nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

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?

bebeman

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.

antoinolachtnai

And none of this takes away from the fundamental fact: if NTA can drive down unit costs by even 10 percent, it can increase services correspondingly, without any extra cost to the fare-payer.

Can costs be driven down? I would say yes, from my own experience in the sector and having looked at DB's costs, which are in the same ballpark as London's and far higher than other places.

antoinolachtnai

By PSO regulation you mean amended 1370/2007?

What exclusion from tendering excludes ireland? Ireland doesn't have local transport authorities, one operator operates bus services in the whole geographic area, and the national transport authority doesn't own or otherwise control the operator. The CIE contracts are clearly worth more than 1 million euros and have far greater distances than 300,000 km.

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.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

All routes have to be tendered from 2019.

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.

Where does it say this in the Forth Package?

In the "PSO (Rail Amendment) Regulation" (Regulation (EU) 2016/2338) which forms part of the Fourth Railway Package and amends the PSO Regulation in relation to the awarding of rail contracts.

It comes into effect from 3/12/19. Under the existing PSO Regulation Direct Award contracts for rail can be provided for rail with no "subject to" criteria, however the new regulation applies a de minimus threshold for direct award contracts for rail of either a contract value of €7.5M or annual mileage of less than 500,000 km. Rail PSO here operate above both and so must be tendered from 2019.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

All routes have to be tendered from 2019.

Coming back to this statement, this belief stems from an ill-informed (weather deliberate or genuine I don't know) statement put out previously by The Coach Tourism and Transport Council of Ireland (CTTC) that the EU mandated the Irish bus market must be tendered from 2019 - they obviously looked only at the main provisions of the PSO Regulation and failed to examine the allowed exclusions, as such their statement is factually incorrect, the problem is that the media who are equally ill-informed present such statements as statements of fact and the general public then buy the story.

The reality is that yes the EU have mandated for competitive tendering of PSO bus routes across the EU, but, that requirement is not absolute.

Bus tendering has de minimus thresholds (just like rail will from 2019) of €1M or annual mileage of less than 300,000, unlike rail these thresholds have been in place since the PSO Regulation and are not new. The provisions however of the PSO regulation and de minimus limits are subject to an "unless prohibited by national law" clause (as per the PSO Regulation itself), and our national laws give DB and BE exclusive rights to operate bus services as per the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 (as amended). This satisfies the PSO Regulation clause which means mandatory tendering of bus routes in Ireland is not a requirement of EU law.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

All routes have to be tendered from 2019.

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.

Where does it say this in the Forth Package?

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

But you will always have an element of that in an environment where services are regulated and there is an overarching regulator or transport authority, because quite frankly the average member of the public sees just the operator and not how it is structured from a regulatory point of view or how the services are procured.

This can be a benefit to the operator in some cases, when the regulator does something that passengers like, the passengers then praise the operator even though the operator had no say in this. On the other hand if the regulator makes an operator do something someone doesn't like, the operator will carry the can even though it's not under their control.

I see what you are saying totally - but the average member of the public just sees the operator and assumes everything, be that positive or negative, is under their control. They're just not interested in the ins and outs of it like we might be and that may lead to wrong perceptions.

If Dublin Bus had won the bid, we'd also have an issue where people would be falsely assuming that the services are happening because of Dublin Bus and I'm sure Dublin Bus would only be too happy to take the credit for this even though it was not something directly under their control.

6 of 1 half dozen of the other.

He was making the point from a neutral sense. But highlighting the fact that GA may receive more credit than their due and DB could fair badly by no fault of their own.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

All routes have to be tendered from 2019.

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.

antoinolachtnai

This is all about unit cost. If the unit cost comes down, the volume of services can go up without any extra cost to the fare payers.

The NTA has no real discretion about tendering. This is a done deal at the European level. All routes have to be tendered from 2019.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

I think what he is trying to say is that people will falsely think GA have singlehandedly increased the number of services which will reflect badly on Dublin Bus leading to some wanting to expand GA across the whole network believing they are a one stop shop quick fix with an endless amount of buses.

