Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

bebeman

GM228 wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that Anne Graham has been quoted as saying the overall contract with GA saved money for the state compared to DB.

.

Care to back this up with any proof?

L1011

bebeman wrote: »

Care to back this up with any proof?

You state DB were cheaper without proof. Burden is as much on you

bebeman

bk wrote: »

DB simply sticking their heads in the sand and thinking they are great and have no problems and/or blaming any issues on the NTA/government/etc. would be a very destructive path to go down IMO.

.

Who sets fares?
Who sets routes?
Who sets frequency?
Whoever does these 3 thing is who posters here have a problem with, and it aint DB.

bebeman

TallGlass wrote: »

Yeah think I will hold off on it to be honest. 32 would have been okay, but below that, you just cannot afford to live, even at 32 that's still pushing it.

Only a guess but if like DB it would be on a 5/6 year pay scale, so you would start on 27k and go up 1k each year of service

bebeman

devnull wrote: »

By that I mean excluding all allowances, premiums and bonuses? .

As a DB driver, please post any info you have regarding Bonuses, as i have never received any and what to ensure i get what im owed.

bebeman

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Canteen rumours are, and I repeat rumours.

There is a cash incentive for DB drivers to transfer.

Some saying 5k, some saying 10k.

The 5k rumour is nothing to do with transfer of staff to Go Ahead.
The rumour is Marked in drivers who's route is transferring over to Go ahead will receive 5K in compensation for loss of marking in.
No one i know is interested in a transfer to Go Ahead.

bebeman

L1011 wrote: »

You state DB were cheaper without proof. Burden is as much on you

see post #691
The big unfounded statement was made by the poster and all i asked for was proof.
Seems to be pro DB and negative NTA post need proof, while negative DB and pro NTA posts need zero proof.
Dont you find that strange?

dfx-

L1011 wrote: »

You state DB were cheaper without proof. Burden is as much on you

No it isn't. The burden of proof is on those who made the decision, the NTA in this case.

antoinolachtnai

bebeman wrote: »

The deck was stacked against DB from the start, they were never going to win the tender, we all know that so stop pretending it was a fair process.
The NTA set the level of service standard required, and if you like it or not DB meet or better these standard levels.
So DB put in a bid, cheaper than Go Ahead and meeting all standard required by the NTA , and they loose, A cheaper tender and required standards, and still loose! Let that sink in for a moment.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/questions-remain-on-why-services-were-outsourced-36021212.html
"There are also questions as to why Dublin Bus lost the right to operate these routes. The decision to outsource was taken by the last government, and it's hard to imagine that the contract could have been awarded to the incumbent."
"The fact that Dublin Bus won on price, but lost on technical or quality issues, is in itself interesting. The contract was not awarded solely on the basis of cost, but also on the ability to deliver services."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-dublin-bus-as-uk-firm-wins-contract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html
"The Irish Independent understands that the State-owned company scored higher than UK firm Go-Ahead on price in a competitive tendering process overseen by the National Transport Authority (NTA), but ranked lower on technical aspects."

So the NTA set the terms of tender, we want X service level, Now at what price can you deliver this service?
DB come in Cheaper than Go Ahead and loose, dont sound like a good deal for the Tax Payers.

In the face of such manifest bias, we can presume that CIE/DB challenged the unjust decision through the public procurement appeal process. How did that go for them?

bebeman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

In the face of such manifest bias, we can presume that CIE/DB challenged the unjust decision through the public procurement appeal process. How did that go for them?

Who do CIE/DB work for?
How does it work out for any employee who call out his boss on a matter?

antoinolachtnai

bebeman wrote: »

Who do CIE/DB work for?
How does it work out for any employee who call out his boss on a matter?

I thought DB's boss was the Irish people? How do DB management sleep at night having left an injustice like this stand?

Have you (or the other DB management) considered taking advantage of the whistleblower protections?

bebeman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I thought DB's boss was the Irish people? How do DB management sleep at night having left an injustice like this stand?

Have you (or the other DB management) considered taking advantage of the whistleblower protections?

