Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15

So since the last thread on this got closed and dosen't appear to be reopening any time soon. Heres a new one for you.

dublinman1990

Devnull had made a point about the bus infrastructure being owned mostly by one single operator in Dublin; I assume that would be Dublin Bus & not the NTA. Is this correct? Will this infrastructure include the 3 bus termini outside the DART Stations at Bray, Dun Laoghaire & Blackrock where some of the affected routes in these locations will be in a process of switching over to GA; or will they co-exist in the same terminus?

I have heard that this decision from the NTA last Thursday is not going to change the number of buses & drivers presently working at Dublin Bus. It is highly likely now that the NTA may have to order at least 125 brand new buses for GA from next year or GA themselves will probably have to transfer some of their current bus fleet in the UK to run their services in Dublin. I am not sure what scenario is going to work best for these routes between GA & the NTA. I hope that I don't this point wrong but if GA had come across issues relating to any of their vehicles bought after 2019 for not passing EU Regulations after the UK leaves the EU. GA would probably not be allowed to bring buses into Ireland until they pass EU Regulations here. Another scenario is that the NTA will have to order new buses for GA; we don't know what manufacturer are going to make them yet. We also don't know from the NTA the expected number of single & double deckers coming in for GA.

We should also think about what GA routes are going to be suitable for single deckers & double deckers or possibly both if it is necessary. If I was thinking to have routes to have all double deckers on the southside; I'd say that the 17, 45a, 75 & 175 should have double deckers at all times because their journey times are currently far too long to get from a to b. For single deckers; I would suggest that the 59, 111, 161 would get them as the current length of these routes are not suitable for double deckers at all as they are far too short to make them viable. Double deckers also have a high incidence of dead running for large portions of their route if they aren't enough passengers using them. I would prefer having a mixed fleet of buses on the 114 especially during peak times on weekdays when students are using them to get to school or college during the day. Commuters would need to the use the 114 to get to or from work via Blackrock DART Station in that period. It would also be sensible to allow the 114 have single deckers operate the route all day for Saturday & maybe Sunday/Bank Holiday schedules if that was approved from the NTA within the year.

bk

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I have heard that this decision from the NTA last Thursday is not going to change the number of buses & drivers presently working at Dublin Bus. It is highly likely now that the NTA may have to order at least 125 brand new buses for GA from next year or GA themselves will probably have to transfer some of their current bus fleet in the UK to run their services in Dublin.

It seems that the last tender for new buses from the NTA this year was for 300 new buses over the next 18 months. This surprised many people as it is double the number that would normally be ordered over that period (150) and in fact the largest tender ever.

Now I'm not sure what happened with the reward of that tender. However it would explain where the extra 125 buses for Go Ahead are going to come from, plus another 25 extra buses for Dublin Bus.

It would also explain why two streetlite single deckers have recently arrived.

devnull

What we know is that
- The NTA will order and own all vehicles ordered for all PSO operators
- Dublin Bus will withdraw 72 buses this year (70xAV + 2xWV)
- They will get 102 new deliveries (100xSG + 2x Streetlite)
- GoAhead will operate 125 vehicles
- No Dublin Bus Drivers will lose their jobs
- The 10% of routes will have mileage increased by 35%
- Remaining Dublin Bus routes will be expanded

As for where the 125 buses come from, it could be all new orders to be delivered in 2018, it could be all transfered from Dublin Bus with all the 2018 orders going to Dublin Bus, or it could be a mixture of both, unfortunately the details are not known right at this moment.

However it is expected that next years order of buses by the NTA will be higher than the 102 that will be delivered this year.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

It seems that the last tender for new buses from the NTA this year was for 300 new buses over the next 18 months. This surprised many people as it is double the number that would normally be ordered over that period (150) and in fact the largest tender ever.

Now I'm not sure what happened with the reward of that tender. However it would explain where the extra 125 buses for Go Ahead are going to come from, plus another 25 extra buses for Dublin Bus.

