Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go-Ahead Win 10% of Dublin Bus routes for tender
Options
Comments
-
end of the road wrote: »there were no "miss understandings" about privatization as we all know what happens with privatization. Many people see any transfer of public services to private operators via any means as a form of privatization anyway, that will include tendering.
in relation to tendering, they do "see it for what it is" but not "competition" as it isn't "competition" in the true sense of the word. we don't get a choice of operators per route, the authority decides everything down to a t, and by the looks of it very little will change that probably wasn't going to anyway at some stage. so we get an end to a supposed monopoly, hardly anything to shout about really.
I said "wilful" misunderstandings, comparing this to privatization is intellectually dishonest, DB was not being sold off to a private company, it's competing for route bundles with other companies, that's quite a different thing. This is not privatization any more than the Luas is private, the state owns everything, it's just managed by a tendered company. Calling it privatization, back when this was originally announced, was dishonest, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they told that lie. They knew full well, and I saw it in convos at bus stops, that people would hear "10% of routes to be privatized" and they imagined JJ Kavanagh pulling up as their 45A, with the fare going from €2.20 to €5 flat fare, no FT cards accepted and the driver some persecuted Bangladeshi guy on minimum wage working double shifts. It was a transparent attempt to generate public support for their cause through deception, and that was a dangerous tactic because when people realize you've been lying to them a union is going to face a major backlash, lucky they dropped that tactic (hopefully)
Public SERVICES having private involvement is not by definition a bad thing. There are some things that are cost prohibitive (at least for the non rich) for individuals to pay for alone, which is why we socialize the cost, easy examples are Healthcare and Education (especially university tuition). Selling off hospitals to private corporations or letting some for profit college get their hands on UCD and Trinity is not the same as having competition for day to day management of bus routes. The line between public and private differs depending on the social policy model, the question is really not is something public or private it's - is the social good being served or not?
For example, we seem to be going more towards the NHS type single payer model now with this new all party healthcare plan but many countries have mandatory private health insurance as their universal care model, with a public insurance company as a competing option. Sometimes it's state FUNDING rather than ownership, for example most secondary and primary schools are independent or legally charities (same with hospitals) they're now owned by the state but are funded by the state. It's a question of the social end being done or not more than the state needing to control every little lever. The key is in the name: PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION ROUTES.
They're not off squeezing the life out of pensioners charging them €7 tickets to go to town for a potter around and making obscene profits out of it, they're doing a public service.
The obvious difference between competition and privatization can be seen in the Luas model v the British Rail privatization where you had different companies owning tracks, trains, stations it was utter anarchy, whereas the Luas model is very orderly and makes a surplus instead of a deficit.
We don't get a choice of operators per route because we know that model does not work, it's just a different form of competition. It wasn't a "supposed" monopoly it WAS a monopoly, one that had been abused by the unions that had a vicegrip over it time and again to the determent of the public.those are completely different industries with very different characteristics. not good comparisons.
The principle is the same, whenever you give one company TOTAL power with no competition and the customer having nowhere else to go, where they know no matter what they'll still be there, they've no incentive to upgrade anything.I doubt they will also but as a passenger I would completely understand and support DB for taking such a stance if this was to happen and your only lying to yourself if you wouldn't do the same if in a similar situation.
This attitude is the entire problem with the Irish PS, its whats good to protect the (ironically) corporate structure of where they work and their conditions as workers, and f___k the public and how anything affects them, they don't seem to see this exact attitude is what created calls for EU laws on competition in the first place, CIEs counterparts elsewhere making the same mistakes.
People seem at a loss to understand the notion that a PSO subsidy will be going to a private company instead of Dublin Bus as if it's somehow not right that taxpayer money go to a private company PSO instead of a Dublin Bus PSO, but the taxpayer pays private individuals and companies to execute public services all the time, they subsidize schools (Pres, Blackrock College, Newpark) not owned by the state that are independent, Hospitals not owned by the state but funded by it (St Vincents which is legally a charity like the schools), every GP on the GMS scheme is a one man or woman private business working for the state on a public service contract.Competition?????? Still only one operator on each route.
What do you suggest? 6 on each route? Maybe they can race each other to bus stops do handbrake stops rush passengers on then take off again like a formula 1 pitstop?
They are competing for the route, who puts forth the best proposal for running it wins, that's the competition, that can't possibly be so difficult to understand.Have DB paper tickets not been moved over to Leap
Still SOME left I think?0 -
Tenderers actions can be taken in to account in further tenders. Which there will be. Do that and its bye bye DB.
Second-placed tenderers are always willing to accept the contract should something fail in due diligence for the winner - my employer has a hefty contract that fell to them on the basis of being second
The NTA, owning the buses/stops/etc, would be able to get short term contractors while re-tendering regardless
Its fantasy that DB could do any damage - except to themselves - by refusing to operate a contingency service in such a scenario. The damage to themselves would be fatal. King Phyrrus comes to mind.
