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

antoinolachtnai

Incidentally, we don't know whether the price that DB tendered was the same as its current costs under the direct award contracts or whether they put in a lower price for the purposes of the competitive tender.

AlekSmart

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah but the law says nothing about given it to a more expensive private operator based in another jurisdiction.

It (the Law) does'nt have to say anything about it.

We joined the EEC in 1970 and put in place a process,ratified by the Irish electorate on several occasions,which has developed into the current European Community.

There are quite a few who continue to express surprise at the Europeanization of Ireland,but it really is a bit too late for that now,particularly as many of us were more than willing to accept the Structural Development,Infrastructural and Area Aid funds,without ever contemplating that there was a caveat to all of this inward funding.

To be honest,the caveats are not exactly draconian,and in general terms tend to be positive for the Consumer/Customer.

Many of us,for example,travel freely throughout Europe and return full of admiration for the Bus systems in other European Cities and Regions,yet we manage not to notice that many of these excellent,reliable and affordable systems are operated on a Tendered basis,often by the same multi national companies which are roundly shouted down back home.

(We also,by and large,tend not to notice items such as Local Taxation,Property Taxation,and Service Charges which form an integral part of how these services are provided...but this is a topic for another thread ?)

With the National Transport Authority being 100% an entity of the Irish State,and thus far,retaining 100% Ownership of such assets as it provides to the successful tenderers,it does not compute that Anything is being given to Johnny Foreigner.

Equally,there is every facility available for ANY of the CIE subsidiaries to tender for the exact same opportunities throughout the EU,which would have been unthinkable (impossible) pre EEC/EU.

The well flagged future has arrived,and it's not all doom'n gloom either.
As with all change based situations,many many people will see it as unversally bad,many will struggle and perhaps withdraw from engaging with the entire process,however,most will adapt,most will learn to manage whatever is required to make the best of the new situation....and life will continue.

There are far greater threats to Ireland and it's people,than EU inspired Competitive Tendering of Public Transport

end of the road

XPS_Zero wrote: »

As to the bus thing, competition is not the same as privatization no matter how often unions and far leftys say it is. The central assets are still owned and controlled and regulated by the state. Nobody can look at CIE honestly and think there isn't a case for competition, given how terrible their work practices and management are.

i personally can say there is no case for competition, or at least the type of competition being offered. if it was viable to have multiple operators on the same route like the commercial routes, then competition might be worth it. however the type of "competition" being offered "here is your operator take it or leave it" is not worth the time or money in my view.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

however the type of "competition" being offered "here is your operator take it or leave it" is not worth the time or money in my view.

You mean like how it used to be with Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann? And still is with Irish Rail.

devnull

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah but the law says nothing about given it to a more expensive private operator based in another jurisdiction.

More expensive is what you think, despite the fact there has been nothing to back that view up aside from unverified speculation, whereas a statement from Anne Graham seemed to suggest otherwise as another posted pointed out a number of pages ago.

At the end of the day I care more about the quality of the products and services offered than the nationality of the company., It's great to support Irish but I'd rather have a foreign company who does a good job than an Irish company who does one not as good.

dfx-

devnull wrote: »

More expensive is what you think, despite the fact there has been nothing to back that view up aside from unverified speculation, whereas a statement from Anne Graham seemed to suggest otherwise as another posted pointed out a number of pages ago.

At the end of the day I care more about the quality of the products and services offered than the nationality of the company., It's great to support Irish but I'd rather have a foreign company who does a good job than an Irish company who does one not as good.

suggestive statements or quotes don't cut it as fact either.

Stephen15

n97 mini wrote: »

You mean like how it used to be with Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann? And still is with Irish Rail.

And how it is in pretty much every other European country's rail network except the UK and yet manage to operate efficiently.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Incidentally, we don't know whether the price that DB tendered was the same as its current costs under the direct award contracts or whether they put in a lower price for the purposes of the competitive tender.

Direct Award contracts see the operator keep the fares box, tendered contracts don't so I would say they are not the same or possibly not even comparable as revenue needs to be taken into consideration also when pitching a bid.

Mutant z

Good to see a private operator getting a major foothold in our capital city.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

suggestive statements or quotes don't cut it as fact either.

I agree, but a statement suggesting something from a body who has awarded the contract holds more weight than pure speculation, even if it isn't a fact.

The only thing we know for certain is that Bus Eireann were not the cheapest but they still won the Waterford City contract.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

And how it is in pretty much every other European country's rail network except the UK and yet manage to operate efficiently.

If you think every European countries rail network that are publicly run are operated efficiently and provide a good service I suggest you spend an extended time in the countries as a worker rather than someone on holiday and you might come to a different conclusion.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

If you think every European countries rail network that are publicly run are operated efficiently and provide a good service I suggest you spend an extended time in the countries as a worker rather than someone on holiday and you might come to a different conclusion.

Well the same could be said about the disaster that is franchised UK rail. Should all the countries that have a public system adopt the UK model probably not.

StreetLight

Mutant z wrote: »

Good to see a private operator getting a major foothold in our capital city.

