Go-Ahead Win 10% of Dublin Bus routes for tender

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

There is a big difference between DB, IE &BE outsourcing some cleaning contractors ect. to the "national transport authority" outsourcing a transport plan for the nation. I'm not expecting them to have the construction / software skills and knowledge to build the infrastructure but I sure as hell do expect them to have the abilities to design, produce, plan and implement a transport network into the town's and cities they are responsible for rather than seeking an American or German company who quite frankly don't really know the area or geography of the city to plan it along with paying them millions.

But the thing with Dublin is it's such a complex city and there are so many different modes being built and it's in such a state of change needing such a level of an overhaul that it appears to be quite sensible to get experts in who have experience with doing this thing before, because it makes sure that the same pitfalls that have been experience in other similar size cities are not experienced here, whilst also making sure the disaster that was Network Direct is not repeated.

It's unfair to say that the NTA are unable to design, produce plan or implement a transport network in the Towns and cities though because the NTA have already redesigned many of these networks, Dublin is the only one which has gone out to outside contractors.

All of the following were done in house:
Cork City
Cork Suburban
Limerick City
Waterford City
Galway City
Sligo Town
Wexford/Waterford
Louth/Monaghan/Cavan/Meath
County Kerry
County Clare
County Mayo
County Sligo
County Galway
County Donegal
N2 Corridor
N4 Corridor
N81 Corridor

In addition not everything is about knowing the geography of the area, of course that is some of it with a task like designing a bus network but it is not the only factor in re-designing a network.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

Nobody can regulate themselves, it's an oxymoron.



The way people do business and what they expect from a bus service changed a long time before the NTA were formed yet transport services had not kept pace with that change and were years behind what users in other European countries could avail of.



The NTA did a lot more than just place orders for equipment, they designed schemes for bike hire schemes in Galway, Cork, Limerick, introduced the kids go free offer in the summer holidays to encourage more people to use public transport, provided some proper integration measures which the CIE companies were unable to do despite being sister companies of each other for decades.



Before the NTA it was common for money to be allocated without any accountability, it's a far better formula to have that funding is released only in exchange for certain improvements because it makes sure that the money is spent on these things rather than going into a big black hole which it often otherwise would.

Known of this has contributed to getting people moving other than a few bikes which again would of came from politicians observing other cities across the world so not really a case of the NTA taking the bull by the horns and creating something.

What did other countries have before the NTA came about.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Known of this has contributed to getting people moving other than a few bikes which again would of came from politicians observing other cities across the world so not really a case of the NTA taking the bull by the horns and creating something.

But this is the kind of typical straw clutching argument I keep seeing on here, everything that someone who you don't like does would have happened anyway but everything that someone you like does is an example of doing something good, it's a very blinkered vision.

Even though I am nowhere near Dublin Bus' biggest fan I can recognise that they have done some good things in the last few years (757, expansion of Ghostbus Tour, charity and community projects etc) off their own back and sure, maybe it would have happened anyway with someone else, but at the end of the day Dublin Bus still did it and they deserve credit for that.

Things don't just magically happen, if someone sits back and says it will happen anyway nobody would accomplish anything ever because they'll be twaiting for someone else to do .

What did other countries have before the NTA came about.

Pretty much every other country has a transport regulator or a central body like the NTA, although some will have local authorities instead, depends on the country really but there is normally one or the other in most countries.

Voipjunkie

devnull wrote: »

Unions should not be able to dictate public transport policy choices at the end of the day, you appear to be suggesting that the unions should always get what they want and that the companies should be run for their benefit and if other people do not like that them it's just tough because the unions have got to have their own way.

I have no problems of unions having concerns and airing their views and of course they have a right to do that but at the end of the day what you appear to be saying is if that the unions don't like something then it has to be changed to accommodate them but if the other party don't like something that is just tough they have to deal with it.



So you won't believe a comment which is recorded in a number of sources, on TV, Radio, online and other sources as fact but you will believe a sole persons opinion who has to use a caveat when expressing it who doesn't have enough confidence in what they are saying to say it outright?

Nobody has claimed in the media that DB was cheaper, they have simply claim that they understand they are cheaper in an opinion piece, nobody has come out and said it is a fact - if things were factual there would be no need to use a caveat at the end of the day, which the term 'understands' clearly is.

Besides having been involved in tenders in the past much of it is commercially confidential and that level of detail will never been released in the public domain so I wouldn't take the fact that the NTA hasn't said anything as gospel - it's just not proper to comment on such matters



I just see someone who is more concerned about ideology than the issues of the day and what are being discussed here, personally I couldn't care if an operator is private or public at the end of the day and it makes no impact on my views but I understand that some people believe ideology is more important.

They didn't change the policy they got the Government and the NTA to clarify the position of their members, which is perfectly reasonable. The NTA have masterminded a clusterf*** they had no idea what they were doing which is why it took so long, and they had no idea how complicated it would be before they announced what they were doing.