But how can you expect a company that was removed from services in favour of another company to come in and run a contingency plan when the **** hits the fan at the drop of a hat. There is no business out there that will be willing do this unless massive favourable benefits are returned.0 -
The NTA, owning the buses/stops/etc, would be able to get short term contractors while re-tendering regardless
at huge cost most probably. if they ended up with only 2 bidders for the routes for a longish contract then it's unlikely they will have contractors falling over themselves for a short one without some serious money.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Still SOME left I think?
Yes all prepaid have been moved over to leap.
http://www.dublinbus.ie/Fares-and-Tickets/Student/Student-Rambler-Tickets/0 -
I agree some of them carry large numbers of passengers, and they would carry much larger numbers if the routes were simplified to make them more rapid and reliable, the 75 is the classic example.
The 18 is a bus I used to like, but the traffic is so appalling that neither Dublin Bus, the NTA or anyone else can achieve much, using current road traffic policies. When I used use it sometimes a few years ago, it frequently indicated the destination Donnybrook, whether this was by design or by the driver running over his scheduled hours, or needing a comfort break, I do not know.
The 17 is so indirect that it appears to be a route deliberately created so that certain places can be said to have a service. In reality, people will not use them when they realise how slow it is from A toB.
The 63 is another route created to placate local interests. It could be operated more easily with a minibus, which at least would be easier to manouvre through Monkstown Farm.
The 76 was also another service unreliable due to tortuous routing, although since retirement I cannot claim to have any knowledge of it. Perhaps others may give their experiences.
175? Is this a proposed route or an existing one ?. I am not familiar with it.
The Skerries buses, I cannot comment either, but I fail to understand how an operator can be expected to run buses in Skerries and Ballywaltrim out of one depot.
The point with most of the orbital routes is that they simply would not be viable for end-to-end trips and as such they carry many people making shorter trips along the route.
The 17, 18 and 75 for example all carry many people making overlapping shorter trips. While you might not see them as useful, many people who use them to make these shorter trips do find them useful.0 -
Advertisement
-
But how can you expect a company that was removed from services in favour of another company to come in and run a contingency plan when the **** hits the fan at the drop of a hat. There is no business out there that will be willing do this unless massive favourable benefits are returned.
They are not a business, they a publicly chartered corporation owned and controlled by the state, they are the defacto operator while we work out the new system, so they will do as they are told
Some of you seem to want to have all the advantages of something being nationalized and state owned and NONE of the disadvantages (doing what they're told by the state for example)
They are not meant to have some independent will of their own, the keys in the name - public service
The fact that we've not enforced this rule, because previous govts have been so petrified of unions is here nor there, they are a public service, their role is whatever the govt says it is.0 -
People seem at a loss to understand the notion that a PSO subsidy will be going to a private company instead of Dublin Bus as if it's somehow not right that taxpayer money go to a private company PSO instead of a Dublin Bus PSO
well it isn't. it's not my job to pay for private industry to run my services. if it was a charitable organisation, then i would consider supporting it.the taxpayer pays private individuals and companies to execute public services all the time, they subsidize schools (Pres, Blackrock College, Newpark) not owned by the state that are independent, Hospitals not owned by the state but funded by it (St Vincents which is legally a charity like the schools), every GP on the GMS scheme is a one man or woman private business working for the state on a public service contract.
Blackrock College is a fee paying school isn't it? why should i be expected as a tax payer to fund it if so?What do you suggest? 6 on each route? Maybe they can race each other to bus stops do handbrake stops rush passengers on then take off again like a formula 1 pitstop?
They are competing for the route, who puts forth the best proposal for running it wins, that's the competition, that can't possibly be so difficult to understand.
it's not real competition. i don't wish to pay for it and i don't really benefit from this should i use the particular routes involved. i still have 1 operator and tough if i don't like it, the authority is deciding how the route must be run. i believe 2 operators per route like the intercity model to be the only real way of true competition, all though i know that for a lot of routes that isn't viable, so no point in wasting time and money on trying to give the illusion of competition.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
So what you are arguing then is that the government should not invest in expanding routes, introducing more routes and increasing the frequency? Not so long ago I remember reading a post saying that the fleet badly need expanding and now you're saying it doesn't? Which one is it?
Or are you more concerned with who operates the bus versus the standard, frequency and number services that are provided? At the end of the day that doesn't matter to me, I just care that the best services are provided at the best value cost to the taxpayer rather than wanting to deprive someone of services as long as my favoured operator gets to keep status quo.
I'm customer focused like that.
Since where has it been said that 125 buses will be stripped from Dublin Bus? Can you point to me any article from the NTA or quote from the NTA that backs this up rather than repeating such hyperbole?
The tender speaks for itself, it was 65/35 in favour of cost and Go Ahead still won despite the fact that they have some costs that Dublin Bus would not have, which suggests that they are able to cost a bid that saves more in other areas than the cost of building the depot, else they wouldn't have won the bid..
Let me break it down for you:
- You said that it will cost the taxpayer more
- Dublin Bus is the incumbent
- Dublin Bus it would seem tendered a higher bid
- Go Ahead then clearly tendered a lower bid
So you're saying that it will cost the taxpayer more than it is paying Dublin Bus, despite the fact that the Dublin Bus option is more expensive than the Go Ahead tender, it makes absolutely zero sense, the cheaper the bid, the less it costs, the more expensive the bid, the more it costs.
