remain valid on all services.

LXFlyer

end of the road wrote: »

lol, the private operators are queueing up as we speak to operate the 18, a route where you could be waiting anything up to an hour for a bus, the 76 can be longer, can see hundreds of operators wanting to apply for such extremely proffitable routes such as the 18 and 76, this is like something that could have featured in on the busses (for those of you wondering its an old british comedy which is rather funny IMO)

What difference does it make about the route if the fixed fee they get paid is in excess of their costs?

the groutch

good luck to them with the 59 route, not sure if I've ever seen anyone else paying to use that bus.

LXFlyer

the groutch wrote: »

good luck to them with the 59 route, not sure if I've ever seen anyone else paying to use that bus.

Again what difference does that make?

The companies that win the tenders are not getting the farebox revenue - they are going to get a fixed fee, which can be adjusted downwards if they don't perform to the targets.

Routes such as the 59 are covered by the PSO subsidy.

end of the road

lxflyer wrote: »

What difference does it make about the route if the fixed fee they get paid is in excess of their costs?

i expect bang for my buck, if private operators are to take on these routes i expect cheeper fairs and tripple the frequency on all routes, i expect it to be done with the current subsidy levels and i expect them to only take a small proffit for doing all this, but as it isn't going to happen then we may as well stick with DB and tell the EU to keep their grubby hands off our public services, other countries can do it so its about time we started growing some balls and did the same.

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

The topic this thread is about.

Well that's obviously your opinion, but has anything else that they have introduced been what you would consider undesirable?

What I'm trying to get across is that certainly from where I'm looking at it as a customer, virtually everything that has been introduced has been positive.

Have you read the actual documentation in full to arrive at this opinion?

LXFlyer

end of the road wrote: »

i expect bang for my buck, if private operators are to take on these routes i expect cheeper fairs and tripple the frequency on all routes, i expect it to be done with the current subsidy levels and i expect them to only take a small proffit for doing all this, but as it isn't going to happen then we may as well stick with DB and tell the EU to keep their grubby hands off our public services, other countries can do it so its about time we started growing some balls and did the same.

Ah so the TfL model in London (which this is modelled on) has been a complete disaster?

end of the road

lxflyer wrote: »

Ah so the TfL model in London (which this is modelled on) has been a complete disaster?

our version of it will be, were good at coppying other countries ideas but **** at implamenting them

StreetLight

I wonder why the proposed orbital Route 166 hasn't been mentioned? Dublin Bus planned to launch it a couple of years ago, but apparently shelved it due to financial constraints.
It must have been thought to be viable at some stage.

LXFlyer

The 166 and 175 and other orbital services I would imagine are shelved until the economic situation improves and subsidy levels start going back up.

None of these routes are profitable per se - they all require PSO subvention.

Any new services would need the PSO subsidy to increase, which is not the case right now.

BuffyBot

end of the road wrote: »

this will all end in tears and a very expensive bill for the tax payer, this isn't about competition but private companies which our EU overlaurds are most likely shareholders in getting all our public services,

I presume you have some factual evidence to back up this nonsense, apart from your assumption that it's "most likely"? No?

If not, then don't throw out such stuff on here again as it contributes nothing.

markpb

end of the road wrote: »

i expect bang for my buck, if private operators are to take on these routes i expect cheeper fairs and tripple the frequency on all routes, i expect it to be done with the current subsidy levels and i expect them to only take a small proffit for doing all this, but as it isn't going to happen then we may as well stick with DB and tell the EU to keep their grubby hands off our public services, other countries can do it so its about time we started growing some balls and did the same.

If the new service can't reach the unrealistic targets that you've set, there's no reason to try to improve it at all? There's no point testing a few routes to see if they can be provided cheaper (to the NTA) than Dublin Bus can? This is nonsensical. We get that you're opposed to privatisation on ideological grounds, that's fair enough but this is rubbish.

FWIW Luas is privately operated and you'll be hard pressed to find detractors for it. There are plenty more examples like this but in most cases people are unaware of who's providing the service.

BenShermin

end of the road wrote: »

lol, the private operators are queueing up as we speak to operate the 18, a route where you could be waiting anything up to an hour for a bus, the 76 can be longer, can see hundreds of operators wanting to apply for such extremely proffitable routes such as the 18 and 76, this is like something that could have featured in on the busses (for those of you wondering its an old british comedy which is rather funny IMO)

You obviously haven't used the 76 in quite a while so. It's one of the few routes that was actually greatly improved under Network Direct. The implementation of the clockface timetable and removal of Fettercairn, Balrothery, and the Bawnogue loop from the route have made the bus more direct and reliable. The addition of a stop at Liffey Valley has been a great success, it's the busiest stop en-route.

It's a lot better than the mess that is the 13 and 40 in these areas.

dfx-

lxflyer wrote: »

Well that's obviously your opinion, but has anything else that they have introduced been what you would consider undesirable?

What I'm trying to get across is that certainly from where I'm looking at it as a customer, virtually everything that has been introduced has been positive.

Have you read the actual documentation in full to arrive at this opinion?

Has the NTA indicated what would be the standard required for the buses used by private operators?

Would the NTA be happy to serve the customer with the battered and decrepid WVs or GT standard? How about the maintenance standard expected on the services? RTPI units, WiFi, live CCTV etc, uniformed staff, wheelchair access.

I'm happy with all of the above by DB at the minute.

BenShermin wrote: »

It's a lot better than the mess that is the 13 and 40 in these areas.

Very much agree and when the Newlands Cross bottleneck is cleared in years to come the 76 would be even more improved.

