Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion
Options
Comments
-
I think the NTA only finds dual doors necessary on cross city routes and it had thus never enlisted any of the routes that Go Ahead operate to be dual door operated while with Dublin Bus. Also generally apart from the 102, 184 and 270 the routes the Streetlites are on aren't very busy and thus having a single door on it wouldn't cost too much additional time for loading and unloading.
Regarding the NTA determining the times, this seems to be only in regards to frequency as the routes are designed to be interworked, the only reason the 239 changed from half past the hour, to 10 to the hour. This is most beneficial to GAI, so they must have had at least some say in the designing of the timetables. Same with single decker allocations where the 63 and 114 are double deckers so they can be interworked and the 111 is double deckers on Sundays as it is interworked with the 59 on Sundays.0 -
I think the NTA only finds dual doors necessary on cross city routes and it had thus never enlisted any of the routes that Go Ahead operate to be dual door operated while with Dublin Bus. Also generally apart from the 102, 184 and 270 the routes the Streetlites are on aren't very busy and thus having a single door on it wouldn't cost too much additional time for loading and unloading.
I'm sure they'd rather all double decker buses were dual door. They're just prioritising them for cross city routes as they're busier. Dual doors would be better for the single deckers although it would compromise some seating most single deckers in London are dual doors which is better apart from some that are too small for them.Regarding the NTA determining the times, this seems to be only in regards to frequency as the routes are designed to be interworked, the only reason the 239 changed from half past the hour, to 10 to the hour. This is most beneficial to GAI, so they must have had at least some say in the designing of the timetables. Same with single decker allocations where the 63 and 114 are double deckers so they can be interworked and the 111 is double deckers on Sundays as it is interworked with the 59 on Sundays.
I think Go-Ahead had some input into them but they were for the most part made by the NTA. I'd say what likely was the case was that the NTA gave Go-Ahead permission to use single deckers on certain routes but some they decided to put double deckers on them.
The 63 does needs double deckers at some times during the day but at most times of the day it can manage with single deckers as it can be busy with schools I've seen it fairly busy in the mornings where the bus would be leaving people behind if it was a single deck but a double decker has enough capacity. It would be better if it was operated by a mix of doubles and singles but appears the NTA want routes either solely operated by doubles or singles but then there's obviously cases where GAI put a double decker on the 33a, 33b, 102, 111, 184 or 184 but it's mostly single deckers on those routes.
The 104, 161, 220, 236, 238, 239 and 270 appear to be single decker only with no double deckers on them. The 63 and I'd say the 114 would be better if they were run with 50/50 double decker or single decker.0 -
Would anyone support the idea of an online petition to bring attention to the sub standard service that we now have with the routes that have been transferred across to Goahead Ireland? My own experience is that the 17 never shows up despite the realtime information, leaving me sitting at the bus stop for up to an hour before one finally arrives, and I can't afford taxis every morning to get to work.
With Dublin bus, we were able to follow the bus along the route of bus stops to see how fast it was moving through traffic. With the Transport for Ireland app, the bus is shown in realtime even when it's not on the road. There are too many ghost buses keeping people waiting in vain at bus stops.0 -
The 104, 161, 220, 236, 238, 239 and 270 appear to be single decker only with no double deckers on them. The 63 and I'd say the 114 would be better if they were run with 50/50 double decker or single decker.
104 had double deckers on the route Friday, 220 had them Saturday and yesterday.0 -
I thought GAI needed ten more double deckers in order to be able to take up the 18 and 76/a. If it's the case that these buses are yet to be built then the transfer of the routes will likely be another couple of months. The NTA have said that the new route 155 will be operational by early March at the latest when the 18 transfers to GAI.
It now appears that the 18/76 handover has been pushed back to the 24th March.