It would also explain why two streetlite single deckers have recently arrived.

The Streetlites are for the 44b to replace the WVs and have been spec'd in detail by DB for that route.

Tenders for new buses have always included potential for increased numbers of vehicles as at the time they seek potential suppliers they won't know what funding government will allow. They might get more money, they might not. So they hedge their bets.

It's only the number of buses on any contract award that is relevant.

So if tenders were issued for 300 buses, that doesn't mean 300 will be delivered.

Stephen15

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Devnull had made a point about the bus infrastructure being owned mostly by one single operator in Dublin; I assume that would be Dublin Bus & not the NTA. Is this correct? Will this infrastructure include the 3 bus termini outside the DART Stations at Bray, Dun Laoghaire & Blackrock where some of the affected routes in these locations will be in a process of switching over to GA; or will they co-exist in the same terminus?

I have heard that this decision from the NTA last Thursday is not going to change the number of buses & drivers presently working at Dublin Bus. It is highly likely now that the NTA may have to order at least 125 brand new buses for GA from next year or GA themselves will probably have to transfer some of their current bus fleet in the UK to run their services in Dublin. I am not sure what scenario is going to work best for these routes between GA & the NTA. I hope that I don't this point wrong but if GA had come across issues relating to any of their vehicles bought after 2019 for not passing EU Regulations after the UK leaves the EU. GA would probably not be allowed to bring buses into Ireland until they pass EU Regulations here. Another scenario is that the NTA will have to order new buses for GA; we don't know what manufacturer are going to make them yet. We also don't know from the NTA the expected number of single & double deckers coming in for GA.

We should also think about what GA routes are going to be suitable for single deckers & double deckers or possibly both if it is necessary. If I was thinking to have routes to have all double deckers on the southside; I'd say that the 17, 45a, 75 & 175 should have double deckers at all times because their journey times are currently far too long to get from a to b. For single deckers; I would suggest that the 59, 111, 161 would get them as the current length of these routes are not suitable for double deckers at all as they are far too short to make them viable. Double deckers also have a high incidence of dead running for large portions of their route if they aren't enough passengers using them. I would prefer having a mixed fleet of buses on the 114 especially during peak times on weekdays when students are using them to get to school or college during the day. Commuters would need to the use the 114 to get to or from work via Blackrock DART Station in that period. It would also be sensible to allow the 114 have single deckers operate the route all day for Saturday & maybe Sunday/Bank Holiday schedules if that was approved from the NTA within the year.

DB does own nearly all shelters and stop with the exception of a number of shelters owned by DCC. However this is currently in the process of transfering over to the NTA. All current DB stops will be replaced by NTA owned stops. So I would imagine that places like Dun Laoghaire and Bray would co exist with the DB services just like in London where bus termini are shared between TFL operators. The NTA are replacing DB as the primary provider of bus transport in Dublin.

The NTA will own all buses afaik just like they own the GT and SG class buses currently operated by DB. Go-Ahead's current UK fleet would not be suitable only London Buses would be suitable as they would have to meet the NTA's specification which would include having middle doors as only London buses have them. I would imagine London Buses are operating at capacity anyway so only older vehicles would be transferred which would not meet the NTA's specification.

Out of the routes going to be tendered out I reckon that only the 17, 17a, 18, 75 and 76 actually require double deckers the rest could be covered by single deckers at all times. A mixture of differant types of single deckers could be used some a similar size to the old KC and VA class and others a similar size to the City Imp minibuses or WV class buses.

Just remember that GA have only won the tender no contracts or other formal agreements have been signed. GA could very well pull out and DB could remain operating these services. Another possibility is DB could take legal action against the NTA.

When and if the routes are transferred to GA I would imagine that DB will have to try to grow their commercial services such as Airlink, Tours and Xpresso.

devnull

There will be no buses coming from London, all buses operated by GoAhead will be owned and acquired and remain assets of the NTA and operators will not be using their own buses they purchase themselves,.

