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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Options
1…9899101103104…162

Comments

  • Options
    #3002
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    Ruth coppinger TD lashing out on Twitter there over a few different issues.

    1 being the government giving 3 million euro to push go ahead taking over some bus eireann routes.

    She raised questions with Shane Ross over it.

    Anybody get answers to this today ?

    Are you talking about new services yet to be tendered in eastern area? No tender has been announced let alone winner?

    Did she mention the reason that the services were being proposed to be tendered or did she ignore the fact that bus eireann have been providing a very substandard service for almost twelve months on said services.

    The trouble is some are not criticising GoAhead for poor service. They are because of pure ideaolngy. They seem perfectly happy for Bus Eireann to provide a poor service for a year on routes but if a private does for a few weeks then that is far worse.

    Fer me it's not about public vs private. It's about judging everyone the same. If an operator performs poorly for an extended period they should face losing that service. Whether they are public or private doesn't come into it for me.


  • Options
    #3003
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime


    devnull wrote: »
    Are you talking about new services yet to be tendered in eastern area? No tender has been announced let alone winner?

    Did she mention the reason that the services were being proposed to be tendered or did she ignore the fact that bus eireann have been providing a very substandard service for almost twelve months on said services.

    The trouble is some are not criticising GoAhead for poor service. They are because of pure ideaolngy. They seem perfectly happy for Bus Eireann to provide a poor service for a year on routes but if a private does for a few weeks then that is far worse.

    Fer me it's not about public vs private. It's about judging everyone the same. If an operator performs poorly for an extended period they should face losing that service. Whether they are public or private doesn't come into it for me.

    I was only posting fact

    I would be very much confident that it's to do with the Kildare / edenderry services.

    But it does raise questions as to why the government are giving go-ahead 3 million euro for services they are not operating yet.

    It is raising questions to why they are getting that money, what it's to be used for and was it part of the original tender etc. It seems very smoke and mirrors.

    I'm not saying bus eireann are perfect or defending anything here, just questioning why go ahead are getting this money


  • Options
    #3004
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    devnull wrote: »
    Are you talking about new services yet to be tendered in eastern area? No tender has been announced let alone winner?

    Did she mention the reason that the services were being proposed to be tendered or did she ignore the fact that bus eireann have been providing a very substandard service for almost twelve months on said services.

    The trouble is some are not criticising GoAhead for poor service. They are because of pure ideaolngy. They seem perfectly happy for Bus Eireann to provide a poor service for a year on routes but if a private does for a few weeks then that is far worse.

    Fer me it's not about public vs private. It's about judging everyone the same. If an operator performs poorly for an extended period they should face losing that service. Whether they are public or private doesn't come into it for me.

    I was only posting fact

    I would be very much confident that it's to do with the Kildare / edenderry services.

    But it does raise questions as to why the government are giving go-ahead 3 million euro for services they are not operating yet.

    It is raising questions to why they are getting that money, what it's to be used for and was it part of the original tender etc. It seems very smoke and mirrors.

    I'm not saying bus eireann are perfect or defending anything here, just questioning why go ahead are getting this money

    So let me get this right?

    Your argument is that a company who won a contract to run PSO bus services and the funding to do so shouldn't be getting such funding?

    If Bus Eireann won contract it would be the same?


  • Options
    #3005
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    I was only posting fact
    Was it fact or what she said, I have not heard the debate but I seen the note she has on her facebook. Which is a snippet of a report and could also be related to getting the Bus Contracts system underway.
    But it does raise questions as to why the government are giving go-ahead 3 million euro for services they are not operating yet.
    The bit she refers too on Facebook refers to the cost of operating contracts with GAI and BE. It doesn't actually say they got 3million for untendered routes. The snippet is so small it could easily refer to both GAI taking over DB routes that were tendered and other routes that BE had applied for elsewhere.
    It is raising questions to why they are getting that money, what it's to be used for and was it part of the original tender etc. It seems very smoke and mirrors.
    Mainly by herself, has she the full article published anywhere rather than the snippet.
    I'm not saying bus eireann are perfect or defending anything here, just questioning why go ahead are getting this money
    The money has went to GAI and BE, not GAI alone, people seem to be missing that point.


  • Options
    #3006
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime


    devnull wrote: »
    So let me get this right?

    Your argument is that a company who won a contract to run PSO bus services and the funding to do so shouldn't be getting such funding?

    If Bus Eireann won contract it would be the same?

    No that's not what I'm saying

    The tender they won isint starting for atleast another 6 months, so they are receiving the funding in advance ? I don't think so.

    These questions are being brought up by another TD to Shane Ross, if they are being brought up then it must be for a reason that it doesn't look right, that it may not be part of the tender they won.

    https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1070269669087592448?s=09


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3007
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭john boye


    My guess is she's completely confused by the difference between tendering and privatisation (like many of these headbangers) and thinks GAI are supposed to be funding the services themselves?


  • Options
    #3008
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Is that money to help Go-Ahead get started with costs such as building a depot, recruitment, training, admin costs etc.


