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

TII, NTA, RPA

Options
  • 27-03-2016 1:45pm
    #1
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭


    Can someone explain the differences between these three organisations to me? What's the difference between TII and NTA?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    TII is the merged entity which used to be the NRA and RPA. Basically responsible for the national road infrastructure and for the light rail infrastructure.

    NTA is responsible for public transport within the state.


  • Options
    #3
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    Thanks!

    I wonder why the infrastructure part of Irish Rail wasn't merged into TII at the same time or if there are plans for that in the future? If DU or another part of the Dart network was built in the future, would TII or Irish Rail be responsible for it?

    Does that mean that Transdevs contract is with NTA but whoever is responsible for tram track maintenance has a contract with TII?


  • Options
    #4
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    markpb wrote: »
    Thanks!

    I wonder why the infrastructure part of Irish Rail wasn't merged into TII at the same time or if there are plans for that in the future? If DU or another part of the Dart network was built in the future, would TII or Irish Rail be responsible for it?

    Does that mean that Transdevs contract is with NTA but whoever is responsible for tram track maintenance has a contract with TII?

    The only rationale for merging NRA and RPA was to get back office cost savings.

    Irish Rail is already split into:
    Infrastructure Manager
    Railway Undertaking

    I don't see any potential cost savings from moving the IM element of Irish Rail across to TII.

    Irish Rail remain responsible for any heavy rail infrastructure projects.

    The NTA assigned their functions with regard to light rail provision to the RPA so TII is now responsible for it.


  • Options
    #5
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The only rationale for merging NRA and RPA was to get back office cost savings.

    Irish Rail is already split into:
    Infrastructure Manager
    Railway Undertaking

    I don't see any potential cost savings from moving the IM element of Irish Rail across to TII.

    Irish Rail remain responsible for any heavy rail infrastructure projects.

    The NTA assigned their functions with regard to light rail provision to the RPA so TII is now responsible for it.

    While I agree not point in moving it away form Irish Rail was the split an internal management decision or NTA pushed one?


  • Options
    #6
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    lxflyer wrote:
    The NTA assigned their functions with regard to light rail provision to the RPA so TII is now responsible for it.

    So NTA have no contract with any of the Luas companies?

    Thanks for the info, I've been curious for a while.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    Jamie2k9 wrote:
    While I agree not point in moving it away form Irish Rail was the split an internal management decision or NTA pushed one?

    I thought it was an EU directive (like the splitting of gas and electricity companies into network and supply companies), could be wrong though.


  • Options
    #8
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    markpb wrote: »
    I thought it was an EU directive (like the splitting of gas and electricity companies into network and supply companies), could be wrong though.
    That's exactly what it was.


  • Options
    #9
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    TII is just a name for the NRA, like eflow

    For some reason instead on moving the NTA and rpa to TII, they lumped the rpa into the nra.


  • Options
    #10
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    markpb wrote: »
    I thought it was an EU directive (like the splitting of gas and electricity companies into network and supply companies), could be wrong though.

    Yeah thats the jist of it. Seems impractical for ireland considering how small our rail network is in comparison to the englands or the mainland eu networks. All we got is a hornby train set in comparison!


  • Options
    #11
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Infini2 wrote: »
    Yeah thats the jist of it. Seems impractical for ireland considering how small our rail network is in comparison to the englands or the mainland eu networks. All we got is a hornby train set in comparison!

    all they need to do i believe is keep the accounts separate and change the name slightly? that will keep the EU happy, mind you i think the EU have more important things to worry about at the moment, which they need to focus on.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,285 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    markpb wrote: »
    So NTA have no contract with any of the Luas companies?
    TII/RPA act as the NTA's agent for Luas.


  • Options
    #13
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    Victor wrote: »
    TII/RPA act as the NTA's agent for Luas.

    What was the reason for that? I'm guessing it's to keep the same government agency responsible for both the operations and infrastructure contractors?

    I'm a little confused about why TII as a separate entity to NTA was needed, one body which is responsible for all transport infrastructure and operations (including all public transport) would seem to make more sense to me (ala TFL in London, MTA in Los Angeles and, I think, Hong Kong).


  • Options
    #14
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    Infini2 wrote: »
    Yeah thats the jist of it. Seems impractical for ireland considering how small our rail network is in comparison to the englands or the mainland eu networks. All we got is a hornby train set in comparison!

    I can't really see a problem with it. Luas infrastructure and operations have always been separate and it's a much smaller operation.


  • Options
    #15
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,285 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    markpb wrote: »
    What was the reason for that? I'm guessing it's to keep the same government agency responsible for both the operations and infrastructure contractors?
    With Luas Cross City, there are overlaps that I think would get messy if the NTA took control now. A lot of the NRA and RPA work uses similar skills - engineering design, property acquisition and construction / procurement.
    I'm a little confused about why TII as a separate entity to NTA was needed, one body which is responsible for all transport infrastructure and operations (including all public transport) would seem to make more sense to me (ala TFL in London, MTA in Los Angeles and, I think, Hong Kong).

    The NTA has something like 35 staff. There would be a risk that the NTA's work would be distracted or subverted by the road engineers. The separation keeps them somewhat honest. The difference with the three cities you mention is that there is functioning local democracy. If funding was shifted from the London Underground to motorway building around Birmingham, there would be rebellion - led by the City of London and the financial sector. If NRA/RPA/NTA was all one body, we couldn't guarantee that.

    If the infrastructure side of Irish Rail were to be split off, I'd reverse it into CIÉ, as they own the assets anyway. The only thing of substance that TII owns is the Luas network. the NTA owns nothing of substance.


