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

dfx-

Stephen15 wrote: »

Thought that the 184 sounded like a route too busy for single deckers myself.

Anyone who has got the 184 would know this. Yet again, preparation and knowledge on the ground is found wanting...

Stephen15

loyatemu wrote: »

apparently a lot of kids couldn't get on at Temple Carrig this afternoon, and reportedly someone on the bus in a wheelchair couldn't disembark. I did see a double decker heading towards Bray this evening but that was at around 9pm.

Teething problems I guess, single deckers are fine for most of the day and at weekends but doubles are needed for the peak.

They have won the tender to routes which are more suitable for single deckers than the 184. I would say the 63 which has had all double deckers on it since Go-Ahead have taken it over would probably be more suitable than the 184 as it used to manage fine when it was mostly operated by WVs before they were all withdrawn.

loyatemu

Panjandrums wrote: »

Using single deckers on the 184 route at peak times was a bad idea, people are crammed into it and it's running 20 mins plus behind, DB was 10 minutes behind on a very bad day.

apparently a lot of kids couldn't get on at Temple Carrig this afternoon, and reportedly someone on the bus in a wheelchair couldn't disembark. I did see a double decker heading towards Bray this evening but that was at around 9pm.

Teething problems I guess, single deckers are fine for most of the day and at weekends but doubles are needed for the peak.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Not only has Fianna Fail been caught spreading propaganda for the likes of the NBRU in relation to BusConnects proposals to transform our cities bus services into something a modern city like Dublin deserves in the biggest public transport project in the history of the state, it is also now suggesting that ideology is more important than the quality of bus service offered to every man, woman and child in Ireland.

It is important that any regulator or commissioner of public transport has teeth to hold to account the companies that operate public transport services and to take services away from companies that do not offer an adequate level of service to the public, as without such there is no incentive to run a quality service when the operator knows however bad the service is, they will retain it. If we just tell a company that they have services forever more no matter what where is the incentive to provide quality service?

Unfortunately Fianna Fail seems to believe however bad a service is, that does not matter and what matters the most, is simply who the operator is. I beg to differ. The quality of service is the most important thing. As usual with Fianna Fail, it's the wrong priorities and a party that has learnt nothing from the crisis that they left this country in almost a decade ago.

We must never go back to the times where people were given a contract with no incentive to provide a quality service. We must never go back to the money for nothing culture where money is given without accountability of how it is being spent, we must never go back to the blank cheque mentality, and we certainly must never go back to the times where ideology was more important than public service.

It is also worth remembering that Fianna Fail were the ones to first suggest the tendering out of bus services in Dublin when they were in government around the late 90s/early 00s. I think the figure back then was somewhere around the 25% mark.

sharper

devnull wrote: »

Once again Fianna Fail showing that when push comes to shove, it will always put the interests of the few who work for Dublin Bus, ahead of the many that depend on public transport services to get to home, work, school, university and to see family and friends, many of which whom have no other option as they don't or are unable to drive.

I don't think Fianna Fail cares about a few at Dublin Bus either, it's a useful issue for them to attack the government and build support. The added bonus is that if Go Ahead want to do more business in Ireland they need to find their way to the right tent at the Galway races envelops in tow.

devnull

Before I say anything else I'll say with a caveat, I don't care who operates my bus service, but what I do care about is that there are mechanisms for dealing with operators who do not provide an acceptable standard of service and I believe that the NTA should have a fundamental right to seek an alternative operator if an operator does not provide an acceptable service to the public.

marno21 wrote: »

Apologies if this deserves its own thread. Fianna Fail introduced an amendment to the Dublin Transport Authority (now NTA) Bill to prevent further "privatisation" of routes

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-10-18a.201

Once again Fianna Fail showing that when push comes to shove, it will always put the interests of the few who work for Dublin Bus, ahead of the many that depend on public transport services to get to home, work, school, university and to see family and friends, many of which whom have no other option as they don't or are unable to drive.

Not only has Fianna Fail been caught spreading propaganda for the likes of the NBRU in relation to BusConnects proposals to transform our cities bus services into something a modern city like Dublin deserves in the biggest public transport project in the history of the state, it is also now suggesting that ideology is more important than the quality of bus service offered to every man, woman and child in Ireland.