That is how they ended up with the current supplier and one other bidder who they had to give it to, because otherwise they went through all this to get nowhere, so the policy that was designed to see if we are getting value for money is now going to cost us more money to operate these services.

The reality is this has nothing to do with value for money this is FG doing what FG always does allowing allowing profit to be made from public services.

Okay I will repeat this, the statement that a depot will have to be built tells us nothing, where, how long, who is paying for it, and who will own it, we have known for the last 2 and half years that if DB didn't hold the routes that a depot/s will have to be built.


Ah come on how many angels can dance on the top of a pin, you are playing with words here, I understand is in common usage among reporters I hear them say it all the time, if it was untrue the NTA would have been all over it, but they haven't



It is not ideology it is a simple very important question is the taxpayer paying for infrastructure that will end up in private ownership, and if Go Ahead are unsuccessful in retaining these routes in 2024 will the tax payer have to pay for that infrastructure a second time and a third time. As a taxpayer that stuff is important to me.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

But the thing with Dublin is it's such a complex city and there are so many different modes being built and it's in such a state of change needing such a level of an overhaul that it appears to be quite sensible to get experts in who have experience with doing this thing before, because it makes sure that the same pitfalls that have been experience in other similar size cities are not experienced here, whilst also making sure the disaster that was Network Direct is not repeated.

It's unfair to say that the NTA are unable to design, produce plan or implement a transport network in the Towns and cities though because the NTA have already redesigned many of these networks, Dublin is the only one which has gone out to outside contractors.

All of the following were done in house:
Cork City
Cork Suburban
Limerick City
Waterford City
Galway City
Sligo Town
Wexford/Waterford
Louth/Monaghan/Cavan/Meath
County Kerry
County Clare
County Mayo
County Sligo
County Galway
County Donegal
N2 Corridor
N4 Corridor
N81 Corridor

In addition not everything is about knowing the geography of the area, of course that is some of it with a task like designing a bus network but it is not the only factor in re-designing a network.

I would of thought the NTA were the experts. As I said I've no issue with them getting help with the technical and difficult construction issues but to not be able to produce a plan of their own is nothing short of a open disgrace.

I don't think saying network direct was a total disaster. At the time it made economic sense to implement it. It's also removed a lot parked up buses out the city centre. It's opened up the network for a lot more people as they travel more direct now. Bus connect seems to think changing multiple times in our journey is going to speed things up.

The majority of them places have 3 or 4 bus routes they should sentenced to life imprisonment If they couldn't arrange a few routes in them town's. They are hardly headline improvements either a couple of extra buses over a decade or so. Their not suitable for the job if that's the best they can produce.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

But this is the kind of typical straw clutching argument I keep seeing on here, everything that someone who you don't like does would have happened anyway but everything that someone you like does is an example of doing something good, it's a very blinkered vision.

Even though I am nowhere near Dublin Bus' biggest fan I can recognise that they have done some good things in the last few years (757, expansion of Ghostbus Tour, charity and community projects etc) off their own back and sure, maybe it would have happened anyway with someone else, but at the end of the day Dublin Bus still did it and they deserve credit for that.

Things don't just magically happen, if someone sits back and says it will happen anyway nobody would accomplish anything ever because they'll be twaiting for someone else to do .



Pretty much every other country has a transport regulator or a central body like the NTA, although some will have local authorities instead, depends on the country really but there is normally one or the other in most countries.

As I said before I'll give them credit for leap card. But I'm pretty sure the bike thing is a city council rather than the NTA so I find it hard to accredit them for bringing that Ireland.

You said many other cities had transport offerings for customers that Ireland hadn't implement before the arrival of the NTA.

devnull

Voipjunkie wrote: »

They didn't change the policy they got the Government and the NTA to clarify the position of their members, which is perfectly reasonable.

No, they were not happy with the way it was going to proceed so they went ons trike in an attempt to force the other party to change it because they didn't like it.

That is how they ended up with the current supplier and one other bidder who they had to give it to, because otherwise they went through all this to get nowhere, so the policy that was designed to see if we are getting value for money is now going to cost us more money to operate these services.

The reality is this has nothing to do with value for money this is FG doing what FG always does allowing allowing profit to be made from public services.

At the end of the day the unions did spend a long time complaining that cost should not be the only factor in the tender and they asked for that and that is exactly what they got, unfortunately it may or may not have resulted in them losing the tender. That is the double edged sword with lobbying like they did, sometimes it can come back and hurt you in ways you didn't originally foresee.

Okay I will repeat this, the statement that a depot will have to be built tells us nothing, where, how long, who is paying for it, and who will own it, we have known for the last 2 and half years that if DB didn't hold the routes that a depot/s will have to be built.

I agree there is no much meat on the bones but this is not uncommon and is normally due to commercial confidentiality and is not unique to this tender it is commonplace on all tenders across the board in many industries.

I understand is in common usage among reporters I hear them say it all the time, if it was untrue the NTA would have been all over it, but they haven't

I wouldn't take the fact that the NTA hasn't said anything as gospel - it's just not proper to comment on such matters whilst the contract has not been signed and only a preferred bidder has been announced.

I was always taught in my communications courses that you use understand when you are giving your interpretation of how you think things are based on something that you have heard and it should be used as a caveat, if it really was a fact I'd expect it to be backed up with that has led the reporter to believe it is a fact - however there is just a blanket statement with nothing to support it or to flesh it out.

It is not ideology it is a simple very important question is the taxpayer paying for infrastructure that will end up in private ownership, and if Go Ahead are unsuccessful in retaining these routes in 2024 will the tax payer have to pay for that infrastructure a second time and a third time. As a taxpayer that stuff is important to me.

It sounds very much like ideology to me when you are talking about some infrastructure that will end up in private ownership, since you appear to be emphasizing the private aspect of it.

I'm not quite sure why that the taxpayer would have to pay for the infrastructure again if Go-Ahead lose the contract, I'm not sure what Go-Ahead would want with a depot that they have no use for, they would simply sell it to the new operator I would imagine.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

As I said before I'll give them credit for leap card. But I'm pretty sure the bike thing is a city council rather than the NTA so I find it hard to accredit them for bringing that Ireland.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Public-Bikes-in-Cities1.pdf

You said many other cities had transport offerings for customers that Ireland hadn't implement before the arrival of the NTA.[/QUOTE]

This includes but is not limited to real time information at bus stops, integrated ticketing, on board passenger information, multi-mode journey planners, fare capping, discounts for using multi-mode services, this is just a few I can think of which have been commonplace in a lot of European countries well before the NTA was formed in 2009 in some cases many years before.

IE 222 wrote: »

I don't think saying network direct was a total disaster. At the time it made economic sense to implement it. It's also removed a lot parked up buses out the city centre. It's opened up the network for a lot more people as they travel more direct now. Bus connect seems to think changing multiple times in our journey is going to speed things up.

It didn't work out for everyone though, and for many people they stopped using the bus altogether, I worked for a major company in Ballsbridge for a couple of years and the service got so bad because of changes to the services through there that a large number of people simply just gave up and started car-pooling.

BusConnects didn't state that changing multiple times per journey is certainly the way forward but sometimes it can be possible to have shorter journey times with more changes if it means that less buses are doing the full route and more buses are doing the more high demand sections where plenty of routes meet.

The majority of them places have 3 or 4 bus routes they should sentenced to life imprisonment If they couldn't arrange a few routes in them town's. They are hardly headline improvements either a couple of extra buses over a decade or so. Their not suitable for the job if that's the best they can produce.

Now talking about life imprisonment is simply just childish, in some of those areas they have seen networks of a dozen plus routes re-organised and in some cases the number of vehicles serving those area also increased by double figures, that is before you take into account the push to reintroduce deckers into regional cities that were previously withdrawn by BE in the past who were only interested in single deckers which has resulted in a marked improvement in capacity and comfort for customers.

IE 222

IE 222 wrote: »

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.

According to most bus time tables I have seen, it takes the same length of time to go between stops, no matter what time of the day it is. Thats Dublin Bus setting themselves up to fail from the off. Hopefully the new company will time how long it takes their buses to traverse the road network at different times of the day and the timetable will be somewhat accurate. That alone would make the service more reliable.

Why is the state privatising profitable Dublin routes? Surely they help to subvent the many routes in less populated areas that are losing money?

devnull

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is the state privatising profitable Dublin routes? Surely they help to subvent the many routes in less populated areas that are losing money?

They are not being privatised, they are being contracted out.

The fares will be controlled by the same people they are now, the schedules will be controlled by the people they are now and the free travel pass will be accepted the same way it is now.

The routes that are being outsourced would certainly not be the most profitable ones since they are all local and orbital routes and not the routes which are running to and from the city-center so this is a red herring.

In addition, the operator will not get any revenue from operating the services and will get a fixed fee and this is the same model that Dublin Bus will move to in future as well so the profitability of the route or otherwise doesn't come into it.

LXFlyer

devnull wrote: »

I have only looked at sections 13 and 14 and saw the following

13.1.2 (No Passengers charter on the Dublin Bus Website)
13.1.4 (No information provided on EC Regulation 181/2011)
13.1.5 (Non provision of details on how to escalate queries to the NTA)
14.2.1 (Non Intergration of National Journey Planner)
14.2.2 (Many contracted features not being supplied here)



Dublin Bus have signed a contract with with the NTA to get funding from the taxpayer to operate services in conjunction with the terms specified in the schedule and direct award contract that has been outlined.