This in turn means that the startup of the 155 will also be delayed.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Would anyone support the idea of an online petition to bring attention to the sub standard service that we now have with the routes that have been transferred across to Goahead Ireland? My own experience is that the 17 never shows up despite the realtime information, leaving me sitting at the bus stop for up to an hour before one finally arrives, and I can't afford taxis every morning to get to work.
With Dublin bus, we were able to follow the bus along the route of bus stops to see how fast it was moving through traffic. With the Transport for Ireland app, the bus is shown in realtime even when it's not on the road. There are too many ghost buses keeping people waiting in vain at bus stops.
Your suggestion may well carry some merit,however it is unlikely to gain traction unless a means of publicising it can be found.
Are you suggesting that the 17 route has DISimproved under GAI's operation ?
Are you a long-term user of the route?
You point regarding the BAC App is easier to support as it can be directly compared route by route,clearly underlining the disimprovement between both apps for Bus users.
If you read through this thread,you will find many,many posts from a succession of interested people,some very detailed and informative,but virtually all prefaced by the term "I think".
Much thought does indeed go into these many posts,and it has to,due to the total absence of factual information from the National Transport Authority itself.
Interested "stakeholders" (for that is what WE are) are not being informed of actual Authority decisions,and,more importantly,the rationale behind the Authority's operational directions.
With the handover process now running at least 2 months late,and the knock-on effects being felt across a potentially far broader area,is far past time for the Authority to clear the table on the variety of issues it has remained silent on.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
It now appears that the 18/76 handover has been pushed back to the 24th March.
This in turn means that the startup of the 155 will also be delayed.
That seems to be the target of early March missed fairly badly. I'd imagine there's a fair bit of spare capacity now in Donnybrook that the 155 has been delayed. I'd say the 155 as a cross city route with a 20 minute frequency will use a fair but more capacity than the 18 unless the they're to move routes out of Donnybrook.
I'd also imagine that the gap left behind by the 17 and 114 is a lot larger than a one extra 11 and a few extra 54a departures.0 -
That seems to be the target of early March missed fairly badly. I'd imagine there's a fair bit of spare capacity now in Donnybrook that the 155 has been delayed. I'd say the 155 as a cross city route with a 20 minute frequency will use a fair but more capacity than the 18 unless the they're to move routes out of Donnybrook.
I'd also imagine that the gap left behind by the 17 and 114 is a lot larger than a one extra 11 and a few extra 54a departures.
Still a few routes to get new timetables from the go-ahead switchover , 25a/b, 38/a, 39a, 70 and 1550 -
Still a few routes to get new timetables from the go-ahead switchover , 25a/b, 38/a, 39a, 70 and 155
I don't get that as between them I would say roughly the 18 and 76 only have an allocation of around 20 buses but a lot more than 20 buses would required to increase frequency on the routes you mentioned plus starting up the 155.0 -
I don't get that as between them I would say roughly the 18 and 76 only have an allocation of around 20 buses but a lot more than 20 buses would required to increase frequency on the routes you mentioned plus starting up the 155.
Perhaps it would be dual garage operated with Harristown operating some departures, as they lost about 5-6 buses with the Blanchardstown locals, but got no additional work, although that is not extremely likely I reckon. Thus I presume that thr reason less work went to Donnybrook with the 17, 114 and 161 leaving the garage was precisely to have drivers for the 155 when it starts.
The 13 is also meant to be getting a new bill on the Coyningham Road side.0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps it would be dual garage operated with Harristown operating some departures, as they lost about 5-6 buses with the Blanchardstown locals, but got no additional work, although that is not extremely likely I reckon. Thus I presume that thr reason less work went to Donnybrook with the 17, 114 and 161 leaving the garage was precisely to have drivers for the 155 when it starts.
The 13 is also meant to be getting a new bill on the Coyningham Road side.