In London most people don't even know there are many different operators of services because of the fact they are so tightly intergrated that there is no noticeable difference between any of them apart from a small logo on the bus.

super_furry

Five years down the line, Go Ahead complain that they can't make any money under a 'restrictive' fare system and that they're considering pulling out entirely unless they're allow to increase fares at their discretion and reduce their employees wages. This is the first step to a British-style privatsation by stealth.

devnull

super_furry wrote: »

Five years down the line, Go Ahead complain that they can't make any money under a 'restrictive' fare system and that they're considering pulling out entirely unless they're allow to increase fares at their discretion and reduce their employees wages. This is the first step to a British-style privatsation by stealth.

GoAhead do not set the fares and they do not keep money from the fares, they are paid a set fee from the NTA and this is the model that Dublin Bus will be moving to in the near future as well.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

GoAhead do not set the fares and they do not keep money from the fares, they are paid a set fee from the NTA and this is the model that Dublin Bus will be moving to in the near future as well.

I thought DB had already moved to that model. Anyway the tender for the remaining DB routes is up in 2019 so it will be intresting to see what happens.

LXFlyer

Stephen15 wrote: »

I thought DB had already moved to that model. Anyway the tender for the remaining DB routes is up in 2019 so it will be intresting to see what happens.

Not until the next PSO contract award.

super_furry

devnull wrote: »

GoAhead do not set the fares and they do not keep money from the fares, they are paid a set fee from the NTA and this is the model that Dublin Bus will be moving to in the near future as well.

Exactly and that will be their pretext to demand they're allowed to set their own fares, which will unsurprisingly rocket.

We'll see how Dublin Bus go, but I'd imagine they'll resist it strongly.

devnull

super_furry wrote: »

Exactly and that will be their pretext to demand they're allowed to set their own fares, which will unsurprisingly rocket.

Dublin Bus have spent the last few years demanding certain fares and they have never got them because the NTA has often not sanctioned the increases that DB have been looking for, so I don't think it will be any different here.

It's the same system as in London and it's never happened there.

L1011

super_furry wrote: »

Exactly and that will be their pretext to demand they're allowed to set their own fares, which will unsurprisingly rocket.

We'll see how Dublin Bus go, but I'd imagine they'll resist it strongly.

You don't understand the system at all

If they find it impossible to operate on the fixed payments, they can pull out. They are not and will not ever have the ability to set their own fares.

The farebox (cash, Leap, share of multi operator tickets, whatever) is an irrelevance to them and will remain so

dfx-

Aaaaaargh. The farebox point again.

devnull wrote: »

GoAhead do not set the fares and they do not keep money from the fares, they are paid a set fee from the NTA and this is the model that Dublin Bus will be moving to in the near future as well.

and if they decide the set fare given to them is not enough?

Will this "but it's not about the farebox" argument ever please die?

L1011 wrote: »

You don't understand the system at all.

If they find it impossible to operate on the fixed payments, they can pull out. They are not and will not ever have the ability to set their own fares.

The farebox (cash, Leap, share of multi operator tickets, whatever) is an irrelevance to them and will remain so

Ah, so that's alright then, they can just pull out. No problems with that at all so, no need to worry about finding an operator for routes that were not wanted this time round.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

Aaaaaargh. The farebox point again.

and if they decide the set fare given to them is not enough?

Will this "but it's not about the farebox" argument ever please die?

Indeed, it's quite a tiresome argument because we're still talking about GoAhead being given fares even though it's been explained more times than I care to remember that they are not getting any fares whatsoever.

Just as you wish the "but it's not about the farebox" argument to die I'm sure that other people wish the opposite argument that is continually being used about increasing fares would die, but sadly it's showing no signs of doing so but plenty of people are still spreading misinformation about fares on social media on an everyday basis.

