Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Patton Flyer on RTE 1 now.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    That "Claim" is indeed an interesting aspect to the entire sorry saga.

    The original Irish Independent article quoted a Department Official as saying the matter had been placed in the hands of the Gardai on the 14th October 2007.

    AFAIAA No further statements have been issued apart from Noel Dempsey skirting around the issue on Pat Kenny`s Radio prog.

    There has been some reference to the Gardai reverting to the Department seeking "Clarification" of some aspects,but nothing specific on what aspects are shrouded in mystery.

    If it continues for much longer then the newly formed Garda "Cold-Case" unit will have something nice and meaty to get its teeth into. ;)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #33
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭trellheim


    umm you forgot the dail stuff I posted where he agreed it was illegal


    see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55375964&postcount=11


  • Options
    #34
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    trellheim wrote: »
    umm you forgot the dail stuff I posted where he agreed it was illegal


    see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55375964&postcount=11

    No offence trellheim, but if Noel Dempsey told e the sun would rise tomorrow, I'd rush out and buy candles....:D


  • Options
    #35
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Victor wrote: »
    The department claim they have.

    they claim they're processing applications for new routes too...

    if they quoted a pulse number from when they made a complaint to the cops..


  • Options
    #36
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    "I thought this forum was supposed to support public transport, not slate it. The service is needed and popular, the fact someone has broken the law by stepping in says more about the law and the licensing system than it does about Mr Patten."

    The bottom line still is the same : no licence = no operation. It's beside the point whether the licencing is slow or thick or whatever, the licencing procedure is identical for everyone who wishes to apply and should be respected. If not I could open a shebeen tomorrow and if the gardai raid me I'll them a South Dublin bus operator can operate a business without a proper licence and as a consequence so can I... see what the judge will have to say to that :mad:. Why not open a brothel and advertise openly and have an open door policy as well ? It can be argued that there's a high demand for the service and it could benefit society as well bringing prostitution out in the open... It's just daft to think that the law applies to everyone except Mr Patton.

    As for airport permits : they only deal with providing a service on DAA operated/owned terrain. As such the airport permit system is seperate from the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Meathstevie sez "As for airport permits : they only deal with providing a service on DAA operated/owned terrain. As such the airport permit system is seperate from the issue.

    Well now,I`m unsure of that as the Flyer uses DAA property to operate from on the return trip to Dalkey.
    The entire point of the DAA`s regulations on Taxi operators securing a seperate permit is thrown into turmoil if the DAA fails to enforce the same regulations on other operators who offer their public carriage services at the same location.

    From my perspective the DAA is running the risk of having it`s own Permit system challenged by some enterprising Taxi operator on the grounds of it (The DAA) failing in its duty to ensure that its system operated fairly and without favour (Natural Justice perhaps ?)

    The Patton Flyer operation is really not the issue here at all.
    The core issue remains the inability of a Government Department to enforce it`s own long standing and universally known regulations when confronted with a challenge from whatever source.

    This entire situation is FAR more serious to the fabric of Governance than a mere spat between a Bus Operator and a Civil Servant...It cuts directly to a General Principle of Democratic Government.......Who is In Charge. ? :eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #38
    Boardsbud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭Boardsbud


    Well said AlekSmart. The problem in this country is that we have effectively been running without any sort of leadership from the top down for donkeys years. Our esteemed Taoiseach disappeared anytime a difficult or unpopular decision had to be made and was rarely to be seen defending the need for proper law and order. This attitude has filtered down through society with nobody wanting to take responsibility for anything anymore. Sub committees and "expert" commissions are appointed to decide on everything and then the government shrug their collective shoulders and say that they're only implementing the reccomendations of these "experts".
    I'm waiting for the "task force" on public transport provision by opportunistic private operators or PTPBOPO (nearly as good as HIQA, bless you) to be created any day now to much fanfare with an expensive corporate image and snazy logo and even more expensive but not so snazy membership of assorted FF hangers on.
    Sorry if I went a bit OT !

    As a final thought I'm reminded of tourist guide books to foreign countries / cities warning tourists of illegal taxi's and minibuses operating. This is an image we generally associate with less well off societies. Maybe its a sign of things to come.
    Now anybody want to club in and buy a couple of double deckers that DB can't wait to offload to the UK ? It seems you only need low floor or accesible vehicles, not to mention a licence to operate, if you're a state run company here.


