SG317 wrote: » I think the NTA only finds dual doors necessary on cross city routes and it had thus never enlisted any of the routes that Go Ahead operate to be dual door operated while with Dublin Bus. Also generally apart from the 102, 184 and 270 the routes the Streetlites are on aren't very busy and thus having a single door on it wouldn't cost too much additional time for loading and unloading.
Regarding the NTA determining the times, this seems to be only in regards to frequency as the routes are designed to be interworked, the only reason the 239 changed from half past the hour, to 10 to the hour. This is most beneficial to GAI, so they must have had at least some say in the designing of the timetables. Same with single decker allocations where the 63 and 114 are double deckers so they can be interworked and the 111 is double deckers on Sundays as it is interworked with the 59 on Sundays.
Stephen15 wrote: » The 104, 161, 220, 236, 238, 239 and 270 appear to be single decker only with no double deckers on them. The 63 and I'd say the 114 would be better if they were run with 50/50 double decker or single decker.
Stephen15 wrote: » I thought GAI needed ten more double deckers in order to be able to take up the 18 and 76/a. If it's the case that these buses are yet to be built then the transfer of the routes will likely be another couple of months. The NTA have said that the new route 155 will be operational by early March at the latest when the 18 transfers to GAI.
CPTM wrote: » Would anyone support the idea of an online petition to bring attention to the sub standard service that we now have with the routes that have been transferred across to Goahead Ireland? My own experience is that the 17 never shows up despite the realtime information, leaving me sitting at the bus stop for up to an hour before one finally arrives, and I can't afford taxis every morning to get to work. With Dublin bus, we were able to follow the bus along the route of bus stops to see how fast it was moving through traffic. With the Transport for Ireland app, the bus is shown in realtime even when it's not on the road. There are too many ghost buses keeping people waiting in vain at bus stops.
AlekSmart wrote: » It now appears that the 18/76 handover has been pushed back to the 24th March. This in turn means that the startup of the 155 will also be delayed.
Stephen15 wrote: » That seems to be the target of early March missed fairly badly. I'd imagine there's a fair bit of spare capacity now in Donnybrook that the 155 has been delayed. I'd say the 155 as a cross city route with a 20 minute frequency will use a fair but more capacity than the 18 unless the they're to move routes out of Donnybrook. I'd also imagine that the gap left behind by the 17 and 114 is a lot larger than a one extra 11 and a few extra 54a departures.
thomasj wrote: » Still a few routes to get new timetables from the go-ahead switchover , 25a/b, 38/a, 39a, 70 and 155
Stephen15 wrote: » I don't get that as between them I would say roughly the 18 and 76 only have an allocation of around 20 buses but a lot more than 20 buses would required to increase frequency on the routes you mentioned plus starting up the 155.
SG317 wrote: » Perhaps it would be dual garage operated with Harristown operating some departures, as they lost about 5-6 buses with the Blanchardstown locals, but got no additional work, although that is not extremely likely I reckon. Thus I presume that thr reason less work went to Donnybrook with the 17, 114 and 161 leaving the garage was precisely to have drivers for the 155 when it starts. The 13 is also meant to be getting a new bill on the Coyningham Road side.
dashcamdanny wrote: » This is what the people wanted. Get rid of Dublin Bus heard all over forums and social media. Terrible service.. Get used to it. You are stuck with GoAhead now.
Stephen15 wrote: » My experience with both apps has been that all timetabled departures within a period of 60 mins are listed and are removed if they fail to leave the terminus at their scheduled time.
CPTM wrote: » Which route is that if you don't mind me asking? I only have first hand experience of the 17, and that definitely has ghost buses routes right down to 2 minutes away.
CramCycle wrote: » The 17 had these issues when DB were running it, i have first hand experience of it, it is the reason most locals no longer use it anywhere within an hour either side of peak times. I always blamed DB but maybe there are some other weird unexplainable issues there
Stephen15 wrote: » The 17, 18 and 75 have always been problematic due to the fact they go through some of the more traffic prone areas of the city and their all pretty long aswell combination of those issues.
punisher5112 wrote: » What was stopping them surveying routes before take over, real time would have been there too.