It is important that any regulator or commissioner of public transport has teeth to hold to account the companies that operate public transport services and to take services away from companies that do not offer an adequate level of service to the public, as without such there is no incentive to run a quality service when the operator knows however bad the service is, they will retain it. If we just tell a company that they have services forever more no matter what where is the incentive to provide quality service?

Unfortunately Fianna Fail seems to believe however bad a service is, that does not matter and what matters the most, is simply who the operator is. I beg to differ. The quality of service is the most important thing. As usual with Fianna Fail, it's the wrong priorities and a party that has learnt nothing from the crisis that they left this country in almost a decade ago.

We must never go back to the times where people were given a contract with no incentive to provide a quality service. We must never go back to the money for nothing culture where money is given without accountability of how it is being spent, we must never go back to the blank cheque mentality, and we certainly must never go back to the times where ideology was more important than public service.

GM228

marno21 wrote: »

Apologies if this deserves its own thread. Fianna Fail introduced an amendment to the Dublin Transport Authority (now NTA) Bill to prevent further "privatisation" of routes

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-10-18a.201

It's only a Private Members Bill, the chances of it getting through the various stages and then actually becoming law are very slim, very few PMBs ever make it to a Presidential signature.

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

But this is my arguement, and I've had rows in Dublin bus over this

If I'm working for 4 and a half hours and want my break, which I did, I was told where to go with myself and flat out refused.

Why are they getting away with it !

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Leaving tacho law aside and just looking at Irish employment law, how is anyone getting away with making you "Work" for over 4 and half hours without a break. Driving or not driving.

Anybody who drives (or travels on) a vehicle for their employer carrying passengers (or goods) for hire or reward is specifically exempt from the 4.5 hour break time afforded by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

If I had a cent for the amount of times this has been raised at the WRC I'd be very rich, I remember one particular DB rep raising the issue several times (on at least 3 or 4 separate occcassions IIRC) obviously forgetting the 2 or 3 previous times he was shown how wrong he was.

Stephen15

Panjandrums wrote: »

Using single deckers on the 184 route at peak times was a bad idea, people are crammed into it and it's running 20 mins plus behind, DB was 10 minutes behind on a very bad day.

Thought that the 184 sounded like a route too busy for single deckers myself.

Panjandrums

Using single deckers on the 184 route at peak times was a bad idea, people are crammed into it and it's running 20 mins plus behind, DB was 10 minutes behind on a very bad day.

.G.

marno21 wrote: »

Apologies if this deserves its own thread. Fianna Fail introduced an amendment to the Dublin Transport Authority (now NTA) Bill to prevent further "privatisation" of routes

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-10-18a.201

Someone needs to explain to him what privatisation actually means.

Stephen15

dashcamdanny wrote: »

All of these issues relate to the NTA and again the lack of investment within the service. . Go AHead will have the exact same list of complaints.

Lack of investment by the NTA is directly at fault here. Not the companies that use their equipment.

True to some extent. The NTA are far from perfect and need to do more to improve improve the service I would agree but if all the problems with bus services in Dublin are the fault of the NTA then how come the service was significantly worse before their existence?

sharper

end of the road wrote: »

you just ask dublin bus to sort it out, and if it isn't ran as mandated dublin bus doesn't get paid. it's as simple as that.

Somebody has to define what "as mandated" means, in the specific. Traditionally Dublin Bus defines what is "as mandated" and the degree to which they met that standard. We know well that worked out because it works as well as anywhere when you let one organisation define everything.

It's the difference between deciding what you want your kitchen to look like and then hiring someone to do it versus having the only carpenter in town come in and do what he feels is best.

Tendering introduces a critical barrier between what bus transport is supposed to be like and how successful someone is at running it that way.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

The problem we have seen time and time again with companies that have monopolies (whether public or private) is that since they have a monopoly, they can always go out on strike and cripple the service if they don't like what the NTA is mandating, even if it is for the public good.

Monopoly leaves them with too much power and too much say. The company gets to drive the agenda, rather then the customer (both direct, NTA and indirectly the poor suffering public transport users).

We have seen this time and time again with DB and BE over the decades and with the likes of Telecom Eireann, etc.

the customer isn't always going to get to drive an agenda whatever system is in place though.
i don't believe that companies are going to go out on strike just because the NTA mandates something they don't like, unless it is something that actually genuinely threatens the terms and conditions of the staff. if the NTA mandates something and it doesn't threaten the terms and conditions of the workers, then there would be nothing to be gained by strike action.

sharper wrote: »

Bus Connects is an NTA proposal because the expectation that the entirety of the network should be run by a single operator is now gone.