And I guess time will tell on this, but it's well known that CIE's cost base is high.
You seem very confident without any proof that GA are going to revolutionise the bus industry. Have you not previously stated that the NTA will set the rules and not GA.
Maybe the services will be more reliable and the staff will be friendlier, there will be less cancellations due to too many people being on holiday at once, the customer service will be more focused on giving correct information to customers even if it means admitting you got it wrong rather than saving face, maybe the middle doors will be used more, maybe the buses will be better maintained and/or cleaned, maybe the drivers won't disable the announcements because they don't agree with them and maybe there will be less strikes.
Maybe Go-Ahead will be more interested in building an intergrated network and the opportunties that will bring rather than feeling that the name Go-Ahead is more important than the overall system like we have seen with Dublin Bus over the years who purely have been interested in looking after one, regardless of what impact that has on the wider system.
Not all of these are down to the NTA, the NTA can put criteria in place but at the end of the day the day to day operation of the service is down to the operator and the staff even if the criteria that are set are not.[/quote]
Your putting your own little spin on my posts here.
Firstly explain how this is going to work in terms of GA getting buses. DB currently have 990 buses I'm presuming that includes tour, airlink ect as well so we say 900 buses to serve the current network.
GA will need 125 buses to cover 10% of the smaller routes that's roughly 15% of the fleet. NTA and you stated that awarding this contract to GA is better for the taxpayer and to no cost while also increasing frequencies across the whole network. So if a simple transfer is taking place why is there talk of new buses and single deckers been introduced. If it's not a simple transfer well 125 buses come at a cost and a large at that.
So basically don't be given us the big one about this been a great deal and a money saver when in fact the service is already been provided and paid for.
We now also have to foot the bill of haven to repaint, rebrand and promote these new services this alone will cost millions which currently isn't required.0 -
Your putting your own little spin on my posts here.
I'm not putting any spin on any posts, I'm just simply astounded that people are suggesting that increased frequencies, new routes and more reliable rotas are a bad thing when there has been so much complaints from some quarters that the transport system is in dire need of it.GA will need 125 buses to cover 10% of the smaller routes that's roughly 15% of the fleet. NTA and you stated that awarding this contract to GA is better for the taxpayer and to no cost while also increasing frequencies across the whole network. So if a simple transfer is taking place why is there talk of new buses and single deckers been introduced. If it's not a simple transfer well 125 buses come at a cost and a large at that.
I assume it will be a mix of transfers and new vehicles being delivered, perhaps this is part of the reason that it will be implemented in phases, I'm sure more details will come out in due course but both of us are speculating right now, there will be new vehicles delivered next year anyway like there is every year so it's not like they are going to place an order that wouldn't otherwise be there.So basically don't be given us the big one about this been a great deal and a money saver when in fact the service is already been provided and paid for.
What I find odd is that once upon a time people were moaning that the service needed to expand frequencies and add new services and when something that happens that can achieve that aim, many of the same faces on this board are saying basically that we don't need that.
By the end of this the idea is the routes going off to Go-Ahead will be increased by 35% in terms of mileage and the current services with Dublin Bus will be expanded which can only help passengers out and reduce some of the issues with capacity that the network has today, that is even before you consider some badly needed new routes that are required.
What it appears to me at least is that people want to deprive the public of better services that are more frequent, to more realistic running times that result in a more reliable timetable and less service cancellations, and badly needed new routes, because they believe that their ideaology is more important than the services that are given to the customers.
After all I can think of no other reason that people who were calling for expanded services and frequencies suddenly have done a 180 on the idea and now appear to be saying they are not desirable when it's revealed that they may not be operated by Dublin Bus.0 -
They are not a business, they a publicly chartered corporation owned and controlled by the state, they are the defacto operator while we work out the new system, so they will do as they are told
Some of you seem to want to have all the advantages of something being nationalized and state owned and NONE of the disadvantages (doing what they're told by the state for example)
They are not meant to have some independent will of their own, the keys in the name - public service
The fact that we've not enforced this rule, because previous govts have been so petrified of unions is here nor there, they are a public service, their role is whatever the govt says it is.
Eh they are paid or look for payment to cover the services in question. Removing them from such services means they have ZERO responsibility in providing any extra or rescue service should the chosen operator not fulfill the agreement. It's the NTA RESPONSIBILITY to provide the service after all they are ones that schedule/plan the routes, own the buses (which would be removed from DB also) and provides the service levels. So it's their responsibility to provide drivers or a company to run a service. If DB aren't interested in running certain routes they are no longer obliged to serve then that's right but they should be no way forced, bullied or expected to clean up someone else mess.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not putting any spin on any posts, I'm just simply astounded that people are suggesting that increased frequencies, new routes and more reliable rotas are a bad thing when there has been so much complaints from some quarters that the transport system is in dire need of it.
I assume it will be a mix of transfers and new vehicles being delivered, perhaps this is part of the reason that it will be implemented in phases, I'm sure more details will come out in due course but both of us are speculating right now, there will be new vehicles delivered next year anyway like there is every year so it's not like they are going to place an order that wouldn't otherwise be there.