I believe Harristown are operating some Euro duties on the 7/a and the 46a too also more Euros on the 41s.0 -
Would anyone support the idea of an online petition to bring attention to the sub standard service that we now have with the routes that have been transferred across to Goahead Ireland? My own experience is that the 17 never shows up despite the realtime information, leaving me sitting at the bus stop for up to an hour before one finally arrives, and I can't afford taxis every morning to get to work.
With Dublin bus, we were able to follow the bus along the route of bus stops to see how fast it was moving through traffic. With the Transport for Ireland app, the bus is shown in realtime even when it's not on the road. There are too many ghost buses keeping people waiting in vain at bus stops.
This is what the people wanted. Get rid of Dublin Bus heard all over forums and social media. Terrible service..
Get used to it. You are stuck with GoAhead now.0 -
Would anyone support the idea of an online petition to bring attention to the sub standard service that we now have with the routes that have been transferred across to Goahead Ireland? My own experience is that the 17 never shows up despite the realtime information, leaving me sitting at the bus stop for up to an hour before one finally arrives, and I can't afford taxis every morning to get to work.
With Dublin bus, we were able to follow the bus along the route of bus stops to see how fast it was moving through traffic. With the Transport for Ireland app, the bus is shown in realtime even when it's not on the road. There are too many ghost buses keeping people waiting in vain at bus stops.
My experience with both apps has been that all timetabled departures within a period of 60 mins are listed and are removed if they fail to leave the terminus at their scheduled time.0 -
dashcamdanny wrote: »This is what the people wanted. Get rid of Dublin Bus heard all over forums and social media. Terrible service..
Get used to it. You are stuck with GoAhead now.
No this isn't what the people wanted. You say that like a democratic vote happened and now we're stuck with our decision. A few voices venting about a service online isn't the same as hoping for a worse service to be implemented.0 -
My experience with both apps has been that all timetabled departures within a period of 60 mins are listed and are removed if they fail to leave the terminus at their scheduled time.
Which route is that if you don't mind me asking? I only have first hand experience of the 17, and that definitely has ghost buses routes right down to 2 minutes away.0 -
Which route is that if you don't mind me asking? I only have first hand experience of the 17, and that definitely has ghost buses routes right down to 2 minutes away.
I have experienced it with the 63 and the 75 more so when it was with DB on the DB app though. Had a 75 disappear on me once though with GAI. It would disappear after it had reached 15 mins and go to 54 mins or something like that this was on the DB app.
The main issue I've had with RTPI since GAI have taken over is in DL the bus only appears up on the RTPI when it's due in 2 or 3 mins or disappears then reappears. Also the app and RTPI screens at the stops usually don't correspond.0 -
The 17 had these issues when DB were running it, i have first hand experience of it, it is the reason most locals no longer use it anywhere within an hour either side of peak times. I always blamed DB but maybe there are some other weird unexplainable issues there0
-
The 17 had these issues when DB were running it, i have first hand experience of it, it is the reason most locals no longer use it anywhere within an hour either side of peak times. I always blamed DB but maybe there are some other weird unexplainable issues there
I am hearing the same thing from colleagues about the 17, though I've never experienced that myself before now. I don't understand how vehicle tracking in this day and age is a problem for a national company.0 -
The 17 had these issues when DB were running it, i have first hand experience of it, it is the reason most locals no longer use it anywhere within an hour either side of peak times. I always blamed DB but maybe there are some other weird unexplainable issues there
The 17, 18 and 75 have always been problematic due to the fact they go through some of the more traffic prone areas of the city and their all pretty long aswell combination of those issues.0 -
Just a little nugget of information for you.
The 220 terminus is showing as "mulhuddart" . It's being a long time since the terminus in question has been called mulhuddart , in fact the last time it was called mulhuddart, it was the terminus for the 38A that ran from Middle Abbey Street via the quays and phibsboro,and we're going back to bombardier's solely running the route.0 -
Advertisement
-
The 17, 18 and 75 have always been problematic due to the fact they go through some of the more traffic prone areas of the city and their all pretty long aswell combination of those issues.