  • Options
    #39
    PeeDiddyPaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭PeeDiddyPaddy


    Can't understand why anyone has a problem with PP flyer. It's absoutely great - all our work colleagues use it - why should the company waste €75 getting out to Dun Laoghaire in a grumpy old taxi when they can get a direct swift bus for €7 - personally I find it fantastic - I got that bleedin 746 out to the airport once and was travel sick it took so long not to mention the usual yobos on the back smokin heroin. 746 has inflight drinks it takes so long! Seriously wise up to the gripers - this is a long awaited fantastic public service, use it and stop abusing it


  • Options
    #40
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Holy God PDPaddy...calm down man....Nobody`s abusing the Patton Flyer at all,nor has anybody got a problem with IT per se.

    The problems,and they are PROBLEMS rest with Minister Dempsey and his selection of Ministerial Officials who are signing (in administrative terms)their own death warrants by demonstrating their inability to administer their own area of responsibility.

    Whether you or any of the P Flyers many customers think it`s the bees knees is irrelevant for the purposes of this debate.

    1.Just to recap,it`s perhaps worth stating the Ministers view,given to the Dàil,that operating a Public Service Route without a licence is a CRIMINAL offence.
    2.The Department has advised the PFlyers proprietor that it is in breach of the Law.
    3.The Proprietor has responded that he is aware of this and that this situation is not his fault (at this stage the arguement SHOULD already be before a Judge)
    4.The Gardai,advised several months ago,have not indicated any willingness to respond to an official report of a CRIME being committed on a daily(Hourly) basis
    (Slightly O/T,but perhaps the Garda Ombudsmans Office might have an interest in this notable lack of enthusiasm)

    All the above is still in the melting pot and still seems to have the Department transfixed.
    However things elsewhere are moving on apace.

    In Bray,the LICENCED operator Bray Air Taxi,expanded its successful Airport service but was rapidly contacted by the Department and instructed to cease and desist with those extra journeys pending an official application for a Licence variation.
    Within a week Aircoach (First Group) decide to activate a long-held licence to extend its existing service to Charlesland/Greystones operating via Bray.

    Thus far,Bray Air Taxi has complied with the law and has suffered commercially for this compliance prompting the question as to what will happen should this company either adopt the Patton Flyer`s tactics OR perhaps sue the Department for failure to administer its system in compliance with the Laws governing good and fair governance.

    The Department of Transport makes much of the pending EU case on subvention,however with all of their eyes trained upon Brussels perhaps they will completely miss an equally serious legal threat in their own back-yard.

    One wonder if the ORIGINAL licence applicant for the Patton Flyer`s routing will step out of the shadows with a writ for Mr Dempsey in order to see how far the Departmental will to ignore its responsibilities actually goes... ;)

    Indeed given minister Dempsey`s full and effusive launch speech for Tallaghts new Flybus service,(Brought to us by McConns/Eirebus) it appears that he has little regard for his own greater responsibilities,for example to enforce the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000 as yet again a NEWLY licenced public service is allowed commence without having any disabled access.

    Whilst Minister Dempseys speech went to great lengths to do the "Local Business makes good" thing,he completely avoided any mention of his own responsibilities to oversee inprovements in pubilc transport FOR ALL sectors of the community.

    It now seems that only the State companies are tasked with the somewhat more complex and expensive areas of providing Low Floor accessible services at equally low cost whilst the more entreprenurial private sector can concentrate on the simpler higher return "Premium" services.....It`s a policy thats working well in the Health sector so why not continue on a roll.... :):):)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #41
    steve-o
    Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭steve-o


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    1.Just to recap,it`s perhaps worth stating the Ministers view,given to the Dàil,that operating a Public Service Route without a licence is a CRIMINAL offence.
    2.The Department has advised the PFlyers proprietor that it is in breach of the Law.
    3.The Proprietor has responded that he is aware of this and that this situation is not his fault (at this stage the arguement SHOULD already be before a Judge)
    4.The Gardai,advised several months ago,have not indicated any willingness to respond to an official report of a CRIME being committed on a daily(Hourly) basis
    (Slightly O/T,but perhaps the Garda Ombudsmans Office might have an interest in this notable lack of enthusiasm)
    Let's not get to excitable about the severity of this "CRIMINAL" offence. If the powers that be want to go through the motions, then a judge has the power to fine Mr Patton up to €63.50. If another complaint is made and Mr Patton returns to court, then he could be hit with a masssive €6.35 for each day that he has continued to flout the law since his orignal conviction. That's all that can happen. Until the law is changed, no-one can stop him operating the service. No-one can impound his vehicles.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    dewsbury
    Registered Users Posts: 441 ✭✭dewsbury


    As a general point in this good thread.

    There are many of this country's high achievers who bend or broke the rules....