What I find odd is that once upon a time people were moaning that the service needed to expand frequencies and add new services and when something that happens that can achieve that aim, many of the same faces on this board are saying basically that we don't need that.
By the end of this the idea is the routes going off to Go-Ahead will be increased by 35% in terms of mileage and the current services with Dublin Bus will be expanded which can only help passengers out and reduce some of the issues with capacity that the network has today, that is even before you consider some badly needed new routes that are required.
What it appears to me at least is that people want to deprive the public of better services that are more frequent, to more realistic running times that result in a more reliable timetable and less service cancellations, and badly needed new routes, because they believe that their ideaology is more important than the services that are given to the customers.
After all I can think of no other reason that people who were calling for expanded services and frequencies suddenly have done a 180 on the idea and now appear to be saying they are not desirable when it's revealed that they may not be operated by Dublin Bus.
Right so now explain why the NTA are saying this will not cost the taxpayer if new buses will be required one way or another. Their not been very truthful or up front if this is the case. The buses and drivers are their already. Creating a whole new company to do a job that currently been done is going to cost the taxpayer.0 -
Explain exactly how it will cost the taxpayer more than if DB won the tender?Right so now explain why the NTA are saying this will not cost the taxpayer if new buses will be required one way or another. Their not been very truthful or up front if this is the case. The buses and drivers are their already. Creating a whole new company to do a job that currently been done is going to cost the taxpayer.0 -
end of the road wrote: »well it isn't. it's not my job to pay for private industry to run my services. if it was a charitable organisation, then i would consider supporting it.
You already do it. Your taxes pay for private contractors to deliver public services all the time. Every GP as I said is a sole operator paid a fixed fee when your medical card form is stamped by them and you pick them as your doc.
Many public services are public FUNDED but not OWNED, and are independent and or independently managed, the schools were an example
That is a separate debate I don't wanna go off topic but I'll say quickly there are only a handful of state owned schoolls nearly all are independent. Some of those independent schools participate in the free fees scheme some don't but almost none are owned by the state just funded by it.Blackrock College is a fee paying school isn't it? why should i be expected as a tax payer to fund it if so?
What I'm trying to say is it's not that say Pres is state owned and Blackrocks not, neither of them are state owned, both are state funded. They're both independent and they both get their teachers salaries paid by the DOE, one participates in the free tuition scheme, the other does not.
You don't get to decide, with respect, what real competition is, you are of course entitled to an opinion but there is the black and white fact that companies ARE competing to get the route, so by definition it's competition.it's not real competition.
We all have things we wish our taxes didn't go towards.i don't wish to pay for it and i don't really benefit from this should i use the particular routes involved.
You do benefit, the fares and route might not change but as others have said there are a load of other areas where another company can improve and innovate. Lets see how this goes the evidence will emerge and speak for itself and we'll know if it was better or worse, if it's a disaster we can simply cancel the project, it's not the end of the world.i still have 1 operator and tough if i don't like it, the authority is deciding how the route must be run. i believe 2 operators per route like the intercity model to be the only real way of true competition, all though i know that for a lot of routes that isn't viable, so no point in wasting time and money on trying to give the illusion of competition.
It's not an illusion, they ARE competing. Commuting inside a city and intercity are apples and oranges0 -
Right so now explain why the NTA are saying this will not cost the taxpayer if new buses will be required one way or another. Their not been very truthful or up front if this is the case. The buses and drivers are their already.
And remind me, approx how many hundreds of million in fleet investment have CIE got in the past 4 or 5 years? New buses are bought every year anyway, yet you make it out like it's something that never happened before and is unique to the new operator?
The other irony is that people on this board were at pains to point out that vehicles should not be counted in subsidy every time I have brought up the fact that on top of the subsidy Dublin Bus gets many buses a year funded by the government that they would otherwise have to pay with.
Now suddenly after years of saying they don't count, they suddenly decided that they should count simply because of the fact that we're talking about an operator other than Dublin Bus.Creating a whole new company to do a job that currently been done is going to cost the taxpayer.
The existing option cost more, that is why the existing option lost the tender.
At the end of the day it's very disappointing that people think that expanded services to relieve pressure on peak hour services, to attract more people to public transport reducing congestion, more reliable timetables and badly needed new routes are a negative thing for public transport in this country.
I think it's a very much good thing but for me it's always been about the service first and last, I couldn't care less who operates the service but of course there are some people who believe that ideology is more important than the level of service and not being left behind at a bus stop, but I'm not one of them and will never be - sorry.0 -
Eh they are paid or look for payment to cover the services in question. Removing them from such services means they have ZERO responsibility in providing any extra or rescue service should the chosen operator not fulfill the agreement. It's the NTA RESPONSIBILITY to provide the service after all they are ones that schedule/plan the routes, own the buses (which would be removed from DB also) and provides the service levels. So it's their responsibility to provide drivers or a company to run a service. If DB aren't interested in running certain routes they are no longer obliged to serve then that's right but they should be no way forced, bullied or expected to clean up someone else mess.
Right there ^^ that is the EXACT attitude that is causing a rush towards other operators, the f___g prima donna act CIE does. It's a public company, it's role will be decided by the govt, if the govt decides it's role is to fill a gap when there is no longer demand for competition, then it's job is to STFU and do what it's told, once again the key is in the name - PUBLIC SERVICE
It's the governments prerogative to innovate and try new policy options to solve public problems, as FDR said "try something, if it works great, if it fails, admit it frankly and move on, but above all try something".
If a policy does not work out the way it was intended that's just life, there is a whole area of social policy where they train us to understand why policy intention A = actual result X, R , S in reality because it happens so bloody often, things don't always work out exactly as intended and if it does not, then a mature and adult way of doing things is not for the management of a public company to throw a teenage tantrum, refuse to help with the situation and let passengers get stranded, it's to say what can we do to serve the traveling pubic. You can still look after the public by covering the routes (if given the appropriate pay and resources to do it) and say "told you that would not work" to the govt, but a childish tantrum of screwing the passengers just to teach some kind of bizzare "lesson" to the politicians is not going to do DB any favors, all it will do is get people complaining about DB for refusing to help and undermine faith in unions once more (which SIPTU seems determined to destroy)
The idea that a public transport company would throw a tantrum and refuse to help a transport issue when asked...that is illustrative of the lack of a public service ethos in the Irish PS , and the cancerous "me fein, im all right jack, as long as my t&cs are looked after f----k the customer and f---k the taxpayer" attitude that is there in it's place in CIE, HSE, DOE, DSP, all throughout the Irish PS, the staff and unions of these entity's just can't help but dig their hole deeper and deeper with the public and politicos alike.
This is the kind of attitude (displayed to great effect in the BE strike) that is driving the public support towards competition because we don't want to be held hostage to CIE in situations just like this. its amazing to me how unaware on a political level they are of the damage this lack of a Public service ethos is, it's turning the public and their reps against the very people these tantrums are supposed to protect.
Incidentally, that's very revealing of the lack of a PS ethos as well: a government giving orders to a company it owns and controls is not bullying it's called governing.
If the company can just run away doing it's own thing there is no point in the state owning it at all.0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »Explain exactly how it will cost the taxpayer more than if DB won the tender?
350 drivers and 125 buses = €millions0 -
And remind me, approx how many hundreds of million in fleet investment have CIE got in the past 4 or 5 years? New buses are bought every year anyway, yet you make it out like it's something that never happened before and is unique to the new operator?
The other irony is that people on this board were at pains to point out that vehicles should not be counted in subsidy every time I have brought up the fact that on top of the subsidy Dublin Bus gets many buses a year funded by the government that they would otherwise have to pay with.
Now suddenly after years of saying they don't count, they suddenly decided that they should count simply because of the fact that we're talking about an operator other than Dublin Bus.
The existing option cost more, that is why the existing option lost the tender.
At the end of the day it's very disappointing that people think that expanded services to relieve pressure on peak hour services, to attract more people to public transport reducing congestion, more reliable timetables and badly needed new routes are a negative thing for public transport in this country.
I think it's a very much good thing but for me it's always been about the service first and last, I couldn't care less who operates the service but of course there are some people who believe that ideology is more important than the level of service and not being left behind at a bus stop, but I'm not one of them and will never be - sorry.
Fleet renewals as I've said how 12 year + buses do you see on the road now.0 -
Fleet renewals as I've said how 12 year + buses do you see on the road now.
They are not all fleet renewals though, for example over 30% of vehicles this year in Dublin Bus alone are already for fleet expansion and regardless of who won the tender the same routes that are going to Go-Ahead would be expanded anyway as they're all bidding on the same thing.
At the end of the day I would suggest that a lot of the new deliveries may go to the new operator next year and Dublin Bus would get less, at the end of the day it's likely to be the same number of buses that are ordered whoever won, just the way they are distributed will be to two operators rather than one.
I'm still a bit perplexed as to why people have a problem with a public service serving more of the public better though, I can't understand that for a moment because that I thought is a sign of a good public service.350 drivers and 125 buses = €millions
The government isn't paying for extra drivers, that is a matter for Go Ahead to sort out and is included in the price that they tendered for which was cheaper than what Dublin Bus tendered for therefore cannot be more expensive else they would not win the tender.
New buses are bought every year anyway, yet it's made out like it something new. People on here were at pains to point out that vehicles should not be counted in subsidy every time it is brought up that DB gets often over 100 buses a year they would otherwise have to pay for, yet suddenly they want to count them because of the fact that we're talking about another operator.
Sounds a bit like double standards to me, at least in my own view.0 -
Right there ^^ that is the EXACT attitude that is causing a rush towards other operators, the f___g prima donna act CIE does. It's a public company, it's role will be decided by the govt, if the govt decides it's role is to fill a gap when there is no longer demand for competition, then it's job is to STFU and do what it's told, once again the key is in the name - PUBLIC SERVICE
It's the governments prerogative to innovate and try new policy options to solve public problems, as FDR said "try something, if it works great, if it fails, admit it frankly and move on, but above all try something".