I know this but when you arrive early for a bus, sometimes early enough to catch the one before, and an hour after it arrives, none have shown up, there is something seriously wrong considering you could drive a car along that route in the space of time from its supposed departure in that heavy traffic and the bus would still not show up for another hour on top of this.
This is a historic problem that DB never tried to fix. It could have been solved with increased buses to attack the issue of buses not getting to the turn around point in time during rush hour traffic. It is simply that they don't care about the route or the customers.
Maybe this issue has passed onto the NTA and by virtue the GAI, maybe none of them care either. Although more realistically the GAI were never told how hard it was to run that route even close to on the timetable, due to the NTA also not getting that feedback.0 -
What was stopping them surveying routes before take over, real time would have been there too.0
-
punisher5112 wrote: »What was stopping them surveying routes before take over, real time would have been there too.
Bid prices for the tender were'nt simply whipped out of a hat,or scribbled on the back of an envelope.
All of those tendering would have carried out their own independent verification of the specifications,over and above what the Authority provided.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Bid prices for the tender were'nt simply whipped out of a hat,or scribbled on the back of an envelope.
All of those tendering would have carried out their own independent verification of the specifications,over and above what the Authority provided.
Exactly so how can there be such a cock up.0 -
I think my point was clear in that this is not novel to GAI. Should it have been fixed with the handover, well that would have been nice. The trackers for the 17 never relayed reliable data to the app so unsure what data the NTA provided, and maybe that is the issue, maybe they took the NTA at their word that these roues as described were plausible and runnable to a timetable etc.
It is one of those things where all three share some measure of blame, but the NTA would appear to be most to blame, followed in second jointly by DB and GAI, the first for giving the impression to anyone that it was a feasible timetable with such little resources put into it, the latter for being so niave to think it was doable without checking where there any other issues behind the scenes. Maybe GAI are more used to dealing with an agency that provides more believable data and expectations.0 -
The changeover isn't just the nice place to do such stuff, it's the right place. Now as they are underway on the route, we are backing to figuring it out on the fly. If it delayed the handover of the 17, well what's the rush?Bid prices for the tender were'nt simply whipped out of a hat,or scribbled on the back of an envelope.
All of those tendering would have carried out their own independent verification of the specifications,over and above what the Authority provided.
We don't know any of this, what was expected of either company or what was promised or how bid prices were figured out.
It would be very informative.0 -
The changeover isn't just the nice place to do such stuff, it's the right place. Now as they are underway on the route, we are backing to figuring it out on the fly. If it delayed the handover of the 17, well what's the rush?
We don't know any of this, what was expected of either company or what was promised or how bid prices were figured out.
It would be very informative.
Given that the Bus Atha Cliath Contract Schedule runs to 204 Pages,we actually do know a significant amount about the changeover phase.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dublin_Bus_Direct_Award_Contract_Schedules_Amended_03-2017_Website.pdf
For example,Page 169 of the amended schedule covers a substantial part of the Transition Services relating to hard factual Contractual Obligations on BAC's part.26.8
Scope of the Transition Services
26.8.1
The Transition Services to be provided by the Operator shall include (without limitation) such of the following services as the Authority may specify:
(a)notifying the Operator’s Sub-Contractors of procedures to be followed during the Transition Assistance Period and providing management to ensure these procedures are followed;
(b)providing assistance and expertise as necessary to examine all operational and business processes (including all supporting documentation) in place and implementing processes and procedures such that they are comprehensive, clear and capable of being used by the Authority and/or Successor Operator after the end of the Transition Assistance Period.