DB do as they are told, like all employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_whistleblower_scandal
That worked out really well for Maurice McCabe

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

By PSO regulation you mean amended 1370/2007?

Yes, Regulation 1370/2007 is known as the PSO Regulation.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What exclusion from tendering excludes ireland?

The ability to award direct tender which unless prohibited by national law is subject to the de minimus thresholds, but, as national law allows for Direct Award to DB and BE without any qualifying criteria the de minimus thresholds do not apply because as national law does not prescribe any limit then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Ireland
doesn't have local transport authorities,

I never said it did.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

one operator operates bus services in the whole geographic area, and the national transport authority doesn't own or otherwise control the operator.

Ownership is irrelevant. The NTA have huge control however over the CIE companies in terms of how they provide public transport services, in fact they have more or less exclusive control. Even a minimal influence over the performance of their public passenger transport activities is enough to satisfy the test of control.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The CIE contracts are clearly worth more than 1 million euros and have far greater distances than 300,000 km.

Indeed they do, but the limits as I said can be ignored under the national legislation provisions.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I just don't see where you are getting the exemption from. Various structures for a transport authority to provide in-house services are certainly allowed for, but it is hard to see how CIE companies qualify as in-house to the NTA.

The CIE companies are certainly internal operators for the purposes of the PSO Directive as the NTA exercise almost total control over their PSO services.

LuckyLloyd

Wait, DB were the cheaper tender?! What?

GM228

bebeman wrote: »

The deck was stacked against DB from the start, they were never going to win the tender, we all know that so stop pretending it was a fair process.
The NTA set the level of service standard required, and if you like it or not DB meet or better these standard levels.
So DB put in a bid, cheaper than Go Ahead and meeting all standard required by the NTA , and they loose, A cheaper tender and required standards, and still loose! Let that sink in for a moment.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/questions-remain-on-why-services-were-outsourced-36021212.html
"There are also questions as to why Dublin Bus lost the right to operate these routes. The decision to outsource was taken by the last government, and it's hard to imagine that the contract could have been awarded to the incumbent."
"The fact that Dublin Bus won on price, but lost on technical or quality issues, is in itself interesting. The contract was not awarded solely on the basis of cost, but also on the ability to deliver services."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-dublin-bus-as-uk-firm-wins-contract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html
"The Irish Independent understands that the State-owned company scored higher than UK firm Go-Ahead on price in a competitive tendering process overseen by the National Transport Authority (NTA), but ranked lower on technical aspects."

A paper saying they "understand" the DB bid was cheaper with no evidence means nothing. The same paper however also stated:-

Clarity is needed.

bebeman wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that Anne Graham has been quoted as saying the overall contract with GA saved money for the state compared to DB.

Care to back this up with any proof?

However another paper who quotes Anne Graham as saying she was:-

confident the tendered service will result in savings for the State

holds a bit more credability and weight than one which simply speculates. If it was down to DB and GA than her statement must be inferred to mean a saving for the state over DB.

The paper you quoted however also said something similar oddly enough:-

The NTA said it could not outline the savings which would be generated from the outsourcing of routes at this stage, but has previously said that operating costs could drop by as much as 30pc.

bebeman wrote: »

DB come in Cheaper than Go Ahead and loose, dont sound like a good deal for the Tax Payers.

As I pointed out previously tendering is not just about the cost aspect.

antoinolachtnai

No, CIE and its group companies are not internal operators of the National Transport Authorities.

Firstly, NTA do not nominate directors to the board. They cannot influence major financial decisions of the CIE group (such as raising a bond). They cannot choose the management of the company. CIE is owned and controlled by the Minister for Transport and this is clearly provided for in statute. The NTA is not some sort of 'shadow director' of CIE.

CIE's PSO activities are not carried out by any distinct legal entity. They are spread across companies which have a mix of PSO and other revenue. CIE's companies willingly entered into the public service contracts. There are various ways that the companies could have been required to do certain things under PTRA2009, but this never arose, as far as I know.

The argument that because CIE has direct award contracts, that therefore it is an internal operator and so entitled to direct award contracts into the future is plainly circular and wrong.