But you will always have an element of that in an environment where services are regulated and there is an overarching regulator or transport authority, because quite frankly the average member of the public sees just the operator and not how it is structured from a regulatory point of view or how the services are procured.

This can be a benefit to the operator in some cases, when the regulator does something that passengers like, the passengers then praise the operator even though the operator had no say in this. On the other hand if the regulator makes an operator do something someone doesn't like, the operator will carry the can even though it's not under their control.

I see what you are saying totally - but the average member of the public just sees the operator and assumes everything, be that positive or negative, is under their control. They're just not interested in the ins and outs of it like we might be and that may lead to wrong perceptions.

If Dublin Bus had won the bid, we'd also have an issue where people would be falsely assuming that the services are happening because of Dublin Bus and I'm sure Dublin Bus would only be too happy to take the credit for this even though it was not something directly under their control.

punisher5112

IE 222 wrote: »

Your misunderstanding his point.

I think what he is trying to say is that people will falsely think GA have singlehandedly increased the number of services which will reflect badly on Dublin Bus leading to some wanting to expand GA across the whole network believing they are a one stop shop quick fix with an endless amount of buses.

110%

IE 222

devnull wrote: »

Whoever won the tender was going to operate the routes at an enhanced frequency. Claims the enhanced frequency only is happening because Go Ahead won to make them look good is ridiculous because everyone who tendered is tendering for the same thing at the end of the day.

Your misunderstanding his point.

I think what he is trying to say is that people will falsely think GA have singlehandedly increased the number of services which will reflect badly on Dublin Bus leading to some wanting to expand GA across the whole network believing they are a one stop shop quick fix with an endless amount of buses.

IE 222

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Considering they are willing to spend the same on training new recruits with a B licence, and they will possibly get fined or lose money if not set up in time, I would expect Go Ahead to fund it.

If its true that is.

I wonder was this possible cost factored into their application. If so then the tax payer is footing the bill.

devnull

punisher5112 wrote: »

Of course it will make them look good as so many have an issue with db.

Look at it as you like I'm just stating the facts as so many won't even notice it's a different operator.

Whoever won the tender was going to operate the routes at an enhanced frequency. Claims the enhanced frequency only is happening because Go Ahead won to make them look good is ridiculous because everyone who tendered is tendering for the same thing at the end of the day.

dfx-

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I assume the Go Ahead employees will unionise, just like the LUAS staff did. Thinking that tendering absolves you from whatever issues you have with unions seems off the mark.

then we can go through another torturous tendering process to find a cheaper workforce.

It'll work one time if we do it often enough.:pac:

dashcamdanny

IE 222 wrote: »

If true who is footing this payment.

Considering they are willing to spend the same on training new recruits with a B licence, and they will possibly get fined or lose money if not set up in time, I would expect Go Ahead to fund it.

If its true that is.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

The Luas employees did not unionise Connex (now Transdev) struck a deal with SIPTU meaning that Siptu would be the only union representing Luas staff and the staff had to be members of SIPTU ie a closed shop.

If GA staff were to be unions which they probably will be it, it will likely be the unions looking for the employees not the employees looking for the unions.

Oh yes the partially unlawful/unconstitutional pre-entry agreement which nobody has ever challenged.

LuckyLloyd

Stephen15 wrote: »

The Luas employees did not unionise Connex (now Transdev) struck a deal with SIPTU meaning that Siptu would be the only union representing Luas staff and the staff had to be members of SIPTU ie a closed shop.

If GA staff were to be unions which they probably will be it, it will likely be the unions looking for the employees not the employees looking for the unions.

Fine, either way the staff will end up in a union - which is the point.

IE 222

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.

If true who is footing this payment.