We now design a bus network by designing something that best serves the needs of the population, letting the public have their say on it and then tell the operators to operate it. Otherwise you just ask Dublin Bus to sort it out and it runs the services that are the easiest for it to run.

Sure you don't need tendering to achieve specific outcomes but tendering works well elsewhere at doing so and it does here too.

you just ask dublin bus to sort it out, and if it isn't ran as mandated dublin bus doesn't get paid. it's as simple as that.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

The fact that you think the only way to improve services is by throwing more money at the problem says it all!

We have had plenty of experience of throwing lots of extra money at public services and ending up with little or nothing to show for it.

The health sector is a perfect example of this, a complete black hole that you can toss money all day. One of the best financed health systems in the world (15th per capita), yet still a terrible service returned.

because the managers won't manage and the government won't actually oversea and do anything about what is going on. instead when the management screw up they will protect them until eventually the public outcry means they are left with no option but to resign.

bk wrote: »

There are plenty of ways to improve service without needing extra money. Getting drivers to consistently use dual doors shouldn't need to cost more. You can bet GoAhead will have their drivers doing this much more due to their experience with dual doors in London.

i'm not going to bet that go ahead would or wouldn't have their drivers using dual doors more for the simple reason that given our lax enforcement in relation to bus stops and traffic in general, i can't say that stops will or won't be fully safe or be suitable for the drivers to use both doors. like dublin bus go ahead will want to try and prevent compensation claims from those looking for a quick buck, so i wouldn't be surprised if there are some stops where double door will be used and others not. but time will tell i guess.

bk wrote: »

Seemingly GA are using a different, more advanced scheduling and roster system that they also use in London, a much more sophisticaed system then DB. This may lead to better efficiency and better positioning and utilisation of drivers and buses then DB currently do.

perhapse it may, time will tell. but there is always the possibility that it won't due to external factors.

bk wrote: »

GA also have lots of experience using hybrid buses, EV buses and multi door triaxles in London and Hong Kong, experiences which could be very helpful here in Ireland for future bus purchases.

agreed, however the NTA could always have gone on their own fact finding mission (which they should be doing anyway in relation to everything new) to find out about hybrid and EV busses.

bk wrote: »

New blood can bring lots of valuable experience and changes in work practices which can help improve performance and efficiency, without necessary requiring lots of extra money or cuts in wages.

they can, but unless they translate into some actual improvements specifically down to them that are extra, and will benefit people,, then to me we are just spending money on having another operator for the sake of it.

bk wrote: »

GA's presence is exactly the kick up the ass that DB and BE need to help them modernise things and offer a better service to the public.

if they were running the services without input from the NTA then i would agree. however given everyone is being told what they must and mustn't do by the NTA then ultimately i see no difference being made that couldn't be done by dublin bus operating the routes with the NTA mandating things as part of the direct award contract.

bk wrote: »

Just like UPC/Virgins massive investment into broadband in Ireland finally helped kick Telecom Eireann/Eircom/Eir out of their lazy monopolistic ways into a relatively healthy and competitive company offering relatively decent services to the public today.

Competition is good.

that's a very different situation to be fair. 1 company decided off it's own accord to make a commercial decisian to invest in braudband. as far as i know they weren't forced to do it and they weren't on contract from the government or a government quango by where all companies were mandated to invest in braudband. so they took a risk and it paid off and benefited lots of people. with the PSO bus sector on the other hand, the benefits come from the regulator mandating various requirements as part of the contract, for which the operators ultimately make no real difference to the process as far as i can see. so really, for me, i don't think we are ultimately benefiting from this "competition" as such, rather the work of the NTA.

sharper

end of the road wrote: »

you don't need tendering to remove those issues. service ran as mandated or you don't get paid would get them sorted pritty quickly. bus connects is an NTA proposal, tendering didn't bring that about. it was decades over-due anyway.

Bus Connects is an NTA proposal because the expectation that the entirety of the network should be run by a single operator is now gone.

We now design a bus network by designing something that best serves the needs of the population, letting the public have their say on it and then tell the operators to operate it. Otherwise you just ask Dublin Bus to sort it out and it runs the services that are the easiest for it to run.