    Mr. Patten is bending/breaking rules but so did .... Mr xxxxx and Mr yyy and Mr zzz.


    ???


  • Options
    #43
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Dewsbury wrote

    " There are many of this country's high achievers who bend or broke the rules....

    Mr. Patten is bending/breaking rules but so did .... Mr xxxxx and Mr yyy and Mr zzz."

    True indeed,but....when do the rules become "not the rules" and who decides how far and how often these "rules" are to be broken ?
    Do these "rules" not carry any inherent support for those who DO choose to follow them ?

    I take the rather simplistic view that if Any Public Administrative body feels that Its own rules are no longer valid,useful or enforceable then it should Immediately seek to set-aside or repeal these rules and announce TO ALL interestyed parties that they are no longer bound by ANY of the original strictures.

    There is also the question inherent in Dewsburys observation of what exactly constitutes a "High Achiever" ?
    Does this indicate that the Irish commercial or legal framework cannot sustain achievement on its own merits without having to countenance breaking the law as a pre-requisite for success ?

    As for steve-o`s points re the €63.50 and the €6.35 per day,this would appear to be the single greatest flaw in the 1932 Act,the simple failure to increase any fines in line with historic inflation.

    However,the extent of the fine is not really an issue either,but what would be an issue further down the line in terms of the impending tightening up of all similiar licence holding criteria,would be the requirement to be of "Good Character" or "Good Standing".

    It could be argued that an applicant who has consistently failed to acceed to Departmental requests and has continued to operate outside the lawful licencing structure has therefore CHOSEN to remove himself from the legitimate process and therefore must accept the risks which come with that ... :o

    Again it boils back down to the Patton operation being immaterial in all of this but the entire function of the Department of Transport and particularly its higher executives most certainly is under serious scrutiny.. :)

    Either the Department has its rules or it does`nt....The ball is firmly in it`s court now !


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #44
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    PeeDiddyPaddy wrote: »
    Can't understand why anyone has a problem with PP flyer. It's absoutely great - all our work colleagues use it - why should the company waste €75 getting out to Dun Laoghaire in a grumpy old taxi when they can get a direct swift bus for €7 - personally I find it fantastic - I got that bleedin 746 out to the airport once and was travel sick it took so long not to mention the usual yobos on the back smokin heroin. 746 has inflight drinks it takes so long! Seriously wise up to the gripers - this is a long awaited fantastic public service, use it and stop abusing it


    That's when you direct the taxi driver down the M50 or you agree to go the M50. In my books the most cost effective route from Dun Laoghaire to and from the airport goes via Whitehall, Dorset Street, Gardiner Street, Ringsend, Sandymount and the Rock Road. And if you're willing to foot the tolls the Port Tunnel and the Eastlink are the alternative ( what you gain on time and distance will more or less compensate for the tolls ). That's never going to cost 75 euro.


  • Options
    #45
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Meathstevie sez "As for airport permits : they only deal with providing a service on DAA operated/owned terrain. As such the airport permit system is seperate from the issue.

    Well now,I`m unsure of that as the Flyer uses DAA property to operate from on the return trip to Dalkey.
    The entire point of the DAA`s regulations on Taxi operators securing a seperate permit is thrown into turmoil if the DAA fails to enforce the same regulations on other operators who offer their public carriage services at the same location.

    From my perspective the DAA is running the risk of having it`s own Permit system challenged by some enterprising Taxi operator on the grounds of it (The DAA) failing in its duty to ensure that its system operated fairly and without favour (Natural Justice perhaps ?)

    The Patton Flyer operation is really not the issue here at all.
    The core issue remains the inability of a Government Department to enforce it`s own long standing and universally known regulations when confronted with a challenge from whatever source.

    This entire situation is FAR more serious to the fabric of Governance than a mere spat between a Bus Operator and a Civil Servant...It cuts directly to a General Principle of Democratic Government.......Who is In Charge. ? :eek:

    The Patton Flyer operates from the short term surface car park ( as do a lot of other bus services ). Whether they're actually on the airport permit system or they're admitted on the QT I don't know but I do know that when I operated my taxi at the airport I had to show proof of licencing.

    Ah sure, another prime example of the fact that the law is only there for the law abiding people :mad:


  • Options
    #46
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭trellheim


    twould take but an hour to lash through an amending bill to the 1932 act


  • Options
    #47
    Ham'nd'egger
    Registered Users Posts: 3,025 ✭✭✭Ham'nd'egger


    trellheim wrote: »
    twould take but an hour to lash through an amending bill to the 1932 act

    If only it were that easy.

