IE 222 wrote: » That can be done by CIE if for CIE and its should be done if still required. Why CIE would sell a garage to fund an NTA project is beyond me.
john boye wrote: » I see now that I quoted all of your post when I was only referring to the 2nd para. I don't think CIE should sell any DB depots.
IE 222 wrote: » Yeah, unless it's operationally benefit for them in order to build a more suitable garage for DB or BE. I always felt if a new garage was to be built somewhere along the R136 would be ideal with easy access to Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan. Summerhill and Conyngham Rd would fetch a nice few quid and could easily be accommodated in current depots and a new build in west Dublin.
john boye wrote: » That's pretty much exactly where DB were looking in the 2000s. Not sure if that was before or after Harristown opened in 04.
Stephen15 wrote: » I thought they wanted to build one in Grange Castle
IE 222 wrote: » Why CIE would sell a garage to fund an NTA project is beyond me.
markpb wrote: » Brand awareness, worries about other companies stealing their routes and concerns about jobs being taken away are all concerns for private companies and unions, not for the board of a state agency
Stephen15 wrote: » I would have thought they would have received the cost of the tender minus the cost of the depot.
GM228 wrote: » No, that can't be done (if that was the case then there would never have been an issue with depot provision as the NTA would be paying for it one way or the other). A PSO contract payment is for the actual cost of service operation (wages, fuel, maintenance etc) + reasonable profit, it does not cover purchase/construction of a depot etc. In other words as I already stated if a depot is provided or not the value of the PSO contract does not change. If a depot is to be provided this is by way of capital funding which is a separate payment to the PSO contract. If the NTA were providing GA with their depot they would of received a capital grant of €8.5M (I think that was the cost of the depot) on top of the PSO tender amount.
Stephen15 wrote: » Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it bar the 1.
john boye wrote: » Yes Ringsend does seem to be the ugly child of all the DB garages. It's always been the one that was going to close in the past whenever DB were looking at a West location. Not sure if DB/NTA would see much of that land value though, isn't it still owned by Eircom (or whatever they're called now)? Think DB has a long-term lease on it.
antoinolachtnai wrote: » NTA cannot give GA a capital grant for a depot which GA would then own. It would be state aid. It would be illegal. There are ways that this could be structured, but it would be tricky. The rent or depreciation on a depot is part of the actual cost of service operation. It is perfectly reasonable for that to be included in a PSO contract payment.
markpb wrote: » Have you forgotten who owns CIE and why it exists at all? Your ideological hatred for privatisation is making you forget that it's a state agency whose only purpose in life is to provide public transport. All it's funding comes from the state. Without the state, it wouldn't exist. It's only shareholder is a government minister. Everything it owns is held in trust for the state. Brand awareness, worries about other companies stealing their routes and concerns about jobs being taken away are all concerns for private companies and unions, not for the board of a state agency. Whether you agree with the NTA policy of tendering for route operations or not, it's very important that state agencies remember why they exist and who owns them. They exist to serve a single well defined purpose.
dfx- wrote: » I don't expect a state agency to donate stuff to private companies.
dfx- wrote: » They're only ever a state agency when it suits you for them to be one.
dublinman1990 wrote: » Re: The depots & bus routes with Dublin Bus & Go Ahead. Would the NTA have to apply for planning permission to carry out improvement works in all of their depots if they wanted to install charging points if they want to buy electric buses under BusConnects? My second point about bus route allocation rumours about the 14, 15 in Donnybrook. How many buses would be required for their PVR from their current garages? Donnybrook already have a big amount of buses already allocated both for the 46a & 145 at the moment. Would it become a possibility that some of Donnybrook's routes be a surplus to requirements & possibly transfer to other garages if space there was at a premium when the transfer of some of Donnybrook's routes to Go Ahead happens in early October? If I was looking at it myself; I could place the 47 in Ringsend instead of Donnybrook after the transfer of Donnybrook's other routes happens with Go Ahead by then. I could make this as a suggestion if the 16 was also transferred to Donnybrook from Summerhill. The reason that I would put the 47 in Ringsend is because it will be easier for that bus to start or end their shift in Poolbeg Street. The effect of dead running will be very minimal because the route passes outside Ringsend Garage in either direction. I am not sure what will happen with drivers not knowing the route before hand. DB could train their drivers if they take the route from Donnybrook. But would Ringsend currently have enough buses to run it if they have the intital planning to do it?
punisher5112 wrote: » Shortly anyone looking for their change tickets on Dublin bus it will be no more. Move to leap as cashless is been brought in after that.
tabbey wrote: » Why would Eircom or whatever, have any connection to Ringsend bus depot
Stephen15 wrote: » My suggestions for some manageable frequency increases on Donnybrook and Ringsend routes once Go Ahead start operating. Route 1- Increase to every 15 mins Route 4- Move 50% of services to Donnybrook and increase to every 10 mins Route 11- Increase to every 20 mins Route 14- Increase to every 15 mins Route 27- Increase to every 15 mins at weekends Route 44- Move some services to a Northside depot possibly Summerhill and increase to every 40/45 mins Route 47- Increase to every 45 mins Route 54a- Move to Ringsend and increase to every 20/25 mins Route 61- Increase to every 40/45 mins Route 84/a- Increase to every 40/45 mins off peak and every 20 mins during the peak with the 84a. Also increase to clockface hourly on weekends.
john boye wrote: » I'd say the 11 and the 61 would be a good fit at Ringsend too although the 61 would be difficult with it being part of the 14
Stephen15 wrote: » The 11 should stay in Donnybrook as there will be more spare capacity in Donnybrook left by Go-Ahead to allow it to increase in frequency, why move it to Ringsend? Donnybrook is nearer to Sandyford than Ringsend.
Stephen15 wrote: » Is that going to be the case as soon as Go-Ahead start operating?
john boye wrote: » By that logic Ringsend is closer to Glasnevin. I'm not sure about your Donnybrook space point. They're taking on Summerhill's share of the 14 and the entire 15 route. I don't know how many buses they're losing to GA but half of the 14 and the entire 15 sounds like an awful lot more. Seems to me they'll have to move out a bit more than just the 47/54A.
punisher5112 wrote: » 9th September. Go ahead is starting in Sept with a handful of routes.
Stephen15 wrote: » At a rough guess I would say Go-Ahead is freeing up about 45-50 buses in Donnybrook and the 14 and 15 would require about 35-40 buses so that leaves 10-15 buses free to increase the frequency of other Donnybrook routes.