Sure you don't need tendering to achieve specific outcomes but tendering works well elsewhere at doing so and it does here too.

end of the road wrote: »

you don't need tendering to remove those issues. service ran as mandated or you don't get paid would get them sorted pritty quickly. bus connects is an NTA proposal, tendering didn't bring that about. it was decades over-due anyway.

The problem we have seen time and time again with companies that have monopolies (whether public or private) is that since they have a monopoly, they can always go out on strike and cripple the service if they don't like what the NTA is mandating, even if it is for the public good.

Monopoly leaves them with too much power and too much say. The company gets to drive the agenda, rather then the customer (both direct, NTA and indirectly the poor suffering public transport users).

We have seen this time and time again with DB and BE over the decades and with the likes of Telecom Eireann, etc.

end of the road

sharper wrote: »

Exactly so the key thing here the one who defines the service is distinct from who operates the service. This is the main improvement tendering gives us.

It brings an end to the days of Dublin Bus moving in mysterious ways, running services as they suit. Even if 10 years from now it's still just GAI at 10% it's a far better setup for users of public transport.

Just compare the design and implementation of Network Direct versus Bus Connects. Even if you dislike bus connects the way it's being designed is far more transparent.

you don't need tendering to remove those issues. service ran as mandated or you don't get paid would get them sorted pritty quickly. bus connects is an NTA proposal, tendering didn't bring that about. it was decades over-due anyway.

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is that this "competition" isn't really bringing anything of it's own to the table. the NTA is doing all the work. the NTA are responsible for the improvements via funding and mandating various things in the contract. go ahead is simply operating the services and will get paid regardless. so to me there is no real competition here, it's more theoretical. it's simply another operator operating routes when we could spend the money on 1 and still get the same things and use a carret and stick approach to insure compliance.

The fact that you think the only way to improve services is by throwing more money at the problem says it all!

We have had plenty of experience of throwing lots of extra money at public services and ending up with little or nothing to show for it.

The health sector is a perfect example of this, a complete black hole that you can toss money all day. One of the best financed health systems in the world (15th per capita), yet still a terrible service returned.

There are plenty of ways to improve service without needing extra money. Getting drivers to consistently use dual doors shouldn't need to cost more. You can bet GoAhead will have their drivers doing this much more due to their experience with dual doors in London.

Seemingly GA are using a different, more advanced scheduling and roster system that they also use in London, a much more sophisticaed system then DB. This may lead to better efficiency and better positioning and utilisation of drivers and buses then DB currently do.

GA also have lots of experience using hybrid buses, EV buses and multi door triaxles in London and Hong Kong, experiences which could be very helpful here in Ireland for future bus purchases.

New blood can bring lots of valuable experience and changes in work practices which can help improve performance and efficiency, without necessary requiring lots of extra money or cuts in wages.

GA's presence is exactly the kick up the ass that DB and BE need to help them modernise things and offer a better service to the public.

Just like UPC/Virgins massive investment into broadband in Ireland finally helped kick Telecom Eireann/Eircom/Eir out of their lazy monopolistic ways into a relatively healthy and competitive company offering relatively decent services to the public today.

Competition is good.

sharper

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is that this "competition" isn't really bringing anything of it's own to the table. the NTA is doing all the work. the NTA are responsible for the improvements via funding and mandating various things in the contract. go ahead is simply operating the services and will get paid regardless. so to me there is no real competition here, it's more theoretical. it's simply another operator operating routes when we could spend the money on 1 and still get the same things and use a carret and stick approach to insure compliance.

Exactly so the key thing here the one who defines the service is distinct from who operates the service. This is the main improvement tendering gives us.

It brings an end to the days of Dublin Bus moving in mysterious ways, running services as they suit. Even if 10 years from now it's still just GAI at 10% it's a far better setup for users of public transport.

Just compare the design and implementation of Network Direct versus Bus Connects. Even if you dislike bus connects the way it's being designed is far more transparent.

MJohnston

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ireland has lowest subsidy in the EU for public transport. So comparing them to other countries is hardly fair.

All of these issues relate to the NTA and again the lack of investment within the service. . Go AHead will have the exact same list of complaints.

Lack of investment by the NTA is directly at fault here. Not the companies that use their equipment.

Wait, so do you want to "keep the quality of bus travel in Dublin at its current high level" or increase investment? You're contradicting yourself - if you agree those issues exist and lack of investment is to blame, why do you want to maintain the status quo?

end of the road

bk wrote: »

ROFLOL, are you serious!!!