  • Options
    #16
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Victor wrote: »
    The only thing of substance that TII owns is the Luas network

    Port Tunnel and the rest of the M50 and other motorways no?


  • Options
    #17
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,285 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Port Tunnel and the rest of the M50 and other motorways no?
    Owned by the councils, grant-aided by TII.

    With the PPPs, as I understand it, the councils bought the land (grant-aided by TII), the franchisee built the road, TII receives the full toll revenue, and then the franchisee receives an availability fee and a portion of the toll revenue. I think there are nuances with the Port Tunnel, M3, M50 upgrade and Limerick Tunnel.


  • Options
    #18
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,475 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Quangos, quangos everywhere...
    but sure, we need to duplicate all those pointless HR and support roles, not to mention spend on separate offices etc etc.
    Every single one of these should be operated directly by the DoT from a single central setup.


  • Options
    #19
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Quangos, quangos everywhere...
    but sure, we need to duplicate all those pointless HR and support roles, not to mention spend on separate offices etc etc.
    Every single one of these should be operated directly by the DoT from a single central setup.

    Really??

    The difference in the bus licensing process alone should tell you that putting processes such as those run by these organisations into the hands of civil servants just does not work.

    Government departments are for shaping policy and not making commercial decisions.


  • Options
    #20
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,285 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    Quangos, quangos everywhere...
    but sure, we need to duplicate all those pointless HR and support roles, not to mention spend on separate offices etc etc.
    Every single one of these should be operated directly by the DoT from a single central setup.
    When I get a call from the NTA, the DTTAS phone number comes up, so there are shared services.


  • Options
    #21
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,475 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Really??

    The difference in the bus licensing process alone should tell you that putting processes such as those run by these organisations into the hands of civil servants just does not work.

    Government departments are for shaping policy and not making commercial decisions.

    just because the current staff and process in the department are useless should not mean we need to create new organisations to do the job instead of fixing the problems...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    just because the current staff and process in the department are useless should not mean we need to create new organisations to do the job instead of fixing the problems...

    Do you seriously believe that the civil service is capable of thinking commercially?

    For sure some back office functions could be shared, but the notion that the civil service would ever be capable of managing the core activities is laughable and, more importantly, is not part of their remit and nor should it be.

    Their job is to manage policy - not making commercial decisions.


  • Options
    #23
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    The NTA are still poor dealing with what passengers want, they focus on what suits the transport companies.


  • Options
    #24
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    The NTA are still poor dealing with what passengers want, they focus on what suits the transport companies.

    Enlighten us.


  • Options
    #25
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,254 ✭✭✭markpb


    Carawaystick wrote:
    The NTA are still poor dealing with what passengers want, they focus on what suits the transport companies.

    I would tend to agree with you but I happened to meet a few of them last year (in an unofficial capacity) and they operate in a very funny environment where they have very little control over some of the companies they they regulate.

    I know this flies in the face of the criticism that cie employees (who work with them so possibly know more than me) have stated here but the people I met in the NTA were tearing their hair out trying to get DB to simplify their ticket options, with various operators for enforcing silly rules, with other operators for trusting to work together and with the incredibly slow pace of work or change inside cie companies.


  • Options
    #26
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,475 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Do you seriously believe that the civil service is capable of thinking commercially?
    no.

    do i think they should be able to? yes.
    For sure some back office functions could be shared, but the notion that the civil service would ever be capable of managing the core activities is laughable and, more importantly, is not part of their remit and nor should it be.
    so why it it only in the last decade or two that we've seen the en mass divesting of functions from the department? What was so different in the past that it could be managed from within.


  • Options
    #27
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    The NTA are far and away better than what came before them.

    Before you effectively had CIE and the Department of Transport being their downtown office, full of political interference.


  • Options
    #28
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,560 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    no.

    do i think they should be able to? yes.

    so why it it only in the last decade or two that we've seen the en mass divesting of functions from the department? What was so different in the past that it could be managed from within.

    Well first of all I'd question your assertion that it was being "managed" - it wasn't - bus licence applications for example were just sat on for years with no decisions being taken, and political interference was dictating the operation of public transport, with bus routes that carried single digits being retained purely at the whim of a politician.

    I would suggest that the EU forced the change - the deregulation of the transport market meant that DoT could not perpetuate the status quo as they wanted to, and an independent regulator was needed - hence the need for the NTA.

    It is not civil servants job to make commercial decisions and nor should it be. You have to have a degree of independence from the political masters. Otherwise you're left open to the possibility of political interference.

    Years of exactly that should tell you that it is not a sensible option.

    Now having said that there is no reason that some back office functions cannot be provided by shared services to these organisations.


  • Options
    #29
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Enlighten us.

    The proposed brt from Swords was to have a interchange with the deregulated 33a south of Swords to allow passengers connect onwards to Dublin, instead of at the north end of Swords.

    The nta contract for customer phone lines we discussed recently just let Dublin bus carry on the hours of operation they had, instead of insisting on a customer helpline during all bus service running hours.

    the nta allow IÉ count late trains as on time according to IÉ's practice.

    the nta allow new bus services start with non-accessible vehicles.

    The nta didn't insist on allowing leapcard pay for carparks in CIÉ/luas carparks

    The nta provide poor information on leapcard, and we rely on you to provide a better consolidated set of information. Bus Éireann's leapcard zones map epitomises this.

    The breakdown of realtime passenger information system when there's disruptions - the nta should insist customers can see where their bus/tram/train is; or at least make the information available so third parties can publish it via mapping apps etc.


Advertisement