Good for the operator? Maybe.
Good for you? Remains to be seen.

dashcamdanny

StreetLight wrote: »

Good for the operator? Maybe.
Good for you? Remains to be seen.

He may be in for a disappointment.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well the same could be said about the disaster that is franchised UK rail. Should all the countries that have a public system adopt the UK model probably not.

The UK Rail system is far from perfect, but it's not really privatisation because at the end of the day most things are still directly controlled by the government and are the result of government policies and forecasts rather than that of private companies. So even if it went over to public control most of the same problems would remain.

There have been many occasions where operators have wanted to run extra trains and order large numbers of trains and have been refused permission to do so by the government, who then blame the operator for overcrowding, despite the fact the government prevented the operator addressing it. The worst recent rolling stock projects of the lot have been the two ran totally by the UK Government.

Unfortunately the beauty of the UK Rail system for the UK government is it allows them to essentially take the credit for anything good that happens and then run and hide and let the operators take the flack for any of the bad things that may well be out of the operators control as they've been forced into it.

antoinolachtnai

There are many problems with UK rail but in one key way it has been a major success. That is, that passenger volumes are steadily growing after decades of decline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail

end of the road

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are many problems with UK rail but in one key way it has been a major success. That is, that passenger volumes are steadily growing after decades of decline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail

i'd reccan that is more down to internal conditions within the country rather then the franchising model or privatization. large scale traffic congestion and the growth of cities.

antoinolachtnai

end of the road wrote: »

i'd reccan that is more down to internal conditions within the country rather then the franchising model or privatization. large scale traffic congestion and the growth of cities.

They’ve had growth for decades really. The change in direction is very sharp.

(And over the same period, bus transport declined or flatlined.)

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Unfortunately the beauty of the UK Rail system for the UK government is it allows them to essentially take the credit for anything good that happens and then run and hide and let the operators take the flack for any of the bad things that may well be out of the operators control as they've been forced into it.

The same thing as to what the NTA are trying to do here to CIE. They are taking the credit for everthing good and blaming DB/BE/IE/Transdev for everthing bad. Look at the DB/BE/IE/Luas (Transdev) twitter pages for example the NTA want everyone to voice their complaints towards the CIE companies and not them.

The NTA say they want an integrated transport which is a good thing but they don't want the responsibility for a transport system why can't the NTA have their own Twitter page instead of having to contact IE/DB/BE/Transdev separately if you have a problem with the service.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

The same thing as to what the NTA are trying to do here to CIE. They are taking the credit for everthing good and blaming DB/BE/IE/Transdev for everthing bad. Look at the DB/BE/IE/Luas (Transdev) twitter pages for example the NTA want everyone to voice their complaints towards the CIE companies and not them.

The CIE companies themselves are unlikely to want everything to go through the NTA and they have 90% control of transport in this country. They've been on record of saying they want to exist in their own right and how much their brand is worth and that suggests that they are not going to want to go to a central system anytime soon and with how much control they have over transport it would not be easy to take a view like that on.

The other thing is that most rail franchises in the UK have been through at least two parties by now and all have to be re-tendered by the end of the contracts, there is no such thing as direct awards there, so as such operators know that they only have a contract for a specific time without rebidding when the CIE companies haven't had to rebid for anything until very recently, they've just got them handed to them on a plate and they know that if they resist hard enough, perhaps most of their existing work will be handed on a plate to them for another few years too.

Also if you think it's only one way you'd be wrong, Dublin Bus, Bus Eireann and Irish Rail are also only too happy to take credit for positives that were not down to them and were the result of NTA initiatives too.

The NTA say they want an integrated transport which is a good thing but they don't want the responsibility for a transport system why can't the NTA have their own Twitter page instead of having to contact IE/DB/BE/Transdev separately if you have a problem with the service.

You have to remember that Dublin Bus have stated that they do not want to lose their brand. I would be very surprised if any of the other companies involved in CIE would be of a different opinion and unlike in the UK where there is no operator with a massive majority, CIE is and runs approx 90% of public transport in this country and with that much market share, it brings concentration of power in a way that isn't possible in the UK due to the presence of a number of large groups.

Stephen15 wrote: »

The NTA say they want an integrated transport which is a good thing but they don't want the responsibility for a transport system why can't the NTA have their own Twitter page instead of having to contact IE/DB/BE/Transdev separately if you have a problem with the service.

Well in fairness, if you have a day to day issue, you would contact the company who operates the service day to day.

I mean if you have a problem with your broadband Comreg wouldn't be your first port of call, Eir/Virgin/etc. customer support would be and only if it wasn't resolved after a few weeks, would you escalate it to Comreg.

Regulators are supposed to be involved in overall strategy, not necessarily the minutiae of day to day operations.

Having said that we are heading to a sort of Transport For London sort of model, so you might eventually get that, but we still have a long way to go.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

I mean if you have a problem with your broadband Comreg wouldn't be your first port of call, Eir/Virgin/etc. customer support would be and only if it wasn't resolved after a few weeks, would you escalate it to Comreg.