(c)delivering to the Authority the existing systems support profiles, monitoring or system logs, problem tracking/resolution documentation, status reports and, in respect of the maintenance and support of the Solution, historical performance data
over the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the commencement of the Transition Services;
(d)providing details of work volumes and staffing requirements over the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the commencement of the Transition Services;
(e)with respect to work in progress as at the end of the Transition Assistance Period,
documenting the current status and stabilising for continuity during transition;
(f)providing the Authority with any problem logs which have not previously been providedto the Authority;
(g)reviewing all software libraries used in connection with the Services and providing details of these to the Authority and/or its Successor Operator;
(h)analysing and providing information about capacity and performance requirements and known planned requirements for capacity growth across these areas;
(i)assisting in the execution of a parallel operation of the maintenance and support of the Services (or relevant part of the Services) until the end of the Transition Assistance Period or as otherwise specified by the Authority (provided that these Services end on a date no later than the end of the Transition Assistance Period);
and(j)answering all reasonable questions from the Authority and/or its Successor regarding the Service
All of this is,of course,best practice and indicative of a thoroughly well drafted set of contracts.
However it is totally one-sided,and impossible to cross-reference until the actual schedule of the "Successor Operators" contracts can be inspected by the stakeholders.
Until the Authority are prepared to demonstrate their committment to transparency and clarity in respect of their BMO programme,then they need not be too surprised should Stakeholder Scepticism increase as the programme continues.
"Commercial Confidentiality" as a catch all excuse for ill judged secrecy,simply does not bear scrutiny in a free and open society,particularly when other comparable Contractual Arrangements Worldwide,involving the same Operator are fully in the Public Domain.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
"Commercial Confidentiality" as a catch all excuse for ill judged secrecy,simply does not bear scrutiny in a free and open society.
You are really suggesting, that 'commercial sensitivity' is an excuse, despite the fact that NTA have to refuse a FOI request by law where commercial sensitivity is involved?
We can keep going around in circles as much as you like and you can keep banging that drum, but it won't change the laws and best practice of the land when it comes to tenders in this country. The fact is commercial sensitivity is well established in our legal system when it comes to these things and the courts will keep it that way even if someone tries to challenge it. This is just how it is and nothing is going to change that.
Every direct award contract has been treated in the same way as each other and every single tendered contract under the BMO process has been treated exactly the same way as others. They're treating each apple the same as every other apple, whilst treating each orange the same as every other orange. You can't get any farer than that but I guess people have been known to compare apples and oranges from time to time.Particularly when other comparable Contractual Arrangements Worldwide,involving the same Operator are fully in the Public Domain.
And again we see deflection and red-herrings being brought into this debate, not for the first time, where we try and compare an operator in a country where one set of competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, with one in a totally different country, where different competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, because giving a fair direct comparison would expose a seriously flawed argument.
The simple fact is that there have been two contracts let under the Bus Market Opening procedures and despite the fact that neither contracts have been published, we only hear about that being a problem for one of the operators who has been successful in this process, with barely a murmur about the other operator. To me that is profoundly strange since it seems to suggest that people may be using different rulebooks to two winners using the same process in the same country rather than treating them equally.
This suggests that much of this talk may well be influenced by ideology rather than concerns, since people with concerns would be concerned with the process in general, rather than crying foul when a commercial operator benefits from commercial confidentiality under a contract framework, but remaining completely silent when a publicly owned operator benefits from the same commercial confidentiality clause.0 -
You are really suggesting, that 'commercial sensitivity' is an excuse, despite the fact that NTA have to refuse a FOI request by law where commercial sensitivity is involved?
We can keep going around in circles as much as you like and you can keep banging that drum, but it won't change the laws and best practice of the land when it comes to tenders in this country. The fact is commercial sensitivity is well established in our legal system when it comes to these things and the courts will keep it that way even if someone tries to challenge it. This is just how it is and nothing is going to change that.
Every direct award contract has been treated in the same way as each other and every single tendered contract under the BMO process has been treated exactly the same way as others. They're treating each apple the same as every other apple, whilst treating each orange the same as every other orange. You can't get any farer than that but I guess people have been known to compare apples and oranges from time to time.