Have you never travelled abroad and use bus services in other countries?!

Seriously, Dublin Bus is relatively poor bus service compared to the rest of Europe.

- Worst dwell times I've ever experienced on any service
- Worst journey times I've ever experienced
- Not using dual doors
- Only two doors versus 3 or 4
- No schedule for individual stops like you see in other cities and which are actually ahered too.
- No 24/7 bus service, mad for a European capital city in the year 2018
- Very poor start times and frequency on Sundays
- Having to interact with the driver for tickets
- Slow ticket machines
- Terrible in bus next stop displays.
- No hybrid or EV buses, still using Diesel

And to top all of that off, comparatively high ticket prices.

Dublin Bus is pretty decent compared to the dumpster fire that BE city services are, but internationally it is comparatively pretty poor. Don't kid yourself.

a number of those are not dublin bus's fault to be fair. previous governments/councils/dot and for a while the NTA not getting to grips with various related problems, either via lack of funding and lack of enforcement. enforcement applying to the bus stops and traffic. funding for more bus lanes, bus priority, insuring all stops are set up for dual or more door operation, 24 hour bus service. improving frequencies and extending start and finish times. lowering ticket prices.
there are some on that list which are db's fault, slow ticket machines, issues with in bus displays, lack of schedules for individual stops. but we do have to wonder if ultimately they had the ability to implement better systems or were they effectively forced to implement compromise systems due to less funding?

bk wrote: »

Let me just add, I want to see bus drivers and all staff earn a fair wage.

But in return for earning a very good wage, I think the public should expect and deserve a top quality service in return for the high price they are paying. But at the moment they certainly aren't getting that.

And it isn't even a private versus public thing. It is a monopoly, monopolies IME are bad, whether it is a private company or public company.

If you have a monopoly, then you end up with laziness and inefficiencies and lack of innovative new services. Why bother to be efficient or innovative if you have a monopoly and your customers have no choice.

I'm glad Go Ahead are here now. Not because it will drive down wages or a race to the bottom, I really don't think it has to do either of those. I'm glad because it breaks DB's and BE's monopolies and forces them to improve their services to the public or risk losing more routes. Competition is good for the public and it can also be good for companies too.

the thing is that this "competition" isn't really bringing anything of it's own to the table. the NTA is doing all the work. the NTA are responsible for the improvements via funding and mandating various things in the contract. go ahead is simply operating the services and will get paid regardless. so to me there is no real competition here, it's more theoretical. it's simply another operator operating routes when we could spend the money on 1 and still get the same things and use a carret and stick approach to insure compliance.

devnull

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Ireland has lowest subsidy in the EU for public transport. So comparing them to other countries is hardly fair.

So you have a list of every country in Europe, with all the figures, including all types of subsidy (inc assets, capital and indirect) and Ireland is at the bottom of that list which has every single country on it?

Or does the list contain a few cherry picked cities in countries which suit your argument, ignore the indirect subsidy, ignore the tens of millions of assets that they get every year and then say the DB subsidy is the lowest in Europe?

It's very hard to compare subsidy across countries as operating environments are different. In some countries operators get more than DB but have to pay for their own vehicles out of it. In some countries operators get free vehicles but less subsidy.

For example, which company gets the most subsidy?
Company A that gets €40m and €25m of free vehicles a year
Company B that gets €50m and no free vehicles a year

Lack of investment by the NTA is directly at fault here. Not the companies that use their equipment.

Was this the same NTA that invested in real time, a proper journey planner that puts customers ahead of their operators, forced a higher spec interior on the companies, introduced the Leap Card, the same NTA that is now purchasing 100 vehicles a year in Dublin alone, re-introduced double decker vehicles into regional cities, and is investing €2bn in the biggest public transport project in this countries history?

A lot of the stuff in the list by BK is very much within DBs hands. They didn't want dual door buses and the drivers don't like using them, to say that it's the NTAs fault that staff don't use the doors is laughable, as is the hours of the service, because it's been previously gone through on here and there are union documents in the public domain about not authorising late departures.

The lack of individual stop information is very much a Dublin Bus thing, Dublin Bus have had this issue for years, and have never addressed it, the fact that the moment that the responsibility passes from DB to NTA about bus stop literature at GA stops, this issue is no longer an issue, tells you all you need to know.