The ability to award direct tender which unless prohibited by national law is subject to the de minimus thresholds, but, as national law allows for Direct Award to DB and BE without any qualifying criteria the de minimus thresholds do not apply because as national law does not prescribe any limit then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation.

There is a lot packed into this sentence.

Can you spell this out to me in terms of the PSO directive and the national legislation?

What 'de minimus' thresholds are you talking about?

then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation

Can you give me more detail on this? You are saying that national legislation can 'prohibit' (i.e., take priority over) an EU regulation? Can you explain the precedent for this in European law?

The idea that CIE is somehow exempt from this is a nice idea but I just can't see the legal basis for it. I don't see how the Railway Package changes anything.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

No they don't, mandatory tendering (with some exceptions) from 2019 only applies to rail in accordance with changes made to the PSO Regulation under the EUs Fourth Railway Package. Direct award can still apply to road transport.

This little known fact,will, to my way of thinking dictate the NTA's next move in the BMO process.

Currently,the NTA is carrying out the mandatory "Statutory Review" of the existing Direct Award contracts.

The results of this review will then be communicated to the DA holders in advance of the 2019 BMO announcement.

My prediction is that. Bus Atha Cliath & Bus Eireann will have their DA contracts renewed for a further 5 years (until 2024).
10% of those DA routes will be then subject to a Competitive Tendering process from 2022.
By this time the initial Go Ahead package will have been running for 3 years and will be generating the relevant comparative statistics,which will further inform the NTA as to how the second tranche should proceed.

As we are still denied access to the new BMO Contract specifications,it is currently impossible to make accurate resumé or predictions in relation to the entire process.

The MAJOR concern of the NTA throughout the 2019 period will be the very fraught situation concerning Irish Rail,particularly in the light of the EU's 4th R.P. stipulations,in addition to big-ticket projects such as MetroLink.

As is currently very obvious,the continuing absence of factual information from the Contracting Authority,has led to a situation where the field is left to an ever more eclectic group of individuals to pursue personal political crusades with impunity.

Whether this "Keep them in the dark" policy is actually an NTA corporate one is open to conjecture,but for sure,every day that passes without some clarity on the BMO Contract increases the risk of the entire process being discredited.

Yet again,and fully aware that Singapore is NOT a member of the EU :eek:, I draw comparisons between the handling of,what is a rather similar programme of change.

I find it of interest that the Singapore Authority followed a diametrically opposed path on the Price vs Quality elements....

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/first-11-packages-negotiated-sbs-transit-smrt-buses-tender

In awarding the tender, the LTA said on Friday that proposals would be judged for both quality and price, with more weightage given to quality.

The Irish NTA weighted it 65% Cost-35% Quality.
Singapore LTA weighted it 65% Quality- 35% Cost.

Either way,as each day passes,the presence of this Cloak of Secrecy,even if draped in a "Commerciality" disguise is becoming less acceptable.

If such a highly Commercially tuned state as Singapore,can manage to fully publish their Bus Tendering Process,then,little ol Ireland has sweet bugga all of an excuse not to !!!

devnull

bebeman wrote: »

see post #691
The big unfounded statement was made by the poster and all i asked for was proof.
Seems to be pro DB and negative NTA post need proof, while negative DB and pro NTA posts need zero proof.
Dont you find that strange?

If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up. Simply saying that you are saying something and we should simply take it at face value because you or any other poster on boards said so, simply means that your claim is unproven.

I have seen no article that has confirmed that the Dublin Bus bid was cheaper. I have only seen people makining claims they are unable to substaniate or back up and the quotes from Anne that GM228 pointed out, suggested the bus market opening will save up to 30% and there are other quotes from Anne which have previously been posted that confirm that Bus Eireann won a bid on the Waterford tender despite being more expensive than some of the people they were bidding against.

If you can show me a quoted comment from Anne Graham or someone else who would be able to confirm and have access to such information, that explicitly states that the Dublin Bus bid was cheaper, I will be happy to concede I am wrong, but at the moment there is nothing more than unproven speculation behind the claims that you are making and on the other side, as another poster pointed out, there are quotes from Anne Graham which would hold more water.

bebeman wrote: »

come in Cheaper than Go Ahead and loose, dont sound like a good deal for the Tax Payers.