Ah, so that's alright then, they can just pull out. No problems with that at all so, no need to worry about finding an operator for routes that were not wanted this time round.

Do you really think that the contract is going to be drawn up by people who are going to allow for that to happen. If they sign a contact I doubt it will be easy for them to stop paying it because it will be watertight and even if there is a break clause, which is highly highly unlikely, I can imagine it says that they would need to give notice.

I haven't seen the LUAS walk away from their contract even though there is a similar arrangement there, but lets not let an example of reality get in the way of what is simply scaremongering without any presdecent.

L1011

dfx- wrote: »

and if they decide the set fare given to them is not enough?.

They fire the person who priced the tender and either increase the bid or pull out at re-tendering

They are never going to get access to farebox revenue despite what the fantasists think

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

Do you really think that the contract is going to be drawn up by people who are going to allow for that to happen. If they sign a contact I doubt it will be easy for them to stop paying it because it will be watertight and even if there is a break clause, which is highly highly unlikely, I can imagine it says that they would need to give notice.

I haven't seen the LUAS walk away from their contract even though there is a similar arrangement there, but lets not let an example of reality get in the way of what is simply scaremongering without any presdecent.

What if they fulfil the term of this tender - 5 years or whatever it is and then don't operate a day further. What if they give loads of notice and no-one is interested? They're not walking away or breaking any clause, they're just pulling out at re-tendering.

L1011 wrote: »

They fire the person who priced the tender and either increase the bid or pull out at re-tendering

They are never going to get access to farebox revenue despite what the fantasists think

It's a moot point whether they get their income from the farebox or not. This is the fallacy behind "but it's not about the farebox" rebuttal.

What happens when they pull out at re-tendering? Are we stuck at the stage of "well we'll just see who is interested then".

bk

Saying that they can access the farebox is like saying that the cleaners and catering companies that Irish Rail contract out those services too can access the farebox!

Irish Rail puts out a tender for catering/cleaning/etc. services and companies who specialise in those services bid on the contract and agree a fixed price for their services from Irish Rail.

Those companies certainly can't access the fares IR collect or dictate the fares.

This is no different. The NTA puts out a tender for companies to operate a bunch of bus routes. The companies bid on those routes and the winner has agreed on a fixed price for operating on them.

Go Ahead has no more power to dictate fares then the cleaners on the trains do!

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

What if they fulfil the term of this tender - 5 years or whatever it is and then don't operate a day further. What if they give loads of notice and no-one is interested? They're not walking away or breaking any clause, they're just pulling out at re-tendering.

but it doesn't matter whether they ever get near the farebox or not. The general point stands about their income - wherever it comes from, not whether it's from the farebox.

What happens when they pull out at re-tendering? Are we stuck at the stage of "well we'll just see who is interested then".

Looks like we're back to circles again.

There are a multitude of reasons why from six bidders only two remained and every single tender is going to be different for a multitude of factors, be that current company position in Ireland, the location and geographical spread of the routes, the financial health and situation in the companies who may be interested in bidding, local market conditions in their core business, the list is endless.

One of the biggest barriers to entry is that we have one massive transport company that has had so much of the share of the pie for so long that nobody in Ireland has operations of scale or the levels of finance to bid themselves because they never have had facilities built for them and have to start afresh and have never been given the chance to build big scale operations

That's a symptom of how much control CIE have had on transport throughout the years more than anything, the overall domanance of one company who has got given a contract to them every time without anyone else getting a sniff is exactly the reason that no other companies have been able to build up the same scale.

In any case, two bids is certainly better than one and many times better than giving someone a contract without any bids whatsoever and this bundle was always going to be the hardest bundle to operate for a new operator because of all of the factors I've listed above.

As I said before I haven't seen the LUAS walk away from their contract even though they have a very similar arrangement, but lets not allow something based on reality get in a way of what is a bunch of scaremongering and what ifs and maybes that are being constantly trotted out.