I'm not saying that everything is the fault of DB, and the stuff like electric vehicles is certainly down to the NTA, as is not having 3-4 doors, although I remain to be convinced of the argument for more than two doors, but the idea that the NTA is to blame for everything and DB is for nothing is laughable, because both sides have their positives and negatives.

dashcamdanny

bk wrote: »

ROFLOL, are you serious!!!

Have you never travelled abroad and use bus services in other countries?!

Ireland has lowest subsidy in the EU for public transport. So comparing them to other countries is hardly fair.

bk wrote: »

Seriously, Dublin Bus is relatively poor bus service compared to the rest of Europe.

- Worst dwell times I've ever experienced on any service
- Worst journey times I've ever experienced
- Not using dual doors
- Only two doors versus 3 or 4
- No schedule for individual stops like you see in other cities and which are actually ahered too.
- No 24/7 bus service, mad for a European capital city in the year 2018
- Very poor start times and frequency on Sundays
- Having to interact with the driver for tickets
- Slow ticket machines
- Terrible in bus next stop displays.
- No hybrid or EV buses, still using Diesel

And to top all of that off, comparatively high ticket prices.

Dublin Bus is pretty decent compared to the dumpster fire that BE city services are, but internationally it is comparatively pretty poor. Don't kid yourself.

All of these issues relate to the NTA and again the lack of investment within the service. . Go AHead will have the exact same list of complaints.

Lack of investment by the NTA is directly at fault here. Not the companies that use their equipment.

[Deleted User]

Re wages etc at Go Ahead. Can we remember that they have just started and have promised drivers a pay rise each year over the next 5 yrs and hopefully as they have recognised siptu this will result in decent wages for them. I myself was offered a job with them but didnt take it not because of the wage offered I just stayed put in my current (bus driving) job. The drivers are just doing a job trying to get by in life as are DB drivers. So lets all wish them both well hope they both get along and the travelling public see the benifit long term. Yes Go Ahead seem to have made a balls of a few things but Id imagine in time they will be effecient operators and decent employers as the shortage of drivers is well documented so to keep drivers pay and conditions will have to be on par with whats offered in other companies.

Let me just add, I want to see bus drivers and all staff earn a fair wage.

But in return for earning a very good wage, I think the public should expect and deserve a top quality service in return for the high price they are paying. But at the moment they certainly aren't getting that.

And it isn't even a private versus public thing. It is a monopoly, monopolies IME are bad, whether it is a private company or public company.

If you have a monopoly, then you end up with laziness and inefficiencies and lack of innovative new services. Why bother to be efficient or innovative if you have a monopoly and your customers have no choice.

I'm glad Go Ahead are here now. Not because it will drive down wages or a race to the bottom, I really don't think it has to do either of those. I'm glad because it breaks DB's and BE's monopolies and forces them to improve their services to the public or risk losing more routes. Competition is good for the public and it can also be good for companies too.

sharper

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Great. Keep the quality of bus travel in Dublin at its current high level.

If Dublin Bus are the best operator for the best price they'll win the tender anyway.

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Great. Keep the quality of bus travel in Dublin at its current high level.

ROFLOL, are you serious!!!

Have you never travelled abroad and use bus services in other countries?!

Seriously, Dublin Bus is relatively poor bus service compared to the rest of Europe.

- Worst dwell times I've ever experienced on any service
- Worst journey times I've ever experienced
- Not using dual doors
- Only two doors versus 3 or 4
- No schedule for individual stops like you see in other cities and which are actually ahered too.
- No 24/7 bus service, mad for a European capital city in the year 2018
- Very poor start times and frequency on Sundays
- Having to interact with the driver for tickets
- Slow ticket machines
- Terrible in bus next stop displays.
- No hybrid or EV buses, still using Diesel

And to top all of that off, comparatively high ticket prices.

Dublin Bus is pretty decent compared to the dumpster fire that BE city services are, but internationally it is comparatively pretty poor. Don't kid yourself.

MJohnston

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Great. Keep the quality of bus travel in Dublin at its current high level.

Great Trump impression!

CramCycle

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Great. Keep the quality of bus travel in Dublin at its current high level.

The dogs on the street know that private companies paying staff less to do more will not make a better service.

As we are already seeing.

Really? Other than the livery it's hard to tell the difference in Bray