Stephen15

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I assume the Go Ahead employees will unionise, just like the LUAS staff did. Thinking that tendering absolves you from whatever issues you have with unions seems off the mark.

The Luas employees did not unionise Connex (now Transdev) struck a deal with SIPTU meaning that Siptu would be the only union representing Luas staff and the staff had to be members of SIPTU ie a closed shop.

If GA staff were to be unions which they probably will be it, it will likely be the unions looking for the employees not the employees looking for the unions.

punisher5112

devnull wrote: »

There wasn't a 35% increase in services to make Go-Ahead look better, there would have been a 35% service increase whoever won the bid since this formed part of the tender. Suggesting that the increase happened to make Go-Ahead look better and wouldn't have otherwise happened is simply not the case.

There is also an increase happening on Waterford services that Bus Eireann won, again not because they are trying to make Bus Eireann look good but because that was what the tender outlined and would have happened no matter who won it.

Of course it will make them look good as so many have an issue with db.

Look at it as you like I'm just stating the facts as so many won't even notice it's a different operator.

I'm not always with db but it's another quango and selling off our assets.

We don't need to give everything off to private companies to make even bigger profits.

LuckyLloyd

I assume the Go Ahead employees will unionise, just like the LUAS staff did. Thinking that tendering absolves you from whatever issues you have with unions seems off the mark.

dashcamdanny

Canteen rumours are, and I repeat rumours.

There is a cash incentive for DB drivers to transfer.

Some saying 5k, some saying 10k.

devnull

punisher5112 wrote: »

There is a 35% increase in services just in time to make GA look even better.

There wasn't a 35% increase in services to make Go-Ahead look better, there would have been a 35% service increase whoever won the bid since this formed part of the tender. Suggesting that the increase happened to make Go-Ahead look better and wouldn't have otherwise happened is simply not the case.

There is also an increase happening on Waterford services that Bus Eireann won, again not because they are trying to make Bus Eireann look good but because that was what the tender outlined and would have happened no matter who won it.

punisher5112

Nta can't let GA fail or the luas.

I fully agree db be ir all have their flaws and top heavy management etc.

Bus connects is going to change a lot and I wonder what way it will work with the GA routes they are getting.

There is a 35% increase in services just in time to make GA look even better.

Remember the nta has all the power and db etc has to look for permission to add or run extra buses.

In the dual door use I have stated I use them when safe to do so or it's clear someone is waiting to alight from them.

The issue I see is there are so many stops that aren't safe or access to them is extremely limited with road space provided, type of layout, time of day/night due to legal and illegal parking, deliveries, taxis and so on
If I can't get in parallel to safely allow ease of stepping out to the path then anything else is not safe due to risk of falling, tripping it even been hit by a cyclist or whatever can fit up the inside.

We should adopt the UK approach of double red lines meaning no parking or stopping etc at any time.

Bus stop boxes to be in yellow and longer to facilitate buses as their size and extra thick yellow line along the kirbs as to highlight it's bus and no other use.

IE 222

KC8 wrote: »

It seems that many people still cant see past an ideological position that is pro or anti private sector. In my opinion, the focus should sit squarely with the customer and the tax payer.

The customer wants as good a service as funding will allow. The tax payer doesn't want their money wasted.

Here are just some of the examples of why I think competition will be good for Dublin.

Example 1 of unacceptable work practice: Restrictions on efficient timetabling. See page 64 and 65 of http://www.dttas.ie/sites/default/files/publications/public-transport/english/cost-and-efficiency-review-dublin-bus-and-bus-eireann-january-2009/cost-and-efficiency-review-dublin-bus-and-bus-e%CC%81ireann-january-2009.pdf

Example 2: Blocking progress for no good reason
http://www.dublinbusdrivers.com/Post_2330_Departures.html

Example 3: Refusing to alter work patterns when asked http://www.dublinbusdrivers.com/route9.html

Go Ahead will be a new operator and wont have to deal with this kind of archaic union resistance to change.

In the case of Dublin Bus, if all of the above examples were done away with tomorrow, the customer and tax payer would be far better off. The drivers would still have the same take home pay - they would simply be working in a more efficient way and in a manner that is reflective of the 21st century.

Another indirect benefit of having competition is that it may bring some sense to bear on unions within Dubin Bus. Hopefully they will see the writing on the wall. If they want Dublin Bus to remain a dominant player in the bus market in the medium to long term, they need to do away with the most extreme positions currently adopted. A previous poster correctly highlighted the impending 24 hour operation of certain bus routes as relevant here - something that has been talked about for many years without any progress. Had Go Ahead not won the tender, I suspect we would not have had any talk of 24 hour operations!

Don't get me wrong - I am not any Union. They play an important role. But I am against Unions blocking progress for no good reason.

The first example is nearly 20 years ago and isnt really an issue now. Obviously driver and passenger welfare is important and the working time directive needs to be adhered to. Geographical issues created part of problem unless you expect buses to be parked up overnight in each housing estate. Another problem is that a bus must do a return journey in order to complete a second or third route by which time the rush hour commute is over. Another issue is the funding of additional drivers to extend the extra rush hour buses later which to be fair probably aren't needed after 6pm. Opening another depot further out not only has additional costs but has the reverse effect in PM traffic as the buses will need to travel into the city to start its routes.

In relation to post 23:30 departs any union is going to protect its members working terms and conditions. Post 23:30 departures suggests later last bus departures rather than 24hrs operations. Drivers are contracted to work between certain times of the day. There is a difference between operating 24hrs services and expecting a driver to work beyond their normal contracted working hours without offering new terms and conditions or additional benefits for working outside their normal hours. It will suit some drivers to work later into the night but not everyone and no union is going to sit back and watch a company change everyones working hours. Its not that the union is againts later buses as nitelinks wouldnt be possible if the case it just requires putting drivers on the correct contract.

In terms of your 3rd example thats an inhouse dispute between the union and DB and not a case of DB refusing to follow NTA instructions. What the reason behind it is I dont know, its possible drivers were not finishing or getting their correct break time as a result of been reassigned duties midway through a shift but it could be over many other things as well and these type of politics are in every company. Their argument seems fair and set and the NTA dont be ringing DB asking them to run a 9 to the city centre only at short notice.

NTA request 24hrs services not DB. So if anything its the NTA trying to prove their worth or to look busy with the sudden changes over the last year or maybe its to divert some of attention any from the current mess of the LUAS CROSS CITY which many think Trandev are responsible for.

L1011

soundman45 wrote: »

So much yap about contracts and so on. No coincidence dublin bus has decided to run 24hr routes on trial. For sure though it has created a buzz among drivers in the city, so many I work with and chat to are thinking of switching to go ahead. 32k plus shift and benefits is not bad and if you get trained to D license standard by the company a slightly lower salary is still good as you will always hold the licence.
Dublin Coach drivers will apply.
Any drivers on tour work will apply instead of doing 14hrs a day.
I reckon go ahead will have no trouble getting drivers especially as routes are away from city center and routes on offer were very senior dublin bus routes.

It's the NTA who are deciding on 24h routes, not Dublin Bus

[Deleted User]

So much yap about contracts and so on. No coincidence dublin bus has decided to run 24hr routes on trial. For sure though it has created a buzz among drivers in the city, so many I work with and chat to are thinking of switching to go ahead. 32k plus shift and benefits is not bad and if you get trained to D license standard by the company a slightly lower salary is still good as you will always hold the licence.
Dublin Coach drivers will apply.
Any drivers on tour work will apply instead of doing 14hrs a day.
I reckon go ahead will have no trouble getting drivers especially as routes are away from city center and routes on offer were very senior dublin bus routes.

Stephen15

That appears to relate to those strikes in Harristown which were not supported by unions back in 2009.