  • Options
    #3009
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    devnull wrote: »
    So let me get this right?

    Your argument is that a company who won a contract to run PSO bus services and the funding to do so shouldn't be getting such funding?

    If Bus Eireann won contract it would be the same?

    No that's not what I'm saying

    The tender they won isint starting for atleast another 6 months, so they are receiving the funding in advance ? I don't think so.

    These questions are being brought up by another TD to Shane Ross, if they are being brought up then it must be for a reason that it doesn't look right, that it may not be part of the tender they won.

    https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1070269669087592448?s=09


    What is that document and where can I read the full version? Right now it's someone posting a photo of cherry picked typed words on twitter which is not very credible.

    It also doesn't say anywhere GoAhead got 3m.


  • Options
    #3010
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime


    devnull wrote: »
    What is that document and where can I read the full version? Right now it's someone posting a photo of cherry picked typed words on twitter which is not very credible.

    It also doesn't say anywhere GoAhead got 3m.

    I'd also like to know what questions were asked to Shane Ross and what answers were giving.

    That document might not be specific to transport but her own document for an array of topics, but I'm not sure.

    If the 3mil was split to BÉ and Go-ahead then that would make more sense. BÉ currently receiving payments until the routes hand over and the amount Go-ahead receive being their PSO funding then that would be fine.

    But if it's like the poster above says that it's funding for a new depot and driver training etc then that would be wrong as part of the tender stated the operators would be responsible for their own staff and depots etc.

    Nobody expects go-ahead to fund themselves, they are PSO routes after all , ofcourse they need funding , but I find it strange myself that they would be receiving funding in advanced of actually operating the services , and the services are still being operated by the current operator


    Also in relation to the other 10% on the eastern region you mentioned.

    The NTA have taken a step back and reduced it from 10% to just 5% only tendering out the 133, 101 , 101x routes.

    The 103 / 103x / 105 / 105x are to remain with BÉ


  • Options
    #3011
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    devnull wrote: »
    What is that document and where can I read the full version? Right now it's someone posting a photo of cherry picked typed words on twitter which is not very credible.

    It also doesn't say anywhere GoAhead got 3m.

    These types tend to tailor the truth to suit their agenda alright.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3012
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    No that's not what I'm saying

    The tender they won isint starting for atleast another 6 months, so they are receiving the funding in advance ? I don't think so.

    These questions are being brought up by another TD to Shane Ross, if they are being brought up then it must be for a reason that it doesn't look right, that it may not be part of the tender they won.

    https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/1070269669087592448?s=09

    Note the Twitter text does not match what the document states:-
    €3m of public money handed over to help private company take bus routes off Bus Éireann! I'm at Transport Cmte now questioning Minister Shane Ross. I also raised terms and conditions of workers in transport. #dubw

    It implies giving €3M to GA for routes they are taking off BE (i.e the Kildare services), however if you read the document in the picture it relates to the BMO tendering for both BE (Waterford) and GA services. BE Waterford just got 17 new buses under the BMO, remind me how much they cost again?


  • Options
    #3013
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    The NTA have taken a step back and reduced it from 10% to just 5% only tendering out the 133, 101 , 101x routes.

    The 103 / 103x / 105 / 105x are to remain with BÉ

    Source?

    Only last month the NTA proposal stated otherwise.


  • Options
    #3014
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime


    GM228 wrote: »
    Source?

    Only last month the NTA proposal stated otherwise.

    2 days ago

    https://www.thejournal.ie/bus-eireann-private-4373186-Dec2018/

    The journal may not be the last word in news reporting but there it is anyway.


  • Options
    #3015
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    If the 3mil was split to BÉ and Go-ahead then that would make more sense. BÉ currently receiving payments until the routes hand over and the amount Go-ahead receive being their PSO funding then that would be fine.

    It might not have gone to either of them, the article, which we don't even know what it is, it's sources or who authored it (so it could be anyone really like me or you) just says about the €3m funding for the BMO. It also might have been money going from the Department to the NTA to fund vehicles and neither BE nor GAI have seen anything.
    But if it's like the poster above says that it's funding for a new depot and driver training etc then that would be wrong as part of the tender stated the operators would be responsible for their own staff and depots etc.

    Nobody expects go-ahead to fund themselves, they are PSO routes after all , ofcourse they need funding , but I find it strange myself that they would be receiving funding in advanced of actually operating the services , and the services are still being operated by the current operator

    There is nothing to support those claims, they're pure speculation.

    The TD in question makes comments in a way that in my view, do not describe the image which she has supplied. Spin and unproven speculation has been added.
    The NTA have taken a step back and reduced it from 10% to just 5% only tendering out the 133, 101 , 101x routes.

    I notice that some outlets have said this, however there has been nothing from the NTA in terms of quotes or a press release to confirm it. There's quotes from Ann Graham about other stuff, but not this.


  • Options
    #3016
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime


    devnull wrote: »
    It might not have gone to either of them, the article, which we don't even know what it is, it's sources or who authored it (so it could be anyone really like me or you) just says about the €3m funding for the BMO. It also might have been money going from the Department to the NTA to fund vehicles and neither BE nor GAI have seen anything.