Do you think maybe the fact that the NTA are paying Dublin Bus for such services but the company are not delivering all of the terms of the contract and schedule might well play into their scoring on non price aspects of the tender that they have lost?

There is a customer charter on the DB website:
http://dublinbus.ie/About-Us/Customer-Charter/

It specifically deals with complaints and how to escalate them to the NTA if needs be.

The NTA Journey Planner app is clearly linked to on the DB website.

While I'm quite happy to criticise DB for their failings, those ones aren't valid.

devnull

LXFlyer wrote: »

There is a customer charter on the DB website:
http://dublinbus.ie/About-Us/Customer-Charter/

It specifically deals with complaints and how to escalate them to the NTA if needs be.

Didn't see it earlier on - my bad mistake - cheers.

The NTA Journey Planner app is clearly linked to on the DB website.

Indeed but the terms state explicitly that the journey planner will be integrated, I don't think a link counts as that in my book, what would count is using such journey planner instead of the Dublin Bus one which is not as useful in my book.

jimmycrackcorm

IE 222 wrote:

At the end of the day someone at the end of Twitter account wearing a DB uniform isn't really getting people from point A to point B. Making the big calls adding more buses along routes with massive population increases is bread and butter stuff. I'll give them some credit for leap card as that required a lot of time and input to develop but if they weren't there somebody else would of done it as it's the way of the world now.

It's just a pity that the NTA can't do anything about the ten minute Dart plan. But at least they can ensure that the next time Dublin Bus goes on strike that not all buses will be off the road.

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's just a pity that the NTA can't do anything about the ten minute Dart plan.

they can if they build the infrastructure to allow it to happen. anyway i'm unsure if outside peak times a 10 minute frequency is justified anyway, but maybe it could be.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But at least they can ensure that the next time Dublin Bus goes on strike that not all buses will be off the road.

they can't insure it. an issue might arise in the new operator at the same time, requiring the staff there to strike on that issue. no amount of operators can guarantee against action where they are part of a network of subsidized services.

punisher5112

Hilarious I find this all..... Its a joke nta which is or is actually just another subsidiary of the department of transport set up to create even more high paying jobs paid/funded by us tax paying absolute fools.


Db I agree has always had its faults but they did have cheaper options only people decided to always pay cash or not avail of it.

You may be surprised but db spent a fortune on investment into the start up of luas and also into the rtpi system.

I am actually so annoyed people can't see the real picture they are hell bent on selling everything we have because oh wait just because they say EU says we must.....

Funny EU says we should do many many many things but oh wait the guberment don't... Very funny isn't it.



Stop selling us out keep Irish jobs and companies and look after are home interests.


Sad sad day to be honest.

Always found it funny nta set up supposedly to improve everything but they are set on getting anything but an Irish company to ruin the country sorry run...


Wake up we are being sold out from housing to transport.....

Look at rte player and search the great Irish sell off.


No wonder we can't afford to rent, find a home or buy...


But the answer is ah sure it be grand....

Night Falls

The conversation has moved on slightly, but I've been involved in a number of public tenders in the past and just to clarify that past performance is dealt with in the suitability stage. I assume this was a 2-stage process (which would be the norm for large contracts), where you initially assess all interested parties on their competence to carry out the work, past performance, safety record etc. and then, if needs be, whittle down the list to a predetermined number, i.e. if 9 interested parties met the minimum criteria set out, the top 6 ranking would be then invited to tender (this is done to benefit tenderers as well as the awarding party, i've been on projects in the past where tenderers have pulled out because there was too many in the competition and the risk of not winning was too high for what is an expensive process, it also means fewer tenders to be reviewed at the next stage). This is the time where you can do some background research on a company, check references etc. EU rules effectively rule out doing this again at tender stage.

In my experience, there are very few large contracts that are judged on price alone, i'm not certain of the procurement rules around this, but I think there may be a requirement to have a quality section to large tenders like this. The 65 / 35 split is ballpark what many of the tenders i'd have been involved with would have been pitched at, it's the sweet spot as it means that there is significant incentive to put forward an excellent quality submission (with potentially some attractive "added value" elements to the service over and above the minimum contractual requirements), but tenderers still have to be very mindful of the cost element, as the bigger the difference in price, the less likely they are to be awarded the contract, regardless of how good the quality side is.

That said, it would be unusual but not unheard of for a tenderer with the highest marks in terms of price not to win, particularly where price is weighted so heavily in the overall scoring. (A side note is that from my experience this is usually a combination of the tendered sum plus the application of tendered rates for certain extras, which allows you to assess the price along with a scenario where additional works or services are added to the contract at some point in the future. This is handy as it keeps tenderers relatively honest so they can't charge through the nose for any extras). If i was a guessing man I'd imagine that the difference between the two wasn't massive (assuming the reports are true), unless db's quality submission was woeful. From my experience (granted in the water sector but the principle of public tendering is essentially the same) there's also massive external oversight on this as the whole process would be open to review by the C&AG, I've been involved in projects in the past where they have reviewed the full process and they really leave no stone unturned. It would be massively risky for any public body to "fiddle" with the scoring, as they would be opening themselves up for all sorts of objections. DB will also know how far away they were with their bid, and will have 2 / 3 weeks to make a formal objection if they feel they've been treated unfairly.

Apologies for the essay, but thought it might be worth giving a bit more insight into how public tendering works in practice.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

Hilarious I find this all..... Its a joke nta which is or is actually just another subsidiary of the department of transport set up to create even more high paying jobs paid/funded by us tax paying absolute fools.


Db I agree has always had its faults but they did have cheaper options only people decided to always pay cash or not avail of it.

You may be surprised but db spent a fortune on investment into the start up of luas and also into the rtpi system.

I am actually so annoyed people can't see the real picture they are hell bent on selling everything we have because oh wait just because they say EU says we must.....

Funny EU says we should do many many many things but oh wait the guberment don't... Very funny isn't it.

I agree. I have yet to come across a valid argument on this thread as to how GA taking over current DB routes is going to improve service. People love to give DB a good bashing without just reason. DB services have been improving over the last 10 years in case you haven't noticed.

Its funny you mention the luas because DB should have won that contract and not Connex (later Veoila now Transdev). If DB had of won that contract we would have got a proper intergrated public transport a lot sooner.

Leap for example wouldn't have taken so long nor cost so much to implement as only IE a fellow CIE company would be needed to get on board. If Dublin Bus won that contract they also could have morphed into a regulator for the GDA as well as an operator so the NTA's existance wouldn't have even been justified.

If its the EU that require us to tender out services. Then how come a number of EU countries have yet to tender out bus services. In Paris for example which has very excellent public transport network all public transport services are still provided by RATP a state owned transport company.

IE 222

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's just a pity that the NTA can't do anything about the ten minute Dart plan. But at least they can ensure that the next time Dublin Bus goes on strike that not all buses will be off the road.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Considering services will be the exact same conditions pretty much any new NTA requirement could upset either side simultaneously.

Darts are different ball game altogether and is just another example of the NTA wishful thinking. The network couldn't cope with such an increase without major investment and expansion of track infrastructure.

IE 222

[Deleted User] wrote: »

According to most bus time tables I have seen, it takes the same length of time to go between stops, no matter what time of the day it is. Thats Dublin Bus setting themselves up to fail from the off. Hopefully the new company will time how long it takes their buses to traverse the road network at different times of the day and the timetable will be somewhat accurate. That alone would make the service more reliable.

Wouldn't really make much difference changing the journey times on a handful of routes. Road travel is unpredictable if there was crash at 11am which delayed the bus the likes of yourself would be the first to complain about been late and telling us all about how DB ruined your day.

It's best to offer the avg time throughout the day than to start shredding and adding mins here and there to some services. It will also cause more confusion to the less informed people as to why some services are quicker than others. I've yet to see any timetables that offer exact time arrivals anyway.

Also you can bet your bottom dollar DB know exactly the difference in journey times at different times of the day otherwise buses would be all over the place and over/under rostered.

punisher5112

We have rtpi no needs for timetables no more....

Privatization seems all they're interested in.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Public-Bikes-in-Cities1.pdf

You said many other cities had transport offerings for customers that Ireland hadn't implement before the arrival of the NTA.

This includes but is not limited to real time information at bus stops, integrated ticketing, on board passenger information, multi-mode journey planners, fare capping, discounts for using multi-mode services, this is just a few I can think of which have been commonplace in a lot of European countries well before the NTA was formed in 2009 in some cases many years before.

It didn't work out for everyone though, and for many people they stopped using the bus altogether, I worked for a major company in Ballsbridge for a couple of years and the service got so bad because of changes to the services through there that a large number of people simply just gave up and started car-pooling.

BusConnects didn't state that changing multiple times per journey is certainly the way forward but sometimes it can be possible to have shorter journey times with more changes if it means that less buses are doing the full route and more buses are doing the more high demand sections where plenty of routes meet.

Now talking about life imprisonment is simply just childish, in some of those areas they have seen networks of a dozen plus routes re-organised and in some cases the number of vehicles serving those area also increased by double figures, that is before you take into account the push to reintroduce deckers into regional cities that were previously withdrawn by BE in the past who were only interested in single deckers which has resulted in a marked improvement in capacity and comfort for customers.[/quote]






IE222 REPLY

Well the bike scheme seems to be more of a goverenment push according to that link than a brainwave of the NTA but again it originated from Dublin City Council. Your link also states that if it wasn't for Coca Cola it would never of gotting of the ground.

DB offered realtime info years ago but the technology and the huge investment for it wasn't there back then to upgrade to today's standards. Bus and rail tickets were available before maybe not to the standards of leap card but leap card is a complex system that required a lot of time, money, effort and management. I do credit the NTA for this but an outside company was needed to do this as having multiple operators working on one project isn't really going to be give a great results. Capping, multi mode discounts ect all fall into leap card so it's all part of the one, unless you want to milk it and start adding card producing, branding the app ect. On board info, well it kind of came with the bus really it was probably easier to buy buses in this day and age with it than without such technology included it would be like trying to buy a car without a radio these days. I dont think there is much point in removing prefectly good buses jist because they lack a few features, it makes more sense to filter it through fleet renewals its also surprisingly much cheaper to do it this way too.

So in terms of the technology growth you talk about these advances have only become popular in the last number of years it's not as if this stuff was available back in the 80s or was affordable for a small network like ireland to purchase at the begining. As these things develop the prices drop. For a country struggling like ourselves back in 2006 onwards it was a wise idea not to splash out on over priced goods. You have to remember the introduction of smart phones ect has played a big part in these services. 10 years ago most people didn't have a smart phone. 10 years ago London didn't even have all this stuff you expected CIE to have invested in.

Just the same way bus connect won't work out or suit everyone. Just because a few changes didn't suit you you can't be branding the whole thing a failure.

A larger number of people stopped using the bus over network direct, is this what caused Dublins horrific traffic jams, nothing to do with the lack of infrastructure or growing population ???? Seriously passengers number have been increasing highly over the years.

It's also worth noting that at the time network direct was implemented the recession hit so maybe some of your previous fellow passengers lots there jobs at the time and lost their need for using the bus the same way all road, rail and air traffic dropped during that time unless you have a survey taken from them all which states otherwise.

Sorry 12 routes they must of been flat out.

Again NTA started in 2009 roughly 2010/11 before they started doing anything. Recession and cut backs hit the country in 2007 - 2011. Companies everywhere, every sector all scaled back operations during this period DB, BE, IE Aer Lingus, Aircoach, AIB all done what everybody else had to do in order to survive trim the fat and cut the loose ends. Travelling number fell and double deckers where wasteful in many parts of the country DB and BE even looked into fuel efficient bus replacements such as gas power ,but as the country grew during 2012 upwards demand grew so it's a bit of a no brainer capacity needed to be increased. This wasn't some fancy idea the NTA thought off overnight.

So all in all it would be very hard for anyone to not look as though they are making huge improvements. All the NTA have done is rode with the good times so far anytime they be given challenge they've just past the book.

IE 222

punisher5112 wrote: »

We have rtpi no needs for timetables no more....

Privatization seems all they're interested in.

Yeah and it's also the NTA that look after both so they barking up the wrong tree yet again.

Stephen15

IE 222 wrote: »

DB offered realtime info years ago but the technology and the huge investment for it wasn't there back then to upgrade to today's standards. Bus and rail tickets were available before maybe not the standard of leap card but leap card is a complex system that require a lot of time, money, effort and management. I do credit the NTA for this but an outside company was needed to do this as having multiple operators working on one project isn't really going to be give a great return. Capping, multi mode discounts ect all fall into leap card so it's all part of the one unless you want to milk it and start putting in card producing ect. On board info well it kind of came with the bus really it was probably easier to buy buses in this day and age with it than without such technology included it would be like trying to buy a car without a radio. So in terms of the technology growth you talk about these advances have only become popular in the last number of years it's not as if this stuff was available back in the 80s. You have to remember the introduction of smart phones ect has played a big part in these services. 10 years ago most people didn't have a smart phone.

As I said earlier Dublin Bus should have won the tender to operate the Luas and not Connex. DB could have got IE on board and set up an integrated ticketing system. DB could then have morphed into a regulator aswell as an operator for the GDA. Meaning that we wouldn't need to setup the NTA. This would have been cheaper as we wouldn't have to setup another quango in the NTA.

IE 222

Stephen15 wrote: »

As I said earlier Dublin Bus should have won the tender to operate the Luas and not Connex. DB could have got IE on board and set up an integrated ticketing system. DB could then have morphed into a regulator aswell as an operator for the GDA. Meaning that we wouldn't need to setup the NTA. This would have been cheaper as we wouldn't have to setup another quango in the NTA.

Yeah but it still would of required a lot of work which neither of these companies would of have the expertise to of done. It would of also taken a pool of people to work on this solely. Haven saying that this exactly what the NTA done and likely outsourced most the work either way costing even more. If the NTA didn't do it someone else would of and what give me the most annoyance is the fact that some people here believe this wouldn't of happened if it wasn't for the NTA. It's not as if they went out and built a never seen before, world first system, as some make it out to be.It's a rebranded oyster card basically.

Gatling

Stephen15 wrote: »

As I said earlier Dublin Bus should have won the tender to operate the Luas and not Connex. DB could have got IE on board and set up an integrated ticketing system. DB could then have morphed into a regulator aswell as an operator for the GDA. Meaning that we wouldn't need to setup the NTA. This would have been cheaper as we wouldn't have to setup another quango in the NTA.

So in this grand scheme where dB or whatever rebrand they would have morphed into with bus ,luas,rail , operator/regulator they then would be a pure monopoly ,
So when we the paying public are told a strike is coming the whole public transport system could be shut down at the whim of a union ,

Surely that would not make sense at all or would be dangerous creating a powerful sector who will be able to manipulate the system will little checks and balances.

PeadarCo

Gatling wrote:

So in this grand scheme where dB or whatever rebrand they would have morphed into with bus ,luas,rail , operator/regulator they then would be a pure monopoly , So when we the paying public are told a strike is coming the whole public transport system could be shut down at the whim of a union ,

Its the biggest problem with Dublin bus if there is a strike the whole system goes down and people are left high and dry. Especially people who don't have cars or struggle to afford regular taxis. Look at the most recent Bus Eireann strike the company goes on strike but for a large portion of the country it had no affect.

Grand there's always a chance of simultaneous strikes but its far less likely. I appreciate if you're a bus driver/union more operators are a disaster as it reduces there bargaining power in relation to pay and conditions. But for actual user's of the system its a massive benefit. It now means the system has a degree of redundancy. Based on rural/commuter services it will also force Dublin bus to up its game.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

According to most bus time tables I have seen, it takes the same length of time to go between stops, no matter what time of the day it is. Thats Dublin Bus setting themselves up to fail from the off. Hopefully the new company will time how long it takes their buses to traverse the road network at different times of the day and the timetable will be somewhat accurate. That alone would make the service more reliable.

That's totally wrong.

You're looking at the off-peak journey time estimates on the bus stop timetables - they are not the journey times all day but merely a rough guide for customers.

The full route timetables (available on www.a-b.ie linked to under "timetables") will show you that the journey times on all routes extend or shorten depending upon the time of day and prevailing traffic conditions.

LXFlyer

IE 222 wrote: »

This includes but is not limited to real time information at bus stops, integrated ticketing, on board passenger information, multi-mode journey planners, fare capping, discounts for using multi-mode services, this is just a few I can think of which have been commonplace in a lot of European countries well before the NTA was formed in 2009 in some cases many years before.

It didn't work out for everyone though, and for many people they stopped using the bus altogether, I worked for a major company in Ballsbridge for a couple of years and the service got so bad because of changes to the services through there that a large number of people simply just gave up and started car-pooling.

BusConnects didn't state that changing multiple times per journey is certainly the way forward but sometimes it can be possible to have shorter journey times with more changes if it means that less buses are doing the full route and more buses are doing the more high demand sections where plenty of routes meet.

Now talking about life imprisonment is simply just childish, in some of those areas they have seen networks of a dozen plus routes re-organised and in some cases the number of vehicles serving those area also increased by double figures, that is before you take into account the push to reintroduce deckers into regional cities that were previously withdrawn by BE in the past who were only interested in single deckers which has resulted in a marked improvement in capacity and comfort for customers.



Well the bike scheme seems to be more of a goverenment push according to that link than a brainwave of the NTA but again it originated from Dublin City Council. Your link also states that if it wasn't for Coca Cola it would never of gotting of the ground.

DB offered realtime info years ago but the technology and the huge investment for it wasn't there back then to upgrade to today's standards. Bus and rail tickets were available before maybe not to the standards of leap card but leap card is a complex system that required a lot of time, money, effort and management. I do credit the NTA for this but an outside company was needed to do this as having multiple operators working on one project isn't really going to be give a great results. Capping, multi mode discounts ect all fall into leap card so it's all part of the one, unless you want to milk it and start adding card producing, branding the app ect. On board info, well it kind of came with the bus really it was probably easier to buy buses in this day and age with it than without such technology included it would be like trying to buy a car without a radio these days. I dont think there is much point in removing prefectly good buses jist because they lack a few features, it makes more sense to filter it through fleet renewals its also surprisingly much cheaper to do it this way too.

So in terms of the technology growth you talk about these advances have only become popular in the last number of years it's not as if this stuff was available back in the 80s or was affordable for a small network like ireland to purchase at the begining. As these things develop the prices drop. For a country struggling like ourselves back in 2006 onwards it was a wise idea not to splash out on over priced goods. You have to remember the introduction of smart phones ect has played a big part in these services. 10 years ago most people didn't have a smart phone. 10 years ago London didn't even have all this stuff you expected CIE to have invested in.

Just the same way bus connect won't work out or suit everyone. Just because a few changes didn't suit you you can't be branding the whole thing a failure.

A larger number of people stopped using the bus over network direct, is this what caused Dublins horrific traffic jams, nothing to do with the lack of infrastructure or growing population ???? Seriously passengers number have been increasing highly over the years.

It's also worth noting that at the time network direct was implemented the recession hit so maybe some of your previous fellow passengers lots there jobs at the time and lost their need for using the bus the same way all road, rail and air traffic dropped during that time unless you have a survey taken from them all which states otherwise.

Sorry 12 routes they must of been flat out.

Again NTA started in 2009 roughly 2010/11 before they started doing anything. Recession and cut backs hit the country in 2007 - 2011. Companies everywhere, every sector all scaled back operations during this period DB, BE, IE Aer Lingus, Aircoach, AIB all done what everybody else had to do in order to survive trim the fat and cut the loose ends. Travelling number fell and double deckers where wasteful in many parts of the country DB and BE even looked into fuel efficient bus replacements such as gas power ,but as the country grew during 2012 upwards demand grew so it's a bit of a no brainer capacity needed to be increased. This wasn't some fancy idea the NTA thought off overnight.

So all in all it would be very hard for anyone to not look as though they are making huge improvements. All the NTA have done is rode with the good times so far anytime they be given challenge they've just past the book.

Passenger numbers actually increased immediately after Network Direct was implemented - at least get your basic facts right. It was not a failed concept.

There was significant over-capacity and poor corridor integration that Network Direct dealt with along with removing route deviations for main corridor routes.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Well the bike scheme seems to be more of a goverenment push according to that link than a brainwave of the NTA but again it originated from Dublin City Council. Your link also states that if it wasn't for Coca Cola it would never of gotting of the ground.

Like many schemes there was a number of parties that worked on it but the NTA for regional ciities held it all together and adminstrated it, if you read the page on the NTA site this is exactly what it says.

I do credit the NTA for this but an outside company was needed to do this as having multiple operators working on one project isn't really going to be give a great results. Capping, multi mode discounts ect all fall into leap card so it's all part of the one,

All of these iniatives required a lot of head banging together of other parties to get them to agree to how it's going to work financially, technically, how the revenue is going to be split and how it will work for the passenger etc, they don't just one day decide they're going to add a feature and that is it, it's much more complicated than this.

Think you will find this is pretty much how most smartcard systems work at the end of the day, Oyster in London is pretty much structured the same way and actually many of the companies would be similar, however Leap required a lot more work than London because of the fact that in London it's simpler that all revenue goes to TFL who pay set fees whereas in Ireland it's much more complicated than that so every little change to the card can effect an operator financially, this cannot happen in London.

On board info, well it kind of came with the bus really it was probably easier to buy buses in this day and age with it than without such technology included it would be like trying to buy a car without a radio these days.

Urm, no, the majority of buses delivered in the UK and Ireland do not have this feature and it is scertainly not provided as standard, it is an optional extra and always has been, go and see how many non NTA buses in IE or non TFL buses have it in the UK, not very many at all.

I dont think there is much point in removing prefectly good buses jist because they lack a few features, it makes more sense to filter it through fleet renewals its also surprisingly much cheaper to do it this way too.

Reserarch done has claimed the new buses have attracted more passengers to public transport, again I'm sure that you are going to say that it is a bad thing.

10 years ago London didn't even have all this stuff you expected CIE to have invested in.

Ibus has been going since 2005 and has been rolled out fleet-wide since 2007...

Just the same way bus connect won't work out or suit everyone. Just because a few changes didn't suit you you can't be branding the whole thing a failure.

A larger number of people stopped using the bus over network direct, is this what caused Dublins horrific traffic jams, nothing to do with the lack of infrastructure or growing population ???? Seriously passengers number have been increasing highly over the years.

That's my point, but not everyone it will be a success for either, the hatchet job that was done of the 4 for instance, reducing the capacity of vehicles ont he route whilst also reducing the timetable was a recipe for disaster, you know it's bad when in the mornings the 7 was reguarly leaving people behind after its second stop because of the fact the cut-back 4 was no longer able to take the slack it did before.

I simply said the people from my office - not being able to get on a bus in the morning or having massive dwell times of up to 10 minutes at city center streets because the timetables on conrridor have been cut back and the service has become more unreliable is not a great attraction to use public transport.

Travelling number fell and double deckers where wasteful in many parts of the country DB and BE even looked into fuel efficient bus replacements such as gas power ,but as the country grew during 2012 upwards demand grew so it's a bit of a no brainer capacity needed to be increased. This wasn't some fancy idea the NTA thought off overnight.

There was always need for some deckers in Cork and other cities, even during the recession when I was there there were times where people were getting left behind at peak hours and not only a few, because a single decker was not suitable.

So all in all it would be very hard for anyone to not look as though they are making huge improvements. All the NTA have done is rode with the good times so far anytime they be given challenge they've just past the book.

They have done massive improvements with intergration, the irony is people saying that if the LUAS was in CIE hands we'd have better intergration is laughable, if being sister companies made it easier to intergrate, BE, DB and Irish Rail were sister companies for years and in some cases even shared the same facilities, yet the level of intergration was completely hopeless!