And again we see deflection and red-herrings being brought into this debate, not for the first time, where we try and compare an operator in a country where one set of competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, with one in a totally different country, where different competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, because giving a fair direct comparison would expose a seriously flawed argument.
The simple fact is that there have been two contracts let under the Bus Market Opening procedures and despite the fact that neither contracts have been published, we only hear about that being a problem for one of the operators who has been successful in this process, with barely a murmur about the other operator. To me that is profoundly strange since it seems to suggest that people may be using different rulebooks to two winners using the same process in the same country rather than treating them equally.
This suggests that much of this talk may well be influenced by ideology rather than concerns, since people with concerns would be concerned with the process in general, rather than crying foul when a commercial operator benefits from commercial confidentiality under a contract framework, but remaining completely silent when a publicly owned operator benefits from the same commercial confidentiality clause.
Can the same not be said when anyone says anything about the GAI contract, the Bus Éireann contract is always brought up. This in itself is deflection. As the very users you have accused of "deflection" have stated in this forum that they agree that the Bus Éireann Waterford should also be made public, yet you still consistently brings this up, so how is that not deflection? At the end of the day you will find that posters who are from Dublin may not have a huge interest in the Waterford Contract that is continuously brought up anytime anyone says anything about the GAI contract. But if as you claim people are basing their concerns on idealogy why has barely anything been said about the GAI Kildare Contract? A lot less has been said about it then the Bus Éireann contract. At the end of the day, people are generally only or mostly interested about the Dublin contract as that is what this thread is about. The NTA has also said that the Bus Éireann tender in Waterford wasn't the cheapest, they haven't done the same for the GAI tender. Is that perhaps because the GAI tender wasn't the cheapest? According to your logic why hasn't the NTA done the same for the Dublin PSO contract tender prices? The simple matter of fact is that there is a lack of information regarding the tender and that may be commercially sensitive information, however it doesn't change the fact that this is convenient for certain parties.0 -
Advertisement
-
Can the same not be said when anyone says anything about the GAI contract, the Bus Éireann contract is always brought up. This in itself is deflection. As the very users you have accused of "deflection" have stated in this forum that they agree that the Bus Éireann Waterford should also be made public, yet you still consistently brings this up, so how is that not deflection?
The Bus Eireann Waterford contract was let under exactly the same process as the contract as the Go-Ahead Dublin contract, so when people are making claims about the secrecy of contracts let under the process and making claims that the GAI contract is unique in the way that it has been handled (when it clearly isn't) then I think it is a valid and fair comparison to make as they both can be considered apples run under the same framework, rule books and in the same country.
It is a much more valid comparison than someone saying than comparing a case where an operator won a contract in country A and Country B, where Country B was under completely different rules, competition laws, tendering processes and best practices. That's before you consider the fact that EU competition law applies to Ireland and other European Union members whereas it doesn't to countries outside the European Union.
I have been on record of saying over a prolonged period of time that I do not care about individual operators, but what I do care about is public transport as a whole and seeing each type of tender treat both public and private operators the same - as far as I'm concerned the NTA have done that.But if as you claim people are basing their concerns on idealogy why has barely anything been said about the GAI Kildare Contract? A lot less has been said about it then the Bus Éireann contract.
Probably because it hasn't started yet?At the end of the day, people are generally only or mostly interested about the Dublin contract as that is what this thread is about.
We've also seen how things work in Singapore and other countries brought up, despite the fact that what happens in Singapore, which is a sovereign nation with it's own rules, laws, competition agencies and regulatory environments, is not comparable whatsoever.The simple matter of fact is that there is a lack of information regarding the tender and that may be commercially sensitive information, however it doesn't change the fact that this is convenient for certain parties.
The laws and rules on commercial sensitivity that are embedded in our court system may be inconvenient for certain parties, but they are still the law and I would expect all public bodies funded with taxpayer money to abide by the law.0
Advertisement