L1011

dfx- wrote: »

It's a moot point whether they get their income from the farebox or not. This is the fallacy behind "but it's not about the farebox" rebuttal.

Not much issue with a potential fallacious rebuttal to a claim of absolute nonsense. Tendering the routes is not going to cause fares to rise, despite whatever the union bots are pushing. However, its not fallacious in the slightest.

dfx- wrote: »

What happens when they pull out at re-tendering? Are we stuck at the stage of "well we'll just see who is interested then".

Yes, just as if we would have been if nobody tendered this time. That is how tenders work.

end of the road

L1011 wrote: »

Tendering the routes is not going to cause fares to rise, despite whatever the union bots are pushing.

there is no evidence they won't long term. the fixed fee has to come from somewhere and we do have to think about the long term in terms of that fee potentially having to rise to take account of certain factors.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence they won't long term. the fixed fee has to come from somewhere and we do have to think about the long term in terms of that fee potentially having to rise to take account of certain factors.

But that is no different then Dublin Bus. They have been pushing for significant price rises for years!

L1011

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence they won't long term. the fixed fee has to come from somewhere and we do have to think about the long term in terms of that fee potentially having to rise to take account of certain factors.

Just like the PSO subsidy for Dublin Bus, then. And hence not affected by tendering

You're not arguing against the point here.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence they won't long term. the fixed fee has to come from somewhere and we do have to think about the long term in terms of that fee potentially having to rise to take account of certain factors.

Of course fares will rise, just like the price of basically everything ever rises with time. That's the case whether these routes go out to tender or not.

Stephen15

Brooklynn Fancy Puppeteer wrote: »

Of course fares will rise, just like the price of basically everything ever rises with time. That's the case whether these routes go out to tender or not.

Fares have risen to astronomical amounts in recent times compared to other European cities but Leap fares have remained more or less the same bar maybe a slight rise. The €2.60 flat fare for more than 13 stages is a ripoff considering a bus fare in London is a £1.50 flat fare and you use another bus for free within 90 minutes.

Stephen15

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fares have risen to astronomical amounts in recent times compared to other European cities but Leap fares have remained more or less the same bar maybe a slight rise. The €2.60 flat fare for more than 13 stages is a ripoff considering a bus fare in London is a £1.50 flat fare and you use another bus for free within 90 minutes.

I seem to remember a load of fanfare over this and Sadiq Khan showing up all over the place talking about it - is the fare in London heavily subsidised I wonder.

devnull

The London model is similar to what the NTA are bringing in here.

Routes are tendered,operators are paid set fees, farebox revenue to TFL who set fares and take all revenue risk.

bk

Brooklynn Fancy Puppeteer wrote: »

I seem to remember a load of fanfare over this and Sadiq Khan showing up all over the place talking about it - is the fare in London heavily subsidised I wonder.

Only a few years ago it was just 90p !!

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

The London model is similar to what the NTA are bringing in here.

Routes are tendered,operators are paid set fees, farebox revenue to TFL who set fares and take all revenue risk.

The NTA already set the fares

liger

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fares have risen to astronomical amounts in recent times compared to other European cities

No they haven't. The fares have remained steady for the last couple of years. 2cent increase to schoolkids fare on the leap card and rise for xpresso if I recall right.

Not that DB or GA control that.

devnull

liger wrote: »

No they haven't. The fares have remained steady for the last couple of years. 2cent increase to schoolkids fare on the leap card and rise for xpresso if I recall right.

Not that DB or GA control that.

The way it currently is that DB propose the changes and the NTA have the final say on them, generally DB have looked for more than they have got for most of the last few years on single fares.

The new model that GoAhead will be on from when they start and Dublin Bus will be on after 2019 is that there will be no proposals made and it will be a solely NTA decision.

Stephen15

liger wrote: »

No they haven't. The fares have remained steady for the last couple of years. 2cent increase to schoolkids fare on the leap card and rise for xpresso if I recall right.