Regulators are supposed to be involved in overall strategy, not necessarily the minutiae of day to day operations.

Having said that we are heading to a sort of Transport For London sort of model, so you might eventually get that, but we still have a long way to go.

I've always believed that urban public transport should be about getting people from a to b in the most efficient way possible not about competition it should not be about competition or anything else. Competition is viable in the broadband sector but not in the public transport sector.

The fact that the NTA are now more than just the regulator they are the owner of buses that contract a service out to GA and from 2019 they will contract to DB and BE also. The NTA are involved in the overall strategy when it comes to making new routes and timetables etc.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I've always believed that urban public transport should be about getting people from a to b in the most efficient way possible not about competition it should not be about competition or anything else. Competition is viable in the broadband sector but not in the public transport sector.

The fact that the NTA are now more than just the regulator they are the owner of buses that contract a service out to GA and from 2019 they will contract to DB and BE also. The NTA are involved in the overall strategy when it comes to making new routes and timetables etc.

Competition can come in different forms.

You can have out and out direct competition with little or no regulation.

You can have regulated direct competition, like GoBus/Citylink to Galway or Aircoach/GoBE to Cork.

Or you can have competition at the contracted service level every few years, like how Luas is run or London Bus.

The first two definitely aren't suited to urban public transport. But I do think that the last can work quite well as we have seen with Luas here or buses in London.

The advantage of the last is that is can keep companies on their toes. They have standards to reach per their contract and have to respond to the regulators needs or they might lose the contract.

This model makes sense to anyone who runs a business. Imagine you needed a company to come in and clean your office once a week. Now imagine you told them they have a contract for life and they can just tell you their terms and conditions and set their price and you have no choice!! Well that is pretty much what we had with DB in the past and it is a dumb ass model!

What makes more sense is you set a contract with strong terms and conditions, penalties for not reaching certain standards and a contract review every few years.

BTW Competition in the Broadband market isn't that different. There are really only two true broadband networks, Eir and Virgin. The rest, Sky, Vodafone, etc. are just reselling Eir's service. Thus as a result of Eir's market dominance, it is highly regulated, what they can offer and charge, etc. is constantly reviewed by Comreg and amended by them.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

bk wrote: »

I mean if you have a problem with your broadband Comreg wouldn't be your first port of call, Eir/Virgin/etc. customer support would be and only if it wasn't resolved after a few weeks, would you escalate it to Comreg.

Regulators are supposed to be involved in overall strategy, not necessarily the minutiae of day to day operations.

Having said that we are heading to a sort of Transport For London sort of model, so you might eventually get that, but we still have a long way to go.

I've always believed that urban public transport should be about getting people from a to b in the most efficient way possible not about competition it should not be about competition or anything else. Competition is viable in the broadband sector but not in the public transport sector.

The fact that the NTA are now more than just the regulator they are the owner of buses that contract a service out to GA and from 2019 they will contract to DB and BE also. The NTA are involved in the overall strategy when it comes to making new routes and timetables etc.

A monopoly is never efficent no mater what the sector because there is no real Iniative to provide an efficent service since even if you don't you won't lose very much or have anything to compare it with.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

A monopoly is never efficent no mater what the sector because there is no real Iniative to provide an efficent service since even if you don't you won't lose very much or have anything to compare it with.

Again I will elude to the example of the rails systems across most EU countries which have a one operator monopoly with the exception of a very small minority of open access operators.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

The fact that the NTA are now more than just the regulator they are the owner of buses that contract a service out to GA and from 2019 they will contract to DB and BE also

One thing to clarify in relation to this is that the operators receive, register and maintain the vehicles themselves.

Buses have always been legally "owned" by the operator (i.e the operator gains "title" to the asset provided to them), and this will continue to operate that way even for GA, the difference now however is that the contracts (since 2014) stipulate that the operator must transfer the buses to another operator if required and that is why a number of DB buses will transfer to GA, this is why it is incorrectly assumed the NTA own all buses provided since 2014, they don't. It is probably more accurate to say the NTA retain control as opposed to ownership of the fleet.

Pre 2014 buses are not subject to this clause.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Again I will elude to the example of the rails systems across most EU countries which have a one operator monopoly with the exception of a very small minority of open access operators.

I never said that doesn't happen in EU countries - I simply took exception that they were all well run and efficient.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

I never said that doesn't happen in EU countries - I simply took exception that they were all well run and efficient.

Yes they are not all efficient but the same can be said about some private operators

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Yes they are not all efficient but the same can be said about some private operators

If fully commercial operators are not efficient they most likely won't be in business for long unless they have a wealthy backer.

They do not have the luxury of a taxpayer bailout.

Stephen15

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

They’ve had growth for decades really. The change in direction is very sharp.

(And over the same period, bus transport declined or flatlined.)

Even BR was not franchised it would have had to have been restructured heavily anyway under EU law. For example it would have had to be split between an operating company and an infrastructure management company. Almost all of the investment in rolling stock and infrastructure has come from the government and the EU. In fact rail transport has grown in almost every EU country over the last 20 years.