I assume that you have also made your feelings known about the Waterford bus contract where it has been confirmed by Anne Graham that the Bus Eireann bid was more expensive?

end of the road

did Anne Graham give a prediction of where she believes this 30% saving will come from?

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

This little known fact,will, to my way of thinking dictate the NTA's next move in the BMO process.

...

If such a highly Commercially tuned state as Singapore,can manage to fully publish their Bus Tendering Process,then,little ol Ireland has sweet bugga all of an excuse not to !!!

Have you been able to find results of their tenders? Price, contract, etc?

I would say that there is inspiration to be drawn from Singapore, but you can't really apply the model directly here. When the Singaporeans talk about 'quality' what they mainly mean is 'adherence to timetable'. The biggest significant difference is the road conditions (in particular the peculiar decision to run the most frequent railway service in the country right through the main traffic junctions). But there are also legal differences about penalty clauses (though nothing significant to do with procurement law that I can see).

You are basically right of course, that NTA is going to use tendering to get leverage against the CIE bus companies.

The problem of the railways is an old one. It is massively politically loaded and the money involved in keeping very marginal train stations open is phenomenal when you compare it to the cost of running a couple of single-deckers.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Have you been able to find results of their tenders? Price, contract, etc?

I would say that there is inspiration to be drawn from Singapore, but you can't really apply the model directly here. When the Singaporeans talk about 'quality' what they mainly mean is 'adherence to timetable'. The biggest significant difference is the road conditions (in particular the peculiar decision to run the most frequent railway service in the country right through the main traffic junctions). But there are also legal differences about penalty clauses (though nothing significant to do with procurement law that I can see).

You are basically right of course, that NTA is going to use tendering to get leverage against the CIE bus companies.

The problem of the railways is an old one. It is massively politically loaded and the money involved in keeping very marginal train stations open is phenomenal when you compare it to the cost of running a couple of single-deckers.

I am not suggesting that we adopt Singapores Bus Tenderin Process in total,one would need to be somewhat removed from reality to lay a direct comparison between Singapore and Ireland.

However,in relation to their Bus Market Tendering process,it has very pertinent and direct comparisons which,I believe cand,and should be used in order to ensure that the Irish NTA steps back from the old ways of the Established Civil Service from which it has evolved.

2019 will bring with it a skipfull of issues for the NTA relating to Rail Transport in Ireland,which is why I suspect,they will require virtually all of their resources to deal with.

The BMO process is now underway (as it has been for 10 years now,if anybody had bothered to notice) and a period of sustained calm observation is what is required...my guess is the NTA will factor this requirement into their Diary.

Here's a dollop of detail on the recent Singaporean LTA Bus Tendering Programme.......

http://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/bukit-merah-bus-package/

Even the original signed documents are available to the Singaporean Publik.....https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/tender/doc/13226/PT203%20Tender%20Schedule.zip

Bit of a difference to the big fat informational ZERO,oul Paddy is treated to........Commercially Sensitive my backside

L1011

bebeman wrote: »

see post #691
The big unfounded statement was made by the poster and all i asked for was proof.
Seems to be pro DB and negative NTA post need proof, while negative DB and pro NTA posts need zero proof.
Dont you find that strange?

In post 690 you state as fact that DB was cheaper. Which is also unfounded.

You haven't got proof, have you?

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

Here's a dollop of detail on the recent Singaporean LTA Bus Tendering Programme.......

http://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/bukit-merah-bus-package/

Even the original signed documents are available to the Singaporean Publik.....https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/tender/doc/13226/PT203%20Tender%20Schedule.zip

Bit of a difference to the big fat informational ZERO,oul Paddy is treated to........Commercially Sensitive my backside

That is very interesting. It is interesting to drill down into it. It looks like 24 services, 365 vehicles, for 5 years for 475 million, which is 95 million a year SGD (60 million euros a year) which about 164,000 euros to operate each vehicle.

This is an awful lot cheaper than DB! (look at the total cost of the PSO service and subtract out the net depreciation) Costs of living in SG are higher than in Ireland. (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=Singapore)

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is very interesting. It is interesting to drill down into it. It looks like 24 services, 365 vehicles, for 5 years for 475 million, which is 95 million a year SGD (60 million euros a year) which about 164,000 euros to operate each vehicle.

This is an awful lot cheaper than DB! (look at the total cost of the PSO service and subtract out the net depreciation) Costs of living in SG are higher than in Ireland. (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=Singapore)

Indeed,however as I have been told-off already about not knowing that Singapore was'nt in the E.U. ,you can make whatever comparisons you like about costs etc....We all know (?) that there are two totally different societies at play here...BUT...The principle of having those Public Contract Details FULLY available to the general public,is what suggests the Singaporeans may understand the principles of transparency and clarity a bit better than Ann Graham and her lad's.....

antoinolachtnai

Absolutely. At the end of the day what matters is unit costs like cost per peak vehicle and cost per km. There is no way they can keep this some big secret.

We are talking about operating buses here. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of dark art reliant on trade secrets about schedules and quality really needs to cop themselves on. There are many complex aspects to running public transport, but intellectual property management is not one of them.

Is the actual contract up on the LTA website somewhere?

AlekSmart

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-bus-operator-short-of-drivers

As the man says......

National University of Singapore transport researcher Lee Der Horng noted that Tower Transit, which won the first government bus tender, has not faced problems in holding on to its staff despite offering a pay package similar to Go-Ahead's.

"It's not just about the salary," he added.

What IS of relevance here ,is how Go-Ahead Singapore dealt with the issues,particularly how it swiftly recognised that softly-softly catchee monkey,may be a more productive approach than going in with all Accountancy Cannons blazing.....;)

antoinolachtnai

Yes, I think there is a lot to that. There are lots of interesting HR issues in transport operations.

As long as there are still human drivers, this is where money is going to be made and lost (and not in protecting the devilishly clever ideas you put in your tender proposal).

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes, I think there is a lot to that. There are lots of interesting HR issues in transport operations.

As long as there are still human drivers, this is where money is going to be made and lost (and not in protecting the devilishly clever ideas you put in your tender proposal).

For sure...the notion that we in Ireland,can quote some alleged E.U. Commercial Confidentiality Mumbo-Jumbo to keep the BMO Contract Process off-the Public Radar is total balderdash....even more so now that the Successful Tenderer demonstrably has no issues with the free availability of such information in similar processes elsewhere ?

The NTA has'nt a leg to stand on here. Publish the contract details and be done with it !

IE 222

AlekSmart wrote: »

For sure...the notion that we in Ireland,can quote some alleged E.U. Commercial Confidentiality Mumbo-Jumbo to keep the BMO Contract Process off-the Public Radar is total balderdash....even more so now that the Successful Tenderer demonstrably has no issues with the free availability of such information in similar processes elsewhere ?

The NTA has'nt a leg to stand on here. Publish the contract details and be done with it !

Here here.

If the 30% saving and major improvements Anne's suggesting are true you can bet your bottom dollar we would be all hearing about it by now.

bebeman

devnull wrote: »

It doesn't happen, yet the poster linked to a document on a trade union website signed by a senior trade union official who is now on the board of CIE. Why would someone release a statement and a circular to union members if it was not true?

It didn't happen in your opinion - yet the poster has not made any claims, they've simply referenced a trade union source and a document contained therein which is signed by four SIPTU reps of the garage that it comes from?

To me it's a little bit odd claiming that a union didn't do something when the union reps themselves are claiming on a union rep run website that it did happen and have their names listed alongside such document.

Or am I misinterpreting what you say?

Not ONE signature on the documents posted.
For all we know they could be made up documents by the owner of the website, who by the way no one knows who they are.
What proof do you have that the web site is run by a union rep?
It could be anyone larping and stirring up shÍt for all we know

Just had a quick look at some documents on the website, none had a signature, how do you know they are real and not a larp?