KCAccidental

dfx- wrote: »

Has the NTA indicated what would be the standard required for the buses used by private operators?

Would the NTA be happy to serve the customer with the battered and decrepid WVs or GT standard? How about the maintenance standard expected on the services? RTPI units, WiFi, live CCTV etc, uniformed staff, wheelchair access.

I'm happy with all of the above by DB at the minute.

Judging by the private run 10a (note non-nta numbering) in Cork City. expect decrepit buses over 15 years old with no uniform branding, belching black fumes all over the place, bus stop poles instead of shelters, and no RTPI or wifi.

AlekSmart

dfx- wrote: »

Has the NTA indicated what would be the standard required for the buses used by private operators?

Would the NTA be happy to serve the customer with the battered and decrepid WVs or GT standard? How about the maintenance standard expected on the services? RTPI units, WiFi, live CCTV etc, uniformed staff, wheelchair access.

I'm happy with all of the above by DB at the minute.

Very much agree and when the Newlands Cross bottleneck is cleared in years to come the 76 would be even more improved.

Very pertinent issues indeed dfx,and not at all clear from the NTA documents thus far available.

Whilst a Bus turning up at the alloted time is the main requisite for the customer,the mechanism which supports and impliments this is the hidden issue.

I would have to say that as it currently stands,NTA policy on this is a "grey area",with issues such as long established Operators such as Swords Express continuing to be facilitated in operating High Floor Touring Coaches on what is effectively a standard service against the spirit,if not the letter of the "Accessibility" requirements so often used to define an acceptable standard of Bus Service.

Equally,the reappearance of ex Dublin Bus R class vehicles,often misleadingly described as "Low-Floor" in their new operators ownership,serves to indicate a slide,if not a race to the bottom in terms of standards.

Mr Varadakar has been keen to focus the public gaze on the "Cost Savings" expected from this tendering procedure,should it be successful,however it remains to be seen whether his expectations of cost savings can be met by the Private Sector by any means other than specifically manipulating these "Contracts" to place Dublin Bus at a disadvantage.

As KCAccidental points out,the reality of much of this theoretical accountancy,can often be at variance with what the end user expected.

markpb

dfx- wrote: »

Has the NTA indicated what would be the standard required for the buses used by private operators?

Would the NTA be happy to serve the customer with the battered and decrepid WVs or GT standard? How about the maintenance standard expected on the services? RTPI units, WiFi, live CCTV etc, uniformed staff, wheelchair access.

I'm happy with all of the above by DB at the minute.

As lxflyer has said repeatedly, it's all in the NTA document that he linked to at the start of this thread. The model the NTA are proposing involves them buying the buses and leasing them to the new operator.

As it happens, this is almost exactly what's happening today - the newest buses with all those things you like were speced and purchased by the NTA and given (not leased) to Dublin Bus. Did anyone wonder why DB suddenly decided to buy buses with middle doors or next-stop signs? They did not, they were forced into it by the NTA.

LXFlyer

dfx- wrote: »

Has the NTA indicated what would be the standard required for the buses used by private operators?

Would the NTA be happy to serve the customer with the battered and decrepid WVs or GT standard? How about the maintenance standard expected on the services? RTPI units, WiFi, live CCTV etc, uniformed staff, wheelchair access.

I'm happy with all of the above by DB at the minute.

I think I have to ask two questions:

1) Did you read the consultation documents?
2) Did you make a submission to the NTA raising these concerns?

From the comments above, it's rather clear that you haven't.

The technical report sets out the plans that the NTA have, which include using the buses they have bought (GT Class) and the operators will be required to facilitate RTPI.

murphaph

Seems to be heading in sort of the right direction (no mish mash of liveries etc. rather a standard fleet with RTPI etc.). I welcome the move broadly.

jacko1

just to clarify - theses routes are not being privatised

They are being opened up to competitive tender - there is nothing to stop Dublin Bus tendering successfully for the routes

dfx-

lxflyer wrote: »

I think I have to ask two questions:

1) Did you read the consultation documents?
2) Did you make a submission to the NTA raising these concerns?

From the comments above, it's rather clear that you haven't.

The technical report sets out the plans that the NTA have, which include using the buses they have bought (GT Class) and the operators will be required to facilitate RTPI.

I have indeed read all four documents you provided earlier in the thread including the technical report and I am still unclear as AlekSmart appears to be.

The closest I get to any detail is this:

The contract should condition the quality of service required in terms of reliability, punctuality, cleanliness, comfort, maintenance, passenger services and transport infrastructure. A standard of service that reflects passenger needs was strongly expressed.

In the consultation paper and this in the Technical Report:

Public transport integration (ticketing, fares, passenger information, and network integration) will need to be included as a contractual requirement but it doesn’t preclude competition

No details on what this specifically means or how they will regulate it.

dfx-

markpb wrote: »

As lxflyer has said repeatedly, it's all in the NTA document that he linked to at the start of this thread. The model the NTA are proposing involves them buying the buses and leasing them to the new operator.

As it happens, this is almost exactly what's happening today - the newest buses with all those things you like were speced and purchased by the NTA and given (not leased) to Dublin Bus. Did anyone wonder why DB suddenly decided to buy buses with middle doors or next-stop signs? They did not, they were forced into it by the NTA.

Do the companies have to use the NTA appointed buses? DB don't just use the NTA vehicles, they use their own WVs, AVs etc.

Is there anything stopping a company using an old 'cheap', "low floor" RV instead - as AlekSmart outlines?