If a policy does not work out the way it was intended that's just life, there is a whole area of social policy where they train us to understand why policy intention A = actual result X, R , S in reality because it happens so bloody often, things don't always work out exactly as intended and if it does not, then a mature and adult way of doing things is not for the management of a public company to throw a teenage tantrum, refuse to help with the situation and let passengers get stranded, it's to say what can we do to serve the traveling pubic. You can still look after the public by covering the routes (if given the appropriate pay and resources to do it) and say "told you that would not work" to the govt, but a childish tantrum of screwing the passengers just to teach some kind of bizzare "lesson" to the politicians is not going to do DB any favors, all it will do is get people complaining about DB for refusing to help and undermine faith in unions once more (which SIPTU seems determined to destroy)
The idea that a public transport company would throw a tantrum and refuse to help a transport issue when asked...that is illustrative of the lack of a public service ethos in the Irish PS , and the cancerous "me fein, im all right jack, as long as my t&cs are looked after f----k the customer and f---k the taxpayer" attitude that is there in it's place in CIE, HSE, DOE, DSP, all throughout the Irish PS, the staff and unions of these entity's just can't help but dig their hole deeper and deeper with the public and politicos alike.
This is the kind of attitude (displayed to great effect in the BE strike) that is driving the public support towards competition because we don't want to be held hostage to CIE in situations just like this. its amazing to me how unaware on a political level they are of the damage this lack of a Public service ethos is, it's turning the public and their reps against the very people these tantrums are supposed to protect.
Incidentally, that's very revealing of the lack of a PS ethos as well: a government giving orders to a company it owns and controls is not bullying it's called governing.
If the company can just run away doing it's own thing there is no point in the state owning it at all.
Dublin bus is a business and is CONTRACTED to provide certain routes and rewarded a fee for doing so. They are not a charity or a pack of slaves that follow orders. I'm sure today's announcement clearly shows that they are in paid agreements to provide services. Do you believe the government tells to run special concert buses to the likes of Slane ect.
Government don't control DB either I think recent disputes have proven that.
I think it's the attitude that your showing is what runs these companies into the ground and bleed them dry of any hope of succes. Your happy to see them go but yet expect to see them their ready to meet your terms when nobody else will.0 -
Right there ^^ that is the EXACT attitude that is causing a rush towards other operators, the f___g prima donna act CIE does. It's a public company, it's role will be decided by the govt, if the govt decides it's role is to fill a gap when there is no longer demand for competition, then it's job is to STFU and do what it's told, once again the key is in the name - PUBLIC SERVICE
It's the governments prerogative to innovate and try new policy options to solve public problems, as FDR said "try something, if it works great, if it fails, admit it frankly and move on, but above all try something".
a rush toards other operators won't change the fact that no operator will step into the breach unless they are compensated well for doing so.If a policy does not work out the way it was intended that's just life, there is a whole area of social policy where they train us to understand why policy intention A = actual result X, R , S in reality because it happens so bloody often, things don't always work out exactly as intended and if it does not, then a mature and adult way of doing things is not for the management of a public company to throw a teenage tantrum, refuse to help with the situation and let passengers get stranded, it's to say what can we do to serve the traveling pubic.
ireland (and britain) have a history of continuing to implement policies dispite being shown not to work.You can still look after the public by covering the routes (if given the appropriate pay and resources to do it) and say "told you that would not work" to the govt, but a childish tantrum of screwing the passengers just to teach some kind of bizzare "lesson" to the politicians is not going to do DB any favors, all it will do is get people complaining about DB for refusing to help and undermine faith in unions once more (which SIPTU seems determined to destroy)
the majority of people (who are rational) are not going to complain about db refusing to operate routes they are not obligated to operate.The idea that a public transport company would throw a tantrum and refuse to help a transport issue when asked...that is illustrative of the lack of a public service ethos in the Irish PS , and the cancerous "me fein, im all right jack, as long as my t&cs are looked after f----k the customer and f---k the taxpayer" attitude that is there in it's place in CIE, HSE, DOE, DSP, all throughout the Irish PS, the staff and unions of these entity's just can't help but dig their hole deeper and deeper with the public and politicos alike.
no public transport company public or private will allow themselves to be forced to step in to the breach for the failure of other operators without being compensated or benefited appropriately, and the vast majority of the public recognise that fact and would agree with it.This is the kind of attitude (displayed to great effect in the BE strike) that is driving the public support towards competition because we don't want to be held hostage to CIE in situations just like this.
there is little to no support from the public for non-competition which is what this whole thing actually is . the only competition there is some public support for is the intercity model of a couple of operators per route. private operators can hold us to hostage just as much if they want to and don't think down the line that they may not try. why wouldn't they, they are businesses not charities unlike db.its amazing to me how unaware on a political level they are of the damage this lack of a Public service ethos is, it's turning the public and their reps against the very people these tantrums are supposed to protect.
that's not what i'm seeing. boards.ie and a few vocal ranters on social media is not really a good judge of whether the public are being turned against anything.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
They are not all fleet renewals though, for example over 30% of vehicles this year in Dublin Bus alone are already for fleet expansion and regardless of who won the tender the same routes that are going to Go-Ahead would be expanded anyway as they're all bidding on the same thing.
At the end of the day I would suggest that a lot of the new deliveries may go to the new operator next year and Dublin Bus would get less, at the end of the day it's likely to be the same number of buses that are ordered whoever won, just the way they are distributed will be to two operators rather than one.
I'm still a bit perplexed as to why people have a problem with a public service serving more of the public better though, I can't understand that for a moment because that I thought is a sign of a good public service.
The government isn't paying for extra drivers, that is a matter for Go Ahead to sort out and is included in the price that they tendered for which was cheaper than what Dublin Bus tendered for therefore cannot be more expensive else they would not win the tender.
New buses are bought every year anyway, yet it's made out like it something new. People on here were at pains to point out that vehicles should not be counted in subsidy every time it is brought up that DB gets often over 100 buses a year they would otherwise have to pay for, yet suddenly they want to count them because of the fact that we're talking about another operator.
Sounds a bit like double standards to me, at least in my own view.
Nobody has a problem with extra services I don't know where your getting this notion from. Extra new buses will enter the fleet either way and will need too as we are now removing 125 from DB leaving a short fall in their fleet removing any chance of expansion. Their is going to be an excess of 350 Drivers in DB until a further 125 new buses are sourced resulting in a cost to the taxpayer.
By leaving DB serving the whole network such an expansion in frequencies and services wouldn't of cost as much as they would have a bigger pool of buses and drivers to select from.
For example if a bus is scheduled to serve Route 18 in the morning peak and then move onto Route 145 for the rest of the day then that flexibility is lost and requires GA to have a extra bus just to cover 2 services a day.
Oh and I'm sure GA factored in operating costs which would include driver costs when submitting their bid so yeah we are paying for them and also paying for their uniforms, training and any other perks they may get.0 -
Today's news was interesting to observe. I found it strange that the NTA published a map of bus routes that only a few weeks ago were announced would be changing under Bus Connects. Today seemed to contradict that, mentioning higher frequencies on these routes and even the announcement of a new route 175. All this while a public consultation is supposedly underway. As a passenger there is a mixed messaging here, and for the new operator, are they willing to be flexible to change in the future or was their business model based on the map published today?
For Dublin Bus and their employees, while they might feel they have lost today, I believe this is a chance for them to focus on their remaining network and continue to improve and expand their fleet as today's press release suggests. For anyone believing the new operator will be perfect, they really need to understand that Go Ahead will suffer the same congestion, bad road planning, broken windows and other incidents which currently delay Dublin Bus. For example, I worry that if a bus, like the 59, breaks down on Killiney Hill, will Go Ahead have the resources to quickly replace it from a depot many miles away and maintain service? Say what you like about Dublin Bus, but they have excellent maintenance teams and can turn around buses in such incidents pretty quickly.
All eyes are now on the NTA. They are no longer just an authority, they now need to become a direct point of information and contact base for the public. They need to be doing this now, they have had years to get ready. When a bus is delayed or there is a diversion, passengers need to be contacting them instead of the operator, similar to TFL. Areas like lost property and customer service helplines will need to be centralised by them. For example, anyone in Skerries should not have to contact two different companies for enquiries about a 33 or 33a
They need to introduce their bus stops, maps and timetables as soon as possible. It should no longer be a requirement of Dublin Bus or Go Ahead to provide information at stops etc. They will be responsible to maintain and provide up to the minute information on delays, route changes and diversions - with notices on stops on affected days. Their route maps on the Transport For Ireland website and on street have been out of date for years now. This is unacceptable. If they are becoming the brand for public transport in Dublin then these things need to be perfect.
I think the NTA's intentions are good. They have a vision of what they want and have made excellent progress in the last few years with enhancements to fares and ticketing. They just need to get this right from day one.0 -
We are now removing 125 from DB leaving a short fall in their fleet removing any chance of expansion.
Their is going to be an excess of 350 Drivers in DB until a further 125 new buses are sourced resulting in a cost to the taxpayer.
Can you please source this hyperbolic wild speculation?
I have looked through all the statements from Dublin Bus and the NTA today and can find nothing to back-up this claim that you are making, it seems to be an assumption that you are making rather than anything to back it up.
Nowhere does it state any of this, the only things that I have seen stated today are that when routes are transferred there will be additional services that will be operated by Dublin Bus to use the resources that are no longer required on the routes to be operated by Go Ahead.
This is not my word, this is something that the NTA have been at pains to point out in their press statements and press releases on their website.By leaving DB serving the whole network such an expansion in frequencies and services wouldn't of cost as much as they would have a bigger pool of buses and drivers to select from.
Yet if that was the case they would have won the tender but they didn't because they were more expensive for the additional services and frequencies that were proposed as part of that tender even when they had the advantages of not having to build depots which means they should have won it easily if what you said was true.or example if a bus is scheduled to serve Route 18 in the morning peak and then move onto Route 145 for the rest of the day then that flexibility is lost and requires GA to have a extra bus just to cover 2 services a day.
Oh and I'm sure GA factored in operating costs which would include driver costs when submitting their bid so yeah we are paying for them and also paying for their uniforms, training and any other perks they may get.