    When the Road Transport Act was passed in 1932, it's main issues were to regulate a very loose and renegade bus market with route and operator licenses, to ensure that road freight market ran in some manner of a a coherent network, to allow for the financing of service companies and to allow the replacement of some uneconomic rail services with adequate bus services in conjunction with a railway act of the same year.

    Today, EU laws and policies on both transport and free trade need to be finely balanced and as such it is a fine line to cross it and to render it unlawful. One wonders if a correct application of the Act is a better option.


  • Options
    #48
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    +1 Ham`nd` egger.....There is a lot of coloured smoke billowing around the Department of Transport regarding the 1932 Act.

    However,whats becoming more apparent by the day is the lethargic manner in which the Department conducts its business.

    From my perspective the 1932 Act appears to be remarkably well framed with wording and definitions which are bang up to date.

    The Act confers extensive discretionary powers upon the Minister for Transport to regulate and direct every facet of Road based Public Transport,something which a long line of Ministers appear reluctant to believe.
    This lack of understanding has,I believe,more to do with the Senior Departmental Officials who brief the Minister rather than the Minister hisself/herself.
    There is,by now,a pervasive whiff of something not quite right about current Departmental Policy which cannot be explained away by the fear of impending EU legal challenges.

    The Port Tunnel 41X routing,The Patton Flyer,The Bray Air Taxi and other such topics have focused attention on what if any ulterior motives lurk within the Departments senior officials hearts......They sure are`nt infused with any great concern for improving the lot of the Public Transport User :o

    It now appears certain that much more Dàil time will be allocated to a complete new Transport Act when large sections of the present one function very well indeed....as Ham `an` egger sez...a bit of application would go a long way !! :eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #49
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭trellheim


    If only it were that easy.

    the only change would be the increase of a fine of 20% of annual turnover every month until the services cease.


  • Options
    #50
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Or just have a traffic unit garda with balls to impound the coach ( or coaches ) there and then as they're used for an illegal activity.


  • Options
    #51
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    MeathStevie wrote...."Or just have a traffic unit garda with balls to impound the coach ( or coaches ) there and then as they're used for an illegal activity."


    Hear hear Meathstevie.....only problem is that old and highly effective saying......"Well Gard,would you like a pint.....or a transfer ?" :eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    iwudluvit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭iwudluvit


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    In the Patton Flyer case,RTE not for the first time,have chosen to ignore the Departments reasons for Pattons displeasure.......

    THERE IS A PRIOR APPLICATION FOR THE ROUTE FROM ANOTHER OPERATOR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED UPON.

    and who pray tell is this other operator?

    and why are they saying nothing?

    and why has their application not been decided upon?

    are they sitting there twiddling their thumbs in frustration at the department while rome burns?

    or do they not exist? :eek:


  • Options
    #53
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    iwudluvit wrote: »
    and who pray tell is this other operator?

    and why are they saying nothing?

    and why has their application not been decided upon?

    are they sitting there twiddling their thumbs in frustration at the department while rome burns?

    or do they not exist? :eek:

    The other operator is Aircoach and the route (wait for it) is from the Airport via the Port Tunnel and Merrion Road to Greystones. This started operating earlier this year.

    It does not serve Dun Laoghaire or Dalkey, but because both serve the Merrion Road and Aircoach applied first, they got the licence.

    Perhaps if Patton resubmitted the licence application with last pickup at Monkstown there would not be an issue?

    But this is the DoT we're dealing with of course!!!


  • Options
    #54
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    If the Patton flyer got impounded there would be a riot. The last few coaches I have got from Dalkey have been full after leaving the Royal Marine and they have had to lay on another coach.

    why does this sort of thing hang around for so long, surely, somewhere, there is someone with the common sense to sort this out.


  • Options
    #55
    iwudluvit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭iwudluvit


    KC61 wrote: »
    The other operator is Aircoach and the route (wait for it) is from the Airport via the Port Tunnel and Merrion Road to Greystones. This started operating earlier this year.

    It does not serve Dun Laoghaire or Dalkey, but because both serve the Merrion Road and Aircoach applied first, they got the licence.

    Perhaps if Patton resubmitted the licence application with last pickup at Monkstown there would not be an issue?

    But this is the DoT we're dealing with of course!!!

    it would seem reasonable to define the dalkey / dl route as a new route.


  • Options
    #56
    markf909
    Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭markf909


    Fratton Fred wrote: »

    why does this sort of thing hang around for so long, surely, somewhere, there is someone with the common sense to sort this out.