AlekSmart wrote: » Bid prices for the tender were'nt simply whipped out of a hat,or scribbled on the back of an envelope. All of those tendering would have carried out their own independent verification of the specifications,over and above what the Authority provided.
dfx- wrote: » The changeover isn't just the nice place to do such stuff, it's the right place. Now as they are underway on the route, we are backing to figuring it out on the fly. If it delayed the handover of the 17, well what's the rush? We don't know any of this, what was expected of either company or what was promised or how bid prices were figured out. It would be very informative.
26.8Scope of the Transition Services 26.8.1 The Transition Services to be provided by the Operator shall include (without limitation) such of the following services as the Authority may specify: (a)notifying the Operator’s Sub-Contractors of procedures to be followed during the Transition Assistance Period and providing management to ensure these procedures are followed;(b)providing assistance and expertise as necessary to examine all operational and business processes (including all supporting documentation) in place and implementing processes and procedures such that they are comprehensive, clear and capable of being used by the Authority and/or Successor Operator after the end of the Transition Assistance Period. (c)delivering to the Authority the existing systems support profiles, monitoring or system logs, problem tracking/resolution documentation, status reports and, in respect of the maintenance and support of the Solution, historical performance data over the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the commencement of the Transition Services; (d)providing details of work volumes and staffing requirements over the twelve (12) month period immediately prior to the commencement of the Transition Services; (e)with respect to work in progress as at the end of the Transition Assistance Period, documenting the current status and stabilising for continuity during transition; (f)providing the Authority with any problem logs which have not previously been providedto the Authority; (g)reviewing all software libraries used in connection with the Services and providing details of these to the Authority and/or its Successor Operator;(h)analysing and providing information about capacity and performance requirements and known planned requirements for capacity growth across these areas; (i)assisting in the execution of a parallel operation of the maintenance and support of the Services (or relevant part of the Services) until the end of the Transition Assistance Period or as otherwise specified by the Authority (provided that these Services end on a date no later than the end of the Transition Assistance Period); and(j)answering all reasonable questions from the Authority and/or its Successor regarding the Service
AlekSmart wrote: » "Commercial Confidentiality" as a catch all excuse for ill judged secrecy,simply does not bear scrutiny in a free and open society.
Particularly when other comparable Contractual Arrangements Worldwide,involving the same Operator are fully in the Public Domain.
devnull wrote: » You are really suggesting, that 'commercial sensitivity' is an excuse, despite the fact that NTA have to refuse a FOI request by law where commercial sensitivity is involved? We can keep going around in circles as much as you like and you can keep banging that drum, but it won't change the laws and best practice of the land when it comes to tenders in this country. The fact is commercial sensitivity is well established in our legal system when it comes to these things and the courts will keep it that way even if someone tries to challenge it. This is just how it is and nothing is going to change that. Every direct award contract has been treated in the same way as each other and every single tendered contract under the BMO process has been treated exactly the same way as others. They're treating each apple the same as every other apple, whilst treating each orange the same as every other orange. You can't get any farer than that but I guess people have been known to compare apples and oranges from time to time. And again we see deflection and red-herrings being brought into this debate, not for the first time, where we try and compare an operator in a country where one set of competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, with one in a totally different country, where different competition rules, commercial laws and legal framework applies, because giving a fair direct comparison would expose a seriously flawed argument. The simple fact is that there have been two contracts let under the Bus Market Opening procedures and despite the fact that neither contracts have been published, we only hear about that being a problem for one of the operators who has been successful in this process, with barely a murmur about the other operator. To me that is profoundly strange since it seems to suggest that people may be using different rulebooks to two winners using the same process in the same country rather than treating them equally. This suggests that much of this talk may well be influenced by ideology rather than concerns, since people with concerns would be concerned with the process in general, rather than crying foul when a commercial operator benefits from commercial confidentiality under a contract framework, but remaining completely silent when a publicly owned operator benefits from the same commercial confidentiality clause.
SG317 wrote: » Can the same not be said when anyone says anything about the GAI contract, the Bus Éireann contract is always brought up. This in itself is deflection. As the very users you have accused of "deflection" have stated in this forum that they agree that the Bus Éireann Waterford should also be made public, yet you still consistently brings this up, so how is that not deflection?
But if as you claim people are basing their concerns on idealogy why has barely anything been said about the GAI Kildare Contract? A lot less has been said about it then the Bus Éireann contract.
At the end of the day, people are generally only or mostly interested about the Dublin contract as that is what this thread is about.
The simple matter of fact is that there is a lack of information regarding the tender and that may be commercially sensitive information, however it doesn't change the fact that this is convenient for certain parties.