Not that DB or GA control that.

Well they're still way more expensive compared to other European cities with far better public transport systems. As I said earlier London is only £1.50 flat fare for a trip plus a transfer within 90 mins and Paris is only €1.90 for a ticket valid on buses and metro.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

The new model that GoAhead will be on from when they start and Dublin Bus will be on after 2019 is that there will be no proposals made and it will be a solely NTA decision.

If they win the tender that is.

Stephen15

DB proposed a flat fare during before the NTA's inception one of the better ideas regarding public transport however this was blocked by the jobsworths in the DoT who were calling the shots at the time.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

DB proposed a flat fare during before the NTA's inception one of the better ideas regarding public transport however this was blocked by the jobsworths in the DoT who were calling the shots at the time.

Thing is it's very simplistic to say that DB proposed a flat fare, they did do it but I'm sure there were caveats and conditions attached to it over who is going to take the revenue risk and what would happen if it didn't work out and the effect that it would have on PSO subsidy for instance and the cost to the taxpayer.

Implementing a flat fare system sounds like you just one day decide to charge everyone the same but in reality it's just not as simple as that as there are many things and factors that will be affected by such changes that are going to have to be worked out before any such system is a goer.

Having an intergrated ticketing system with one ticket valid on everything is even more complicated because you have several companies all of which have their own requirements, revenue needs and none of them are going to give up any revenue without a fight at the end of the day because they will look after number one.

The difference with the other countries is they tend to all have been one system and a central pot has been getting revenue and the operators have been paid set fees for some time, this is the model that the NTA is trying to move towards, but it's not going to be something that can happen relatively quickly since operators are used to taking fares and keeping them rather than being paid a set fee as is common in Europe.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Having an intergrated ticketing system with one ticket valid on everything is even more complicated because you have several companies all of which have their own requirements, revenue needs and none of them are going to give up any revenue without a fight at the end of the day because they will look after number one.

The difference with the other countries is they tend to all have been one system and a central pot has been getting revenue and the operators have been paid set fees for some time, this is the model that the NTA is trying to move towards, but it's not going to be something that can happen relatively quickly since operators are used to taking fares and keeping them rather than being paid a set fee as is common in Europe.

That is why I reckon DB should have been given the tender to operate the Luas. A flat fare valid on Bus and Luas. Irish Rail who would have been easy enough to get as a fellow CIE company.

Another thing is on the continent on buses they operate an open system with two or three door sometimes even four door buses. Even on London buses currently despite not having cash on board its the responsibility of the driver to make sure passengers tag on. On the continent the drivers sole responsibility is to drive the bus.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

That is why I reckon DB should have been given the tender to operate the Luas.

Nobody can be given a tender, if it is a tender people bid and the one who scores the highest on the set criteria wins at the end of the day, anything else would be illegal and would be in a breach of EU Law.

A flat fare valid on Bus and Luas. Irish Rail who would have been easy enough to get as a fellow CIE company.

Judging by how long Bus and Train were in common ownership and they managed to do pretty much no intergration over the years, I wouldn't fancy the chances of that happening because CIE have an abysmal record when it comes to intergrating their sister companies apart from co-locating them in the same facilities.

Plus at the end of the day even if they were, it still doesn't resolve the problems that I mentioned as you will still have caveats and conditions attached to it over who is going to take the revenue risk and what would happen if it didn't work out and the effect that it would have on PSO subsidy for instance and the cost to the taxpayer.

Almost all intergrated transport tickets are based on revenue going to a fixed pot and the operators paid a fee to run a particular service, otherwise the system cannot work properly because it introduces lots of headaches such as who gets what part of the revenue from a ticket and why and that ALWAYS creates disputes between providers who are all going to want to look after their bottom line. So it's the norm to remove that problem entirely by taking farebox revenue out of the equation totally.

For example in Warsaw you have several different bus contractors, a metro company, a tram company and a suburban rail company, they are all seperate legal entitites and none of them sell tickets as the tickets are sold by ZTM (their version of the NTA), there is no such thing as a bus ticket or a tram ticket or a rail ticket, they're all automatically intermodal, how that revenue is divided up is decided by ZTM who also take all the revenue risk and it's been very successful as it minimises disagreements between operators, turf wars and people fighting over the revenue percentage they take of a multi-mode ticket.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Judging by how long Bus and Train were in common ownership and they managed to do pretty much no intergration over the years, I wouldn't fancy the chances of that happening because CIE have an abysmal record when it comes to intergrating their sister companies apart from co-locating them in the same facilities.

Plus at the end of the day even if they were, it still doesn't resolve the problems that I mentioned as you will still have caveats and conditions attached to it over who is going to take the revenue risk and what would happen if it didn't work out and the effect that it would have on PSO subsidy for instance and the cost to the taxpayer.

Almost all intergrated transport tickets are based on revenue going to a fixed pot and the operators paid a fee to run a particular service, otherwise the system cannot work properly because it introduces lots of headaches such as who gets what part of the revenue from a ticket and why and that ALWAYS creates disputes between providers who are all going to want to look after their bottom line. So it's the norm to remove that problem entirely by taking farebox revenue out of the equation totally.

There actually were intergrated DB and IE, DB and Luas and Luas and IE tickets before Leap was introduced just none valid on all three.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

There actually were intergrated DB and IE, DB and Luas and Luas and IE tickets before Leap was introduced just none valid on all three.

A moment ago you were talking about single tickets and flat fares now for some reason you've switched focus to something completely different such as period passes which is a totally different kettle of fish completely. I was talking about your average farebox revenue mainly, not monthly and yearly passes and you were too I thought for the previous posts?

I suspect that the reason we don't have flat single fares is that Dublin Bus proposed a flat fare system to be brought in under the conditions that the DOT would reimburse them for any loss of revenue and the DOT felt that there was a reasonable chance that the impact taken on Dublin Bus farebox revenue could potentially create a funding deficit that the DOT would not have the resources to plug due to a lack of adequate finances.

As I said, saying that they turned down a flat fare system and they're evil is a very simplistic way of looking at things as a number of things have to be taken into account and without knowing their full reasoning for why they turned it down and the conditions that Dublin Bus were proposing, it's impossible to fully judge, we're just guessing really, the devil, as always is in the detail and the detail sadly we don't have for this.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

A moment ago you were talking about single tickets and flat fares now for some reason you've switched focus to something completely different such as period passes which is a totally different kettle of fish completely. I was talking about your average farebox revenue mainly, not monthly and yearly passes and you were too I thought for the previous posts?

When you mentioned farebox revenue I assumed we were talking about all types of tickets purchased. Is this not classified as the same type of revenue as fares paid on the bus if thats the case then DB's farebox is much less now compared to pre leap days.

Cookie_Monster

IS there a longer term plan to wean DB off farebox revenue & transfer facilities out of their ownership? If say the next 10% of routes are to be tendered in 2020-21, then the following 10% etc at what point do you start to address the facilities and fare structure, and indeed the fare transfers structure between NTA controlled and DB controlled routes (in terms of fare box allocations)

AlekSmart

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

IS there a longer term plan to wean DB off farebox revenue & transfer facilities out of their ownership? If say the next 10% of routes are to be tendered in 2020-21, then the following 10% etc at what point do you start to address the facilities and fare structure, and indeed the fare transfers structure between NTA controlled and DB controlled routes (in terms of fare box allocations)

It's "fair" (:D) to say,that one of the significant errors made during the initial preparations for the introduction of the ITS scheme to Dublin,was the decision to defer Integration to a later date in the proceedings.

The Integrated Ticketing Implimentation Group DID give consideration to the issue,but in time honoured Irish fashion,left it behind for somebody else to sort out.

That failure,was catastrophic for the value of the concept,and could have revolutionized how Leapcard functioned from the beginning,rather than now having to attempt to impose order upon chaos,when positions have become more entrenched....:rolleyes:

L1011

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

IS there a longer term plan to wean DB off farebox revenue & transfer facilities out of their ownership? If say the next 10% of routes are to be tendered in 2020-21, then the following 10% etc at what point do you start to address the facilities and fare structure, and indeed the fare transfers structure between NTA controlled and DB controlled routes (in terms of fare box allocations)

2019 for the farebox - the direct award element will go to the same structure

The depots are owned by CIE Group Property who will likely be willing to rent them out to others but expect union backlash as always

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's "fair" (:D) to say,that one of the significant errors made during the initial preparations for the introduction of the ITS scheme to Dublin,was the decision to defer Integration to a later date in the proceedings.

I agree completely, this is a mistake that many companies and in particular government organisations make. You have a broken process and rather then fix the broken process, they turn it into an IT project, thinking that IT will fix the process when of course it doesn't it just replicates the old broken process (as per the specs given) and now adds an extra layer of complexity to it.

Integrated paper ticketing has existed all across Europe for the past 50 years, we should have done the same first before then moving to smartcards/leap.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

You're ust another keyboard warrior next time your getting off bus a bus I dare you to say I hope you're replaced by a driverless bus instead of saying thanks go on I dare you.

Please attack the posters point of view and not the poster themselves.

Please do not reply to this post.

- Moderator.

dublinman1990

An NTA tender recently sought up to 50 midibuses for DB,BE & presumably for Go Ahead to operate their PSO services.

The tender was valued at €8 million. It asked for buses that were measured between 8.6m & 10.5m in length.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/190410

This tender was recently closed back on the 8th of May.

I wonder how many of these new midibuses will be in Go Ahead's hands when they have their routes off DB.

Stephen15

dublinman1990 wrote: »

An NTA tender recently sought up to 50 midibuses for DB,BE & presumably for Go Ahead to operate their PSO services.

The tender was valued at €8 million. It asked for buses that were measured between 8.6m & 10.5m in length.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/190410

This tender was recently closed back on the 8th of May.

I wonder how many of these new midibuses will be in Go Ahead's hands when they have their routes off DB.

More streetlites I wonder

Stephen15

dublinman1990 wrote: »

An NTA tender recently sought up to 50 midibuses for DB,BE & presumably for Go Ahead to operate their PSO services.

The tender was valued at €8 million. It asked for buses that were measured between 8.6m & 10.5m in length.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/190410

This tender was recently closed back on the 8th of May.

I wonder how many of these new midibuses will be in Go Ahead's hands when they have their routes off DB.

Good to see that single deckers are making a return to Dublin Bus or former DB routes for that matter. Certain local routes such as the 59, 63 and the 111 will never require a double decker.

LXFlyer

dublinman1990 wrote: »

An NTA tender recently sought up to 50 midibuses for DB,BE & presumably for Go Ahead to operate their PSO services.

The tender was valued at €8 million. It asked for buses that were measured between 8.6m & 10.5m in length.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/190410

This tender was recently closed back on the 8th of May.

I wonder how many of these new midibuses will be in Go Ahead's hands when they have their routes off DB.

Once again, I need to explain that all tenders for buses are prepared on a speculative basis, as there is no guarantee that government funding will be available when they come around to be ordered. They also may subsequently decide to change the mix of buses ordered. They hedge their bets basically.

Therefore take the details with some degree of scepticism and do not treat it as gospel.

Only when tenders for new buses are awarded should they be relied upon.

thomasj

dublinman1990 wrote:

I wonder how many of these new midibuses will be in Go Ahead's hands when they have their routes off DB.

It's purely expression of interest more than purchasing , if it was purchasing we'd have many more buses including VTs by now