    There is nothing to support those claims, they're pure speculation.

    The TD in question makes comments in a way that in my view, do not describe the image which she has supplied. Spin and unproven speculation has been added.



    I notice that some outlets have said this, however there has been nothing from the NTA in terms of quotes or a press release to confirm it. There's quotes from Ann Graham about other stuff, but not this.

    1) true but this is the issue with the NTA and spending of tax payer money. The NTA should be transparent in where the funding is going to an extent. Ofcourse we shouldn't be seeing the inner runnings of a company but for spending of a public government department we should have a view of spending.

    For reasons like this the NTA I think the NTA needs a shake up !

    2) well for example, bus Eireann and go-ahead drivers are hired , employed by the respective companies , not the NTA , we're not NTA employees, so training and so on are funded purely by the companies , not from the NTA.
    The depot situation was outlined in the tender was it not ? The operator had to supply a depot for themselves, hence the current go-ahead depot is leased in Ballymount - not owned.

    3) if media outlets are saying this quite clearly , I don't have a reason not to believe them and I don't think they'd have a reason to lie on the fact either.

    And the fact his lordship Dermot O'Leary (I don't like the chap either) has jumped on the same fact would be good enough for me to say this is the case that the NTA have infact reduced the tender figure from 10% to 5% with the above routes mentioned.


  • Options
    #3017
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    well for example, bus Eireann and go-ahead drivers are hired , employed by the respective companies , not the NTA , we're not NTA employees, so training and so on are funded purely by the companies , not from the NTA.
    The depot situation was outlined in the tender was it not ? The operator had to supply a depot for themselves, hence the current go-ahead depot is leased in Ballymount - not owned.

    True but the NTA may be giving Go-Ahead a hand in order to fulfill those targets which are at the end of the day set down by the NTA and not Go-Ahead. Perhaps the NTA were willing to offer Go-Ahead financial assistance in order to find a depot as one of the main reasons other companies dropped out (Trandev and RATP Group I believe) was as the NTA were not going to provide a depot so financial assistance may have been the compromise for the NTA.

    The 3m was very well for the purchase of new vehicles remember Go-Ahead legally own their buses as does DB with the GTs and SGs but they are funded by the NTA and are under their conditions with things such as livery and the NTA reserve the right to move the buses between operators like they did by moving some DBs GTs and SGs over to Go-Ahead.

    I could be wrong but I do also believe that Go-Ahead are planning a second depot in Naas for their ex BE regional operations.


  • Options
    #3018
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    The depot situation was outlined in the tender was it not ? The operator had to supply a depot for themselves, hence the current go-ahead depot is leased in Ballymount - not owned.

    Not sure what this has to do with the original point you are making?
    if media outlets are saying this quite clearly , I don't have a reason not to believe them and I don't think they'd have a reason to lie on the fact either.

    I was always taught to use direct quotes and/or to credit sources so you can back-up what you are saying when writing articles. Some media outlets will say that paraphrasing is to apply clarity, but the trouble with paraphrasing is it's often done to imply something one is unable to back up, or to give someones own interpretation of what was said, or in political circles, it's often used to apply spin to a situation via methods like oversimplification.

    I'm not saying TheJournal is doing any of these, but my point is that if the routes have been decided, why is there no supporting information, named source or quotes to back this up? It makes it sound like someone has told them on the grapevine rather than it being officially confirmed.
    And the fact his lordship Dermot O'Leary (I don't like the chap either) has jumped on the same fact would be good enough for me to say this is the case that the NTA have infact reduced the tender figure from 10% to 5% with the above routes mentioned.

    Personally having read some of Mr O'Learys tweets and some of the campaigns that have been run by the NBRU and the misinformation that has been spread on BusConnects, among other things, I wouldn't take everything that Mr O'Leary says as gospel. I wouldn't describe him as jumping on the same fact either, because for something to be called a fact you have to prove it.

    I'm not saying that it hasn't been changed to 5%, it's just there is nothing solid to actually support it just yet.


  • Options
    #3019
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 11,586 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    True but the NTA may be giving Go-Ahead a hand in order to fulfill those targets which are at the end of the day set down by the NTA and not Go-Ahead. Perhaps the NTA were willing to offer Go-Ahead financial assistance in order to find a depot as one of the main reasons other companies dropped out (Trandev and RATP Group I believe) was as the NTA were not going to provide a depot so financial assistance may have been the compromise for the NTA.

    There's nothing to support any of that. If there was €3m it could have been drawn down to the NTA from the Department of Transport, an operator may well not have seen that or it may have been spent on vehicles.

    As long as Go-Ahead are only getting monies that are allowed for in the contract then there is nothing wrong happening here. If any parties really believe that there is extra money being handed under the table and there was something not right about how the tender awarded and the actions since it was, then ultimately they should take it to court.

    I see this many times before, many people alleging things left right and centre and making a huge fuss, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is and taking it to court, despite being very well resourced companies, they don't bother because they know that they won't win as they are unable to substantiate their claim and don't want to