Yet even with these so called inefficiencies and having to build a depot, Go-Ahead still felt that they could do it cheaper than Dublin Bus which is why they won the tender.
It simply suggests that DB is not currently providing value for money that a company that needs to invest in assets that Dublin Bus already have and has the inefficiency that you claim it has Dublin bus doesn't have can still do it cheaper.0 -
Creating a whole new company to do a job that currently been done is going to cost the taxpayer.
I avoid the company currently doing the job at the moment if at all possible because it is completely unreliable. I would be fine with a new company coming in, costing a little more if it gets things right at least some of the time.0 -
Can you please source this hyperbolic wild speculation?
I have looked through all the statements from Dublin Bus and the NTA today and can find nothing to back-up this claim that you are making, it seems to be an assumption that you are making rather than anything to back it up.
Nowhere does it state any of this, the only things that I have seen stated today are that when routes are transferred there will be additional services that will be operated by Dublin Bus to use the resources that are no longer required on the routes to be operated by Go Ahead.
This is not my word, this is something that the NTA have been at pains to point out in their press statements and press releases on their website.
Yet if that was the case they would have won the tender but they didn't because they were more expensive for the additional services and frequencies that were proposed as part of that tender even when they had the advantages of not having to build depots which means they should have won it easily if what you said was true.
Yet even with these so called inefficiencies and having to build a depot, Go-Ahead still felt that they could do it cheaper than Dublin Bus which is why they won the tender.
It simply suggests that DB is not currently providing value for money that a company that needs to invest in assets that Dublin Bus already have and has the inefficiency that you claim it has Dublin bus doesn't have can still do it cheaper.
It's in many statements even you said.it NTA own the buses they will transfer from DB to GA what not of that are you missing otherwise the NTA are going back on their promise that this isn't going to cost the taxpayer by having to purchase 125 buses so let for GA to operate.
Can you produce evidence that they lost out because of what they were demanding for providing extra services.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »I avoid the company currently doing the job at the moment if at all possible because it is completely unreliable. I would be fine with a new company coming in, costing a little more if it gets things right at least some of the time.
Why are they bringing a new exclusive road network with them as well. It will be the exact same service just a different name over the door.0 -
It's in many statements even you said.it NTA own the buses they will transfer from DB to GA what not of that are you missing.
At the end of the day I would suggest that a lot of the new deliveries may go to the new operator next year and Dublin Bus would get less, it could be a split between new buses and existing buses or it could be all transfers, we just don't know yet which way it will go.
Saying that 125 buses will transfer from Dublin Bus next year and saying it is a fact simply isn't true - there is nothing to back that up, all we know is that GA need 125 buses, how they will be sourced hasn't been confirmed.therwise the NTA are going back on their promise that this isn't going to cost the taxpayer by having to purchase 125 buses so let for GA to operate.
At the end of the day it's likely to be the same number of buses that are ordered whoever won, just the way they are distributed will be to two operators rather than one so talking about additional buses like it doesn't already happen is laughable, your problem appears to be that GA getting extra buses is counted as extra cost but DB getting them isn't, is a clear case of double standards.
Personally I'm more concerned about services than ideology, but if you don't want the expansion in services that is fine, nobody forces you to use the bus but I'm sure a lot of people will be delighted with the end result of a more reliable, regular service that takes them where they want to go.0 -
You really have to just begrudgingly admire the dogged determination of the troll a few posts up who keeps setting up new accounts to post his hilarious nonsense. It really speaks to the mindset of some of the more hardline union men.0
-
Wouldnt it be mad stuff altogether if these Go Ahead lads started using a RPTI solution that was actually real time
Sure where would you get the likes of it?0 -
Advertisement
-
At the end of the day I would suggest that a lot of the new deliveries may go to the new operator next year and Dublin Bus would get less, it could be a split between new buses and existing buses or it could be all transfers, we just don't know yet which way it will go.
Saying that 125 buses will transfer from Dublin Bus next year and saying it is a fact simply isn't true - there is nothing to back that up, all we know is that GA need 125 buses, how they will be sourced hasn't been confirmed.
At the end of the day it's likely to be the same number of buses that are ordered whoever won, just the way they are distributed will be to two operators rather than one so talking about additional buses like it doesn't already happen is laughable, your problem appears to be that GA getting extra buses is counted as extra cost but DB getting them isn't, is a clear case of double standards.
Personally I'm more concerned about services than ideology, but if you don't want the expansion in services that is fine, nobody forces you to use the bus but I'm sure a lot of people will be delighted with the end result of a more reliable, regular service that takes them where they want to go.
Their is no plans for an extra 125 buses most are fleet renewals meaning a small pool will be for expansion.
Your seem to forgetting your own statement that GA will offering more frequencies on these routes so if the current fleet can't meet it now I can't see how GA can without a large investment. Surely other major DB routes will get expansion first so again extra buses will be rrquired which is vwry much the opposite of what the NTA were telling us today.
I really do think the NTA have thrown you a bone here and can't get enough of it. If it's as easy and simple as you seem to think it is this would of been years ago by DB themselves.
With a bit of look this goes tits up and the NTA themselves are scaled back.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement