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

devnull

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.

You cannot regulate yourself, this is not regulation and will not lead to a customer focused operation because the company has free reign to do what they want and nobody to stop them, if you remove a regulator from any industry or don't have one the consumer will certainly lose out because there is nothing to protect them.

As for intergration all I will say is this, there was ample time for the companies to intergrate and work with each other for decades when IE, DB and BE were under the same umbrella and they didn't, so what makes you think that they would if they had the LUAS as well.

As for being cheaper, the last few years actually the NTA have rejected much higher price increases that Dublin Bus have lobbied for because they felt they were too expensive, without the NTA to reject this Dublin Bus would have free reign to set prices and in their last few submissions they have frequently asked for higher prices than the NTA will sanctions on single journey fares.

Monopolies never work for anyone, unregulated monopolies lack checks and balances and 99/100 are abused because there is nothing to stop them since they practically know they can do what they want as there is nothing to stop them. This is why regulators and regulations exist in life, or do you really think we should just remove all rules from regulation and oversight from society because after all, nobody will ever do anything bad.

IE 222

LXFlyer wrote: »

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.

I didn't say network direct failed I said the total opposite. I think the post i replied to is mixed in with my response.

I'll edit my post to clearly show where my response is.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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!

I agree they helped bring all the arrangements together but in no way did they introduce or plan the development of bringing the bikes to them cities and if was wasn't for Alan Kelly and Coca Cola it wouldn't of happened, so it's hardly something we can be greatful to the NTA for.

I'm disputing leap card wasn't needed or didn't involve a lot of work. What I am asking is you to stop milking it by including each development that came along during and improvements introduced after it's release as separate ground braking revolution when it's not. It's all part of the one programme of upgrading Leap Card when new advances become available.

On board info is a fairly standard and cheap option to include onto the buses with today's advances in technology. Pretty sure newer London buses have this implemented as well. Regional buses here tend to be older or quite simply it's just financially viable to include such a service Donegal local services.

Hang on it was you stating people where turned away and put of using buses not me. But to explain my point to you again who or what company are going to withdraw perfectly good buses cause they lack a few features instead of waiting 5 years or so and upgrade naturally through fleet renewals. It was the same with introduction of low floor buses it was brought in through fleet renewals over time rather swap out the entire fleet overnight.

I stand corrected 12 years ago then if you want to be precise about it.

What happened to be 4 as well as many other routes was trimming of excess cost to keep a service running the 4A was replaced with a extended 4 routing. DB did a smashing job with Network Direct considering the challenges it face in the economic down turn.

Jayus "massive dewel times of 10 mins waiting at a bus stop" seriously....... Are you sure it had nothing to do with peak time traffic delays or anything. You sound like that Gerry Deeds chap and his bog standard homes in Dalky.

Sometimes demand is higher than supply but it might not justify expensive fleet expansions to service one or two departures a day. Sometimes DB could do with a treble decker on a particular service but they wouldn't have a need for it again till the following day.

Again I'm not saying CIE would of done any better but the leap card done most of the work there.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

I agree they helped bring all the arrangements together but in no way did they introduce or plan the development of bringing the bikes to them cities and if was wasn't for Alan Kelly and Coca Cola it wouldn't of happened, so it's hardly something we can be greatful to the NTA for.

Ahhh, so now you're contradicing yourself. You're saying that if the NTA didn't do something it would have happened anyway but if someone else didn't do something it wouldn't have happened anyway which is a serious flaw in your argument because you are showing that you are using one argument for parties that you don't like and one argument for everyone else.

But if we're using your theory:
- If Coca-Cola didn't sponsor the event someone else would have so it would have happened anyway.
- If Alan Kelly didn't put the scheme forward some other politician would have put it forward anyway.

In reality delivering projects of any kind always will involve and need a number of companies and partners and at the end of the day someone needs to manage that scheme, everyone who takes part in such schemes deserve credit but projects that are not well managed never come to fruition since somebody needs to get all the parties heading towards a common goal and working together and lay out the framework and direct the partners and companies involved towards the result.

I'm disputing leap card wasn't needed or didn't involve a lot of work. What I am asking is you to stop milking it by including each development that came along during and improvements introduced after it's release as separate ground braking revolution when it's not. It's all part of the one programme of upgrading Leap Card when new advances become available.

But they still are achievements and upgrades in their own right, just like when DB makes upgrades and changes under their control they are upgrades in their own right, such as their new route announcement system on twitter, I give them credit for that because I think it's a good system, they already had a twitter account so it's still part of that one programme, but it's still a

On board info is a fairly standard and cheap option to include onto the buses with today's advances in technology. Pretty sure newer London buses have this implemented as well. Regional buses here tend to be older or quite simply it's just financially viable to include such a service Donegal local services

You have no idea how much it costs, it requires an on-board GPS sysstem, GPS console, back-end and the software to power it none of which comes very cheap, London buses started having it from 2005 and the full fleet was fitted by 2007 with ibus technology.

Go and have a look at regional buses in the UK or Ireland that are built within the last few years, the majority of them don't have such systems and this is because of the fact it's not cheap, if it was so cheap as you say every single bus operator in Europe would be using them on all the buses since the technology has been mature for over a deade.

Hang on it was you stating people where turned away and put of using buses not me. But to explain my point to you again who or what company are going to withdraw perfectly good buses cause they lack a few features instead of waiting 5 years or so and upgrade naturally through fleet renewals. It was the same with introduction of low floor buses it was brought in through fleet renewals over time rather swap out the entire fleet overnight.

What happened to be 4 as well as many other routes was trimming of excess cost to keep a service running the 4A was replaced with a extended 4 routing. DB did a smashing job with Network Direct considering the challenges it face in the economic down turn.

Jayus "massive dewel times of 10 mins waiting at a bus stop" seriously....... Are you sure it had nothing to do with peak time traffic delays or anything. You sound like that Gerry Deeds chap and his bog standard homes in Dalky.

The 4 timetable was cut at peak hours and in conjunction with the recast of the 7 timetable and the working timetables the service was chronic for a long time and most people I worked with stopped using it because of the fact it was just so unreliable and they were not able to get on the bus so it was far easier and less stressful to drive.

I know what I saw, it was nothing to do with traffic, there were stops in the CC where the 4/7 both call at where there were well over 50-60 people standing waiting, note that this was in the days when LEAP either wasn't avaliable or was in its very infancy when few people had a card, sometimes the bus was 60% full and the driver saw many many more people than there was space and just drove past because of the fact that he knew he couldn't fit everyone on and the ineveitable arguments it would lead to.

I was only going from the city-center to Ballsbridge most of the times and I can assure you I know what I saw, there was far more time spent on dwell time after Network Direct on those routes than there was in traffic, it happened every morning without fail so I simply stopped using the bus, in the evening it was not uncommon to see several buses go past full, again something that only happened after Network Direct.

Sometimes demand is higher than supply but it might not justify expensive fleet expansions to service one or two departures a day. Sometimes DB could do with a treble decker on a particular service but they wouldn't have a need for it again till the following day.

Indeed but waiting up to half an hour for a bus in the evenings to board because they are all full and over doubling journey times following network direct is not going to attract anyone to keep using public transport and in my office people simply stopped using it, that's simply a fact of how it was.

When the 4 was introduced it was one of the best things Dublin Bus did with their network for a long time, since it really solved a lot of issues with the network and capacity and opened up new direct journey patterns and I was always full of praise for that and Dublin Bus should take all credit for designing and implenting such a route. But Network Direct undid almost all of that, along with it's pathetic weekend frequency after it.

LXFlyer

IE 222 wrote: »

I didn't say network direct failed I said the total opposite. I think the post i replied to is mixed in with my response.

I'll edit my post to clearly show where my response is.

You have mixed your post and someone else's up completely and need to edit it!!

devnull

LXFlyer wrote: »

You effectively did - reading your post it reads as if you said lots of people stopped using the bus after Network Direct which is totally incorrect. Passenger numbers increased.

I stated that large number of passengers stopped using services following the network direct changes - but what I was referencing to the people in my office simply stopped using the 4/7 corridor, which was true, because of the unreliability of the service and the capacity problems on the stretch between Parnell Square and Nassau Street which became an issue after the Network Direct Changes.

Then there was the reverse problem in the evenings which meant that because of the heavy demand on the bus at some points it was not uncommon to see 3-4 or even more buses go past stops in Ballsbridge area all full and you could be ending up waiting 30 minutes or more, it simply meant there was no incentive to use the bus at that time so people simply stopped and our company even paid for our off-site parking because of it.

I think that it may have got mixed up in the quote!

LXFlyer

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 think that you'll find that BE had a significant input into most of those as well as the NTA.

devnull

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think that you'll find that BE had a significant input into most of those as well as the NTA.

I simply just read a post back about it made by yourself in the past where you stated that the NTA worked on re-designing and increasing the PSO networks and that is why I mentioned them since I know you are a good source on these things: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99582722&postcount=7

Of course though it was the work of both parties, at the end of the day as I've said a lot of this stuff is partnership based and to say that it would have happened without one party or another anyway is ridicolous, for these things to work well they always need input of multiple parties, but the constant dismissing that anything the NTA have done would have happened anyway without them but things that other parties have done would never have happened without them is tiresome, at the end of the day these things are partnerships and examples of people working together and all deserve credit.

When I reference they were done in-house I was referencing to the fact they were not outsourced to external consultants like the Dublin Bus Re-Design network was outsourced to Jarrett-Walker, of course any re-design will liase with the operators, that will happen both with the out-sourced consultancies carried out as well as the stuff that is done by the NTA without third parties being called in.

LXFlyer

devnull wrote: »

I simply just read a post back about it made by yourself in the past where you stated that the NTA worked on re-designing and increasing the PSO networks and that is why I mentioned them since I know you are a good source on these things: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99582722&postcount=7

Of course though it was the work of both parties, at the end of the day as I've said a lot of this stuff is partnership based and to say that it would have happened without one party or another anyway is ridicolous, for these things to work well they always need input of multiple parties, but the constant dismissing that anything the NTA have done would have happened anyway without them but things that other parties have done would never have happened without them is tiresome, at the end of the day these things are partnerships and examples of people working together and all deserve credit.

When I reference they were done in-house I was referencing to the fact they were not outsourced to external consultants like the Dublin Bus Re-Design network was outsourced to Jarrett-Walker, of course any re-design will liase with the operators, that will happen both with the out-sourced consultancies carried out as well as the stuff that is done by the NTA without third parties being called in.

It has been a joint effort - trying to imply one organisation did more than the other isn't going to wash. That's my point.

The NTA have driven much of the change process but they have little or no operational expertise.

devnull

LXFlyer wrote: »

It has been a joint effort - trying to imply one organisation did more than the other isn't going to wash. That's my point.

The NTA have driven much of the change process but they have little or no operational expertise.

That's pretty much my point as well so it looks like we are on the same page here

I never implied that operators were not involved, simply that the reviews outside Dublin were not outsourced like the Dublin one was.

IE 222

LXFlyer wrote: »

You have mixed your post and someone else's up completely and need to edit it!!

Done

Stephen15

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 ,

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.

So RATP have a monopoly on Paris public transport, EMT have one on Madrid public transport and ATAC have have one on Rome's public transport system. All these operators are examples of companies that operate and regulate public transport in their respective cities.

If we had minimum service arrangement like in most EU countries strikes would not be that much of an issue.

DB would still be answerable to the DoT.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

Ahhh, so now you're contradicing yourself. You're saying that if the NTA didn't do something it would have happened anyway but if someone else didn't do something it wouldn't have happened anyway which is a serious flaw in your argument because you are showing that you are using one argument for parties that you don't like and one argument for everyone else.

But if we're using your theory:
- If Coca-Cola didn't sponsor the event someone else would have so it would have happened anyway.
- If Alan Kelly didn't put the scheme forward some other politician would have put it forward anyway.

In reality delivering projects of any kind always will involve and need a number of companies and partners and at the end of the day someone needs to manage that scheme, everyone who takes part in such schemes deserve credit but projects that are not well managed never come to fruition since somebody needs to get all the parties heading towards a common goal and working together and lay out the framework and direct the partners and companies involved towards the result.



But they still are achievements and upgrades in their own right, just like when DB makes upgrades and changes under their control they are upgrades in their own right, such as their new route announcement system on twitter, I give them credit for that because I think it's a good system, they already had a twitter account so it's still part of that one programme, but it's still a



You have no idea how much it costs, it requires an on-board GPS sysstem, GPS console, back-end and the software to power it none of which comes very cheap, London buses started having it from 2005 and the full fleet was fitted by 2007 with ibus technology.

Go and have a look at regional buses in the UK or Ireland that are built within the last few years, the majority of them don't have such systems and this is because of the fact it's not cheap, if it was so cheap as you say every single bus operator in Europe would be using them on all the buses since the technology has been mature for over a deade.



The 4 timetable was cut at peak hours and in conjunction with the recast of the 7 timetable and the working timetables the service was chronic for a long time and most people I worked with stopped using it because of the fact it was just so unreliable and they were not able to get on the bus so it was far easier and less stressful to drive.

I know what I saw, it was nothing to do with traffic, there were stops in the CC where the 4/7 both call at where there were well over 50-60 people standing waiting, note that this was in the days when LEAP either wasn't avaliable or was in its very infancy when few people had a card, sometimes the bus was 60% full and the driver saw many many more people than there was space and just drove past because of the fact that he knew he couldn't fit everyone on and the ineveitable arguments it would lead to.

I was only going from the city-center to Ballsbridge most of the times and I can assure you I know what I saw, there was far more time spent on dwell time after Network Direct on those routes than there was in traffic, it happened every morning without fail so I simply stopped using the bus, in the evening it was not uncommon to see several buses go past full, again something that only happened after Network Direct.



Indeed but waiting up to half an hour for a bus in the evenings to board because they are all full and over doubling journey times following network direct is not going to attract anyone to keep using public transport and in my office people simply stopped using it, that's simply a fact of how it was.

When the 4 was introduced it was one of the best things Dublin Bus did with their network for a long time, since it really solved a lot of issues with the network and capacity and opened up new direct journey patterns and I was always full of praise for that and Dublin Bus should take all credit for designing and implenting such a route. But Network Direct undid almost all of that, along with it's pathetic weekend frequency after it.

Here you go again spinning my comments. I'm purely working off the link YOU posted trying to state that if it wasn't for the NTA the bikes wouldn't of happened. What I'm digesting from it is that your link clearly states that the main players on getting the thing going were Coca Cola sponsoring it and Alan Kelly pushing for it's introduction in the first place. It was by no means a brainchild idea of the NTA. All they done was order the stock/equipment and work with the council as to where best to put the bike stations.

But it's still under the one category of leap card no need to milk it and brake down each leap card development as new NTA world exclusive. They don't even do it so why you see the need to is beyond me.

You're right I don't have the exact figure and I doubt you do either. It's like all technology, for example an iPad would of cost you hunderds of Euro when first launched these days you can pick up a different version for €50. Did you not just tell me some of London's fleet don't have on-board info. If you can look at what it cost London to introduce this 10 years ago and compare it to what it would cost now it would be half the price as there has been massive advances in such technology over the years.

Yeah regional buses small town, local link routes. Cheap in the sense of getting value for money when you have a fleet of 1000 buses serving a capital city with millions of users a year. It's the same reason why some people have septic tanks, a gravel road, no street lighting outside their house it's not economical or financially viable. Do you really think it's a reasonable cost to implement such a system on city service with 15 - 20 routes or a large town with 2 shuttle buses running throughout the day.


The dwell time in the city centre would of been still there regardless as the buses previously went through the city. Network Direct has clearly worked and your description is telling us of the massive increase in bus travel as it opened the city up for so many more people. You have to remember it was introduced as a way to combat losses and in an effort to keep communities served with a reduction in needless excess routes during the economic downturn. If the NTA were around then well your view of them would be completely as you view them as the ones crippling services ect. As I've said the NTA has had an easy ride as the country grows it's very hard for them not to be seem as constructive as the country regrowsto levels before the crash and on that note the lime of IE, DB, BE ran the systems quite well when they were busier and less funded.

Again most buses whether originated in the city or passing through at peak times would be full by the time it reaches ballsbridge.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Here you go again spinning my comments. I'm purely working off the link YOU posted trying to state that if it wasn't for the NTA the bikes wouldn't of happened.

What I'm digesting from it is that your link clearly states that the main players on getting the thing going were Coca Cola sponsoring it and Alan Kelly pushing for it's introduction in the first place. It was by no means a brainchild idea of the NTA. All they done was order the stock/equipment and work with the council as to where best to put the bike stations.

I'm not spinning anyones comments, you say that everything the NTA were involved with would happen without them, but wouldn't happen without any of the other people who were also involved in some of the same things, all of these parties worked together to provide things and they all played a part.

Did you not just tell me some of London's fleet don't have on-board info.

I never said that at all, I simply say regional buses don't have it as standard even today and if you look at a lot of the buses delivered in the last few years in the UK for instance very few of them would be delivered with Real Time displays and passenger information displays apart from the very few places where they are contracted to do so.

IBus was going from late 2005 with the first public trials in 2006 if I remember correctly and the whole London Fleet was fitted was way before a functional system was up and running in Dublin which didn't start until 2012 with the delivery of the GTs

If you can look at what it cost London to introduce this 10 years ago and compare it to what it would cost now it would be half the price as there has been massive advances in such technology over the years.

But that argument can be used every day. Why invest in something today, it will be cheaper tommorow but the problem is that prices will always go down and no matter when you decide to install things a few years later things will go down.

Do you really think it's a reasonable cost to implement such a system on city service with 15 - 20 routes or a large town with 2 shuttle buses running throughout the day.

You are the one that said it's harder to order buses without the systems than with and that they are so cheap that they come as standard, not me?

The dwell time in the city centre would of been still there regardless as the buses previously went through the city.

No, the problem was because there were less buses there was more congestion at bus stops because the frequency of the 4 and 4a combined was cut by 33% during peak times when the buses were carrying standees anyway.

Network Direct has clearly worked and your description is telling us of the massive increase in bus travel as it opened the city up for so many more people.

Route 4 was introduced in 2006, several years before Network Direct so you cannot credit Network Direct for it's success, it was one of the rare times when Dublin Bus introduced something that really was an improvement to customers around that time.

The benefits that it brought were actually removed after network direct by changing the timetable to a point where the running time, frequency and timetable were so insufficent that it provided neiher the capacity or the reliability that people needed so as I said, people in my office simply didn't bother anymore as the corridor became a nightmare.

Again most buses whether originated in the city or passing through at peak times would be full by the time it reaches ballsbridge.

They were busy before the cuts to the 4 but they were still possible to board even if it meant that you had to stand, after it buses just went past full, essentially the service on the 4 was cut by 33% during peak hours and even before that buses were reguarly featuring people standing, add in a reshaped 7 timetable as well that also reduced capaciity and reduced running time and the service was worst still.

I tell no lie, that it was common for someone to be waiting at College Green at the number 4 and 7 stop and have to see many buses go past full because of the fact that there was not sufficent capacity after network direct. The staggering thing about this is that the number 7 only started up the road in O'Connell Street and often was already full by the second stop as well as the 4s.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

So RATP have a monopoly on Paris public transport, EMT have one on Madrid public transport and ATAC have have one on Rome's public transport system. All these operators are examples of companies that operate and regulate public transport in their respective cities.

No they don't, e-de-France mobilitis the regulator in Paris,

I could name a load of companies that are the opposite of what you say, if you go to Warsaw they have an excellent public transport system that is years ahead of anything in Dublin both when it comes to buses, suburban trains, passenger information, on bus experience, trams, metros, ticketing offer, ticketing machines, all of that was down to ZTM who have been exporting much of their experience all over Europe since. The operator who is the most backward in Poland is PKP who operate the national railways who have no proper regulator and is why there's such huge disparity in quality between the nationally operated railways and the services operated within towns and cities.

Regulating oneself is an oxymoron. A regulator is body that supervises a particular industry or business activity, how can you supervise yourself? If someone is breaching the rules that has been set by themselves are they going to cry off to someone to report themselves or are they going to keep quiet?

Why not get rid of regulators, checks and balances altogether, sure, it's not like any politician has ever tried to use something to their advantage, or the police or anyone in history has tried to abuse their power, lets just let everyone do what they want and trust them to hold their hands up and admit that they did something wrong because everyone is a honest person like that?

Unfortunately it is in human nature for people to do something wrong and not want to take consequences or attempt to cover it up or not report it or hope it to go undetected, that is why regulators exist to ensure that companies look after the public and not themselves and to keep companies on the straight and narrow, the absence of proper regulation in many areas is the whole reason Ireland had such a bad financial crisis that it di.

If we had minimum service arrangement like in most EU countries strikes would not be that much of an issue.

And you need a regulator to enforce that and to have checks and balances, if someone doesn't like something if there is nobody to regulat them who is going to stop it and check that they are meeting those targets? Rely on the company to report the metrics to itself? Can you not see how open that is to be fiddled, no company is going to want to admit that they failed something even if they did, lack of regulation allows them to cover that up.

DB would still be answerable to the DoT.

So basically on a whim of politicians and full of extreme political interference where people massage through the quick starting of bus routes to help them buy a seat in the next general election, to retain bus routes which happen to help them retain a seat at the next general election, all things which have happened in the past under that regime.

Because of this for many years between 2006-2009 Dublin Bus could not change any routes that conflicted with private companies, private companies could not change any routes that conflicted with public companies, route licenses and changes took years to be confirmed and go live, operators in the absence of proper regulation started breaking the rules anyway (Citylink, Patton Flyer) because there was nothing to stop them, just to name a few things.

The whole idea of a regulator is to have a body that stands up for the rights of passengers and keeps the companies in check, if the companies have nobody that oversees them they can do whatever they like and whilst that might be the case in private industriess, in public services funded by the taxpayer the public has a fundamental right to ensure that those companies are delivering what they say they will and that the state holds them to account rather than just trusting their word on it.

Stephen15

brokenarms wrote: »

Seen this posted today. Some interesting points
https://www.facebook.com/antoni.k.sobanski/posts/1680668131966090

Sorry about the facebox link. I cant find it on youtube.
He works the same sort of 5 day rota as dublin bus drivers.

Doubledecker Anton is the name of the channel on youtube.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

I'm not spinning anyones comments, you say that everything the NTA were involved with would happen without them, but wouldn't happen without any of the other people who were also involved in some of the same things, all of these parties worked together to provide things and they all played a part.



I never said that at all, I simply say regional buses don't have it as standard even today and if you look at a lot of the buses delivered in the last few years in the UK for instance very few of them would be delivered with Real Time displays and passenger information displays apart from the very few places where they are contracted to do so.

IBus was going from late 2005 with the first public trials in 2006 if I remember correctly and the whole London Fleet was fitted was way before a functional system was up and running in Dublin which didn't start until 2012 with the delivery of the GTs



But that argument can be used every day. Why invest in something today, it will be cheaper tommorow but the problem is that prices will always go down and no matter when you decide to install things a few years later things will go down.



You are the one that said it's harder to order buses without the systems than with and that they are so cheap that they come as standard, not me?



No, the problem was because there were less buses there was more congestion at bus stops because the frequency of the 4 and 4a combined was cut by 33% during peak times when the buses were carrying standees anyway.



Route 4 was introduced in 2006, several years before Network Direct so you cannot credit Network Direct for it's success, it was one of the rare times when Dublin Bus introduced something that really was an improvement to customers around that time.

The benefits that it brought were actually removed after network direct by changing the timetable to a point where the running time, frequency and timetable were so insufficent that it provided neiher the capacity or the reliability that people needed so as I said, people in my office simply didn't bother anymore as the corridor became a nightmare.



They were busy before the cuts to the 4 but they were still possible to board even if it meant that you had to stand, after it buses just went past full, essentially the service on the 4 was cut by 33% during peak hours and even before that buses were reguarly featuring people standing, add in a reshaped 7 timetable as well that also reduced capaciity and reduced running time and the service was worst still.

I tell no lie, that it was common for someone to be waiting at College Green at the number 4 and 7 stop and have to see many buses go past full because of the fact that there was not sufficent capacity after network direct. The staggering thing about this is that the number 7 only started up the road in O'Connell Street and often was already full by the second stop as well as the 4s.

Im responding to your link about bike hire in Cork ect. You said that the NTA introduced and brought this to the cities. The link you posted clearly states Alan Kelly got this on the agenda and it took support from Coca Cola to get it up and running. All the NTA done was order the stock and equipment and arranged some locations with the council to put the stations in. So in other words YES it still would of went ahead without the NTA.

Because it's not justifiably economically to implement these schemes into every network or regional service. As I've said when London was upgrading their system spending million in the process Dublin Bus and the rest of the country where on there knees. It makes no sense at all to begin a fleet renewals programme just have a few fancy gadgets can be added.

Cause like most companies budgets dictate what you can or cannot afford to do. On board info is a luxury item and in the early days would of costing a lot more to implement than it did a few years ago. Why spend money you don't on such things when you don't even have the require fleet needed to run the service your talking about upgrading.

There is a big difference between purchasing a handful buses to run around Waterford or Sligo to placing an order for a few 100 for the same network over a few years. Most of the equipment would be built and pretty standard devices so when placing a large order it would cost effective and relative cheap.

Again network direct was introduced as cut excess while also expanding the network. It's sole objective wasn't to expand bus service frequencies on small routes it was to increase supply on core corridors. If it didn't happen services would of been slashed dramatically as DB nor the government would of been able to afford to keep every little route going. It made better use of the assets available without any major funding and helped in keep DB going. It obviously didn't meet you and your colleagues standards just as Bus Connect won't please everyone.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Im responding to your link about bike hire in Cork ect. You said that the NTA introduced and brought this to the cities. The link you posted clearly states Alan Kelly got this on the agenda and it took support from Coca Cola to get it up and running. All the NTA done was order the stock and equipment and arranged some locations with the council to put the stations in. So in other words YES it still would of went ahead without the NTA.

Projects need leaders and people to manage them otherwise they often don't come to fruition, you can have as many people doing all of the work as you like but if someone doesn't bring all the people together working to one goal you will not get very far. That comes from someone who has managed large scale projects in my career and came into situations where I've had teams of extremely talented people and well meaning departments and partners but they produce very little because nobody is managing the relationships between any of them.

It took the efforts of all the parties getting involved to get things running at the end of the day to say that everything the NTA is involved in they are not needed for but all of the other parties involoved in things the NTA also are involved with are irreplaceable is laughable and is total blinkered thinking.

Because it's not justifiably economically to implement these schemes into every network or regional service. As I've said when London was upgrading their system spending million in the process Dublin Bus and the rest of the country where on there knees. It makes no sense at all to begin a fleet renewals programme just have a few fancy gadgets can be added.

Cause like most companies budgets dictate what you can or cannot afford to do. On board info is a luxury item and in the early days would of costing a lot more to implement than it did a few years ago.

But you stated that these things come as standard right at the start and it is easier to order these things with the vehicles than it is without it as they are regular things now they are a luxury, all I can say is you've changed your tune completely from what you said several pages ago and your constant flip-flopping and lack of consistancy is laughable.

Again network direct was introduced as cut excess while also expanding the network. It's sole objective wasn't to expand bus service frequencies on small routes it was to increase supply on core corridors. If it didn't happen services would of been slashed dramatically as DB nor the government would of been able to afford to keep every little route going. It made better use of the assets available without any major funding and helped in keep DB going. It obviously didn't meet you and your colleagues standards just as Bus Connect won't please everyone.

But the introduction of the 4 was not related to Network Direct, last post you claimed that the success of the 4 before it was cut was because of Network Direct but it simply wasn't because the 4 was a great introduction by Dublin Bus in 2006 several years before Network Direct even started to be implemented let alone finished and we all know how long it took for the whole project and the 4 was far from a little route it was one of the most high frequency routes on one of the busiest corridors in the city.

I actually think that BusConnects is something that this city has needed for a long time and it's the kind of network review that is properly needed, but the devil is always going to be in the detail and how it is implemented

magicbastarder

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dublin-bus-takes-an-overdue-shot-across-the-bows-1.3184014

not exactly an in-depth analysis of the situation.

devnull

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dublin-bus-takes-an-overdue-shot-across-the-bows-1.3184014

not exactly an in-depth analysis of the situation.

That article seriously counts as analysis? It's atrocious.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

Projects need leaders and people to manage them otherwise they often don't come to fruition, you can have as many people doing all of the work as you like but if someone doesn't bring all the people together working to one goal you will not get very far. That comes from someone who has managed large scale projects in my career and came into situations where I've had teams of extremely talented people and well meaning departments and partners but they produce very little because nobody is managing the relationships between any of them.

It took the efforts of all the parties getting involved to get things running at the end of the day to say that everything the NTA is involved in they are not needed for but all of the other parties involoved in things the NTA also are involved with are irreplaceable is laughable and is total blinkered thinking.



But you stated that these things come as standard right at the start and it is easier to order these things with the vehicles than it is without it as they are regular things now they are a luxury, all I can say is you've changed your tune completely from what you said several pages ago and your constant flip-flopping and lack of consistancy is laughable.



But the introduction of the 4 was not related to Network Direct, last post you claimed that the success of the 4 before it was cut was because of Network Direct but it simply wasn't because the 4 was a great introduction by Dublin Bus in 2006 several years before Network Direct even started to be implemented let alone finished and we all know how long it took for the whole project and the 4 was far from a little route it was one of the most high frequency routes on one of the busiest corridors in the city.

I actually think that BusConnects is something that this city has needed for a long time and it's the kind of network review that is properly needed, but the devil is always going to be in the detail and how it is implemented

Right so the NTA managed everything and the others do all the planning and financing. We could of just PWC to do it. Just show their inability to plan and create the transport systems for the country. Their the wrong people for the job.

They would be a standard product yes. It's becuase of your lack of understanding im having to brake down the different types. A city bus is different to rural or suburban bus. Their not the same type or builds. The majority of buses build in Ireland or UK are city buses for large cities like Dublin and London so these products would be rather standard compared to the volume of buses required without this equipment in this day and age there is a fleet of 12,000 between Dublin, London and Manchester.

Jesus I haven't once claimed Network Direct created the 4. What it done was rearranged its routing to do away with need of the 4A and that network direct overall was a massive success as by tidying up and removing double routes like the 4 and 4A other routes where able to expand while at the same time opening up the city more and help bringing running costs down for DB.

Well if you think Network Direct was a total disaster then I'll find it hard to hold out on any hope of you thinking Connect is going to be a game changer. You didn't seem to be best pleased about having to wait at a bus stop for 10mins the likelihood is you be doing a lot more swapping and waiting for buses when this comes in. It will work fine on big routes but I think the futher out you go from the city the less likely its going to work as putting high frequency buses on every side road is impossible and costly.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

That article seriously counts as analysis? It's atrocious.

It's atrocious to you because it asks the question as to what was the point of all this. Its not exactly a detailed report as the information isn't out there so they no just as little about The whole process as you or I do. The normal reader and Joe soap that travels these routes doesn't really care about DB or GA but when they here the word competition been main factor they are going to expecting more options by having 2 providers battling it out offering cheaper fares or more perks when in reality it's the complete opposite.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Right so the NTA managed everything and the others do all the planning and financing. We could of just PWC to do it. Just show their inability to plan and create the transport systems for the country. Their the wrong people for the job.

I never said that is all the NTA did, I simply said that it's an important part and any experienced project manager knows that it's not an easy job and if you just sit back and left people to their own devices ploughing their own furrow you don't get very far at the end of the day because they see it from their own point of view rather than with joined up thinking.

They would be a standard product yes. It's becuase of your lack of understanding im having to brake down the different types. A city bus is different to rural or suburban bus.

I never mentioned city, rural or suburban buses, not sure why we're heading in that direction now, I understand perfectly how it works and I have lived both in cities, in rural areas and suburban areas and yes there are some differences but they are not totally different all of the time.

Their not the same type or builds. The majority of buses build in Ireland or UK are city buses for large cities like Dublin and London so these products would be rather standard compared to the volume of buses required without this equipment in this day and age there is a fleet of 12,000 between Dublin, London and Manchester.

I don't need to sany anything else other than the folloowing because it speaks for itself:

Post #473 "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."

Post #498 "On board info is a luxury item"

Jesus I haven't once claimed Network Direct created the 4. What it done was rearranged its routing to do away with need of the 4A and that network direct overall was a massive success as by tidying up and removing double routes like the 4 and 4A other routes where able to expand while at the same time opening up the city more and help bringing running costs down for DB.

My Post: #485: "When the 4 was introduced it was one of the best things Dublin Bus did with their network for a long time, since it really solved a lot of issues with the network and capacity and opened up new direct journey pattern"

Your reply to #485 "Network Direct has clearly worked and your description is telling us of the massive increase in bus travel as it opened the city up for so many more people."

You didn't seem to be best pleased about having to wait at a bus stop for 10mins the likelihood is you be doing a lot more swapping and waiting for buses when this comes in.

Where do you get the 10 minutes part from, can you please show me the post where I said I was unable to wait for a bus stop for 10 minutes.

Post #485: "Indeed but waiting up to half an hour for a bus in the evenings to board because they are all full and over doubling journey times following network direct is not going to attract anyone to keep using public transport"

Dyr

Anyone who thinks the 4 is a success needs their head examined

it should be called the 444 given the bunching that occurs

devnull

Bambi wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the 4 is a success needs their head examined

it should be called the 444 given the bunching that occurs

It used to be a success when it was on the old timetable and running-time pre Network Direct, now the frequency of it means it's prone to overcrowding which causes the knock effect of bunching, which is further not helped in the last year by the fact that there are LUAS Cross City works as well.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

I never said that is all the NTA did, I simply said that it's an important part and any experienced project manager knows that it's not an easy job and if you just sit back and left people to their own devices ploughing their own furrow you don't get very far at the end of the day because they see it from their own point of view rather than with joined up thinking.



I never mentioned city, rural or suburban buses, not sure why we're heading in that direction now, I understand perfectly how it works and I have lived both in cities, in rural areas and suburban areas and yes there are some differences but they are not totally different all of the time.



I don't need to sany anything else other than the folloowing because it speaks for itself:

Post #473 "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."

Post #498 "On board info is a luxury item"



My Post: #485: "When the 4 was introduced it was one of the best things Dublin Bus did with their network for a long time, since it really solved a lot of issues with the network and capacity and opened up new direct journey pattern"

Your reply to #485 "Network Direct has clearly worked and your description is telling us of the massive increase in bus travel as it opened the city up for so many more people."



Where do you get the 10 minutes part from, can you please show me the post where I said I was unable to wait for a bus stop for 10 minutes.

Post #485: "Indeed but waiting up to half an hour for a bus in the evenings to board because they are all full and over doubling journey times following network direct is not going to attract anyone to keep using public transport"

Ok then well I'm just working of YOUR comments and YOUR links here so.......

You did you actually brought up and talked quiet a bit about regional buses.

If your going to add snippets you may as well add them all rather than picking the few that suit a point your trying to make.
So regarding 473 and 498 I standby what I said as your mixed up thought led to me having to explain over and over again.
Firstly 498 on board info is a luxury and is not required for a bus to work. When I said that we were talking about London having this in place in the 00s which I was explaining to you that during this period of time the country had a fleet of working buses but was also financially crippled and didn't have the funds to slashing out on little gadgets or luxury items for buses as there was a lot more important things like saving the country from going totally under.
473 10 - 12 years ago when this stuff was only been introduced in London it wasn't a common requirement for bus companies. Fast forward 10 years there is around 15000 of these buses after been built with this modern day equipment in place so yes it would be rather common to find buses with it than without it. Technology and the time change things look at the way buses have envoled do you think buses still come with pull cord bells but companies ask for push buttons instead.

Eh you where complaining about how much of a disaster Network Direct was. It was brought in to make changes for the better for the entire network not just the 4 or 7 routes and you keep basing the whole thing on. The 10 min wait well go through your own posts and you will see it. It was roughly 10 posts ago. If want to make a big out me not willing to search for I'll do it but you should know what you posted.

Waiting a 1/2 hour at peak times is just something that happens from time to time the same thing happened before ND and the same thing happens on Luas or Irish rail. The double of journey times is an incorrect statement to make as it still took the same length of time to travel from the same two point before and after the extensions. An Increased journey would obviously have an increased time but for many it was a reduction in time as it saved them from having to either walk the rest of the journey or change bus.

IE 222

Here you go. You posted it this morning. I'm on mobile so can't see post number but it was around 11am if must see it for yourself.



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.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

It used to be a success when it was on the old timetable and running-time pre Network Direct, now the frequency of it means it's prone to overcrowding which causes the knock effect of bunching, which is further not helped in the last year by the fact that there are LUAS Cross City works as well.

But don't the wonderful NTA not do all the frequencies and planning with it now. Its an over supplied service at the best of times.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Firstly 498 on board info is a luxury and is not required for a bus to work

Post #473 "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"

Are you saying that a car radio is a luxury in a car too since you said that trying to by a bus without onboard info is like buying a car without a radio?

When I said that we were talking about London having this in place in the 00s which I was explaining to you that during this period of time the country had a fleet of working buses but was also financially crippled and didn't have the funds to slashing out on little gadgets or luxury items for buses as there was a lot more important things like saving the country from going totally under.

So what your saying that when London implemented these things between 2006-2008 there was no money to spend on the fleet and add this features to Dublin bus because it was broke and couldn't afford to spend any money because there simply was none?

Could you explain to me the secret of how despite having no money they still managed to acquire 400 new buses and since there was no money to pay for them how they managed to acquire over €100m worth of vehicles without anyone paying for them because they had no money?

you where complaining about how much of a disaster Network Direct was. It was brought in to make changes for the better for the entire network not just the 4 or 7 routes and you keep basing the whole thing on.

I said that starting the 4 "opened up new direct journey pattern" and you said that this is an example of Network Direct clearly working because it opened up the city for many more people.

However Route 4 was introduced in 2006 and Network Direct did not happen until many years later, so it's not an example of Network Direct clearly working because what I referenced was an event htat happened years before ND.

The double of journey times is an incorrect statement to make as it still took the same length of time to travel from the same two point before and after the extensions.

So if you have 6 buses an hour and you reduce it to 4 for instnace with the same amount of passengers, you don't th ink that the 4 buses that have to take the extra load will take any longer and number of passengers boarding and disembaking makes no difference to dwell time?

IE 222 wrote: »

Here you go. You posted it this morning. I'm on mobile so can't see post number but it was around 11am if must see it for yourself.

I said in that post: "having massive dwell times of up to 10 minutes"

You claimed: "You didn't seem to be best pleased about having to wait at a bus stop for 10mins the likelihood is you be doing a lot more swapping and waiting for buses when this comes in."

I didn't say that I was waiting at a bus stop for 10 minutes I simply said that there was dwell time for 10 minutes, which are two totally different things.

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

Post #473 "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"

Are you saying that a car radio is a luxury in a car too since you said that trying to by a bus without onboard info is like buying a car without a radio?



So what your saying that when London implemented these things between 2006-2008 there was no money to spend on the fleet and add this features to Dublin bus because it was broke and couldn't afford to spend any money because there simply was none?

Could you explain to me the secret of how despite having no money they still managed to acquire 400 new buses and since there was no money to pay for them how they managed to acquire over €100m worth of vehicles without anyone paying for them because they had no money?



I said that starting the 4 "opened up new direct journey pattern" and you said that this is an example of Network Direct clearly working because it opened up the city for many more people.

However Route 4 was introduced in 2006 and Network Direct did not happen until many years later, so it's not an example of Network Direct clearly working because what I referenced was an event htat happened years before ND.



So if you have 6 buses an hour and you reduce it to 4 for instnace with the same amount of passengers, you don't th ink that the 4 buses that have to take the extra load will take any longer and number of passengers boarding and disembaking makes no difference to dwell time?



I said in that post: "having massive dwell times of up to 10 minutes"

You claimed: "You didn't seem to be best pleased about having to wait at a bus stop for 10mins the likelihood is you be doing a lot more swapping and waiting for buses when this comes in."

I didn't say that I was waiting at a bus stop for 10 minutes I simply said that there was dwell time for 10 minutes, which are two totally different things.

Christ almighty look at the number of then posts their a bit apart the topic changed somewhat. Back in 2006/8 when London introduced on board info for the first time it would of been seem as a luxury just the way having built in sat nav in a car would of been were as these days such advances in technology make these things common practice and basic. Radio is fairly standard be hard to buy a car without one.

Fleet renewals and yeah the company had a budget the budget allowed for the purchase of a bus as that's what was needed a vehicle to move people from point A to B they didn't have the funds to be splashing out on fancy gizmos like on board info or the likes they just wanted a BUS. Now before mix things up again I'll remind you we talking about the period of 2006/8 and not 2016/7 when such gizmos became cheaper and more common and the state had additional fund's to invest a little extra in such items as they became more affordable.

Look forget about the 4 it was great service that turned bad then if that makes you feel better.

The topic is foucused on Network Direct and it wasn't commissioned to change route 4 it was brought in for the overall network. If network direct didn't take place the 4 and 4A would of been slashed dramatically either way as it was a means of cutting costs. The overall improvements from it outweigh any disadvantages the 4 may have suffered. Your forgetting that the point that DB needed to scale back operations at the time so by making changes both improved operations but also gave improved services.

Dwelling / waiting 10mins whatever. You claimed you were left at a bus stop for 10 mins as of a result network direct you