    Because the Department of Transport have no interest in public transport.


  • Options
    #57
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    iwudluvit wrote: »
    it would seem reasonable to define the dalkey / dl route as a new route.

    It would seem reasonable that the following all be viewed as separate routes:
    41X -v- Swords Express
    141 -v- Swords Express
    37 (as extended from Carpenterstown to Blanchardstown SC) -v- URbus
    66 / 66A / 66B / 66X -v- Circle Line
    38C & 40D -v- Hollybus
    Patton Flyer -v- Aircoach

    Need I go on?????

    The Department are taking a very narrow view of the legislation. Basically they feel that if there is a licensed private operator running a bus service along even a section of a DB route that DB wishes to improve, then they will be unlikely to grant such approval.

    Similarly, if there is a private operator already in situ or already licensed, then another private application for a licence that has similar pick up/set down stops en route albeit with different destinations, then they are unlikely to grant the second licence.

    Aircoach and Patton both stop along the Merrion Road.

    This is DoT logic.


  • Options
    #58
    iwudluvit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭iwudluvit


    KC61 wrote: »
    It would seem reasonable that the following all be viewed as separate routes:

    Need I go on?????


    Aircoach and Patton both stop along the Merrion Road.

    This is DoT logic.

    you need not go on.

    I'm not familiar with all those routes but I get the gist.

    thank you


  • Options
    #59
    John R
    Registered Users Posts: 4,107 ✭✭✭John R


    KC61 wrote: »
    It would seem reasonable that the following all be viewed as separate routes:
    41X -v- Swords Express
    141 -v- Swords Express
    37 (as extended from Carpenterstown to Blanchardstown SC) -v- URbus
    66 / 66A / 66B / 66X -v- Circle Line
    38C & 40D -v- Hollybus
    Patton Flyer -v- Aircoach

    Need I go on?????

    The Department are taking a very narrow view of the legislation. Basically they feel that if there is a licensed private operator running a bus service along even a section of a DB route that DB wishes to improve, then they will be unlikely to grant such approval.

    Similarly, if there is a private operator already in situ or already licensed, then another private application for a licence that has similar pick up/set down stops en route albeit with different destinations, then they are unlikely to grant the second licence.

    Aircoach and Patton both stop along the Merrion Road.

    This is DoT logic.

    I couldn't have put it better myself.

    The really pathetic part of all this is that despite all the blame for their seemingly illogical decisions being put on a transport act passed over 70 years ago this DoT activity only started relatively recently.

    It is my belief that it is all down to heavy political pressure from certain FF elements and particularly the PDs in the previous government to promote private operations. The sad truth is that with a few exceptions it has not done this and along with stunting much of the huge improvements in DB operations it has managed to work against the expansion of private operations, particularly in the Dublin area.


  • Options
    #60
    KC61
    Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭KC61


    iwudluvit wrote: »
    you need not go on.

    I'm not familiar with all those routes but I get the gist.

    thank you

    You're welcome!

    I wasn't having a go at you....just trying to demonstrate the sheer madness that is currently emanating from the DoT.

    After the absolute one-sided drivel that has been broadcast and printed yesterday and today which completely ignored the whole range of problems facing the bus network in Dublin, all of which are caused by the DoT, I am (to put it mildly) rather vexed! These are causing serious problems for ALL operators, not DB -v- private operators, but yesterday's reports would lead you to believe that it's all down to Dublin Bus.

    The problems include:
    1) The lack of any urgency in reforming licensing legislation

    2) The complete inability of the DoT to understand that, in arriving at decisions about whether an urban public transport bus route or timetable should be improved, the interest of the customer should be paramount, and not competition between operators.

    3) The fact that one branch of the DoT and another are at odds with each other – one approving 100 additional buses for Dublin Bus having reviewed detailed plans for their operation – the other refusing permission for those same plans to be put into operation.

    4) The fact that passengers are still being left longer at bus stops because Dublin Bus are in some cases precluded from improving their services

    5) The lack of a level playing field in terms of accessible vehicles


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭markpb


    KC61 wrote: »
    After the absolute one-sided drivel that has been broadcast and printed yesterday and today which completely ignored the whole range of problems facing the bus network in Dublin, all of which are caused by the DoT, I am (to put it mildly) rather vexed! These are causing serious problems for ALL operators, not DB -v- private operators, but yesterday's reports would lead you to believe that it's all down to Dublin Bus,.

    Dublin bus (not Dublin Bus) passengers badly need a lobby group like RUI to lobby for them, to put more political pressure on the DoT and to try to put a truthful message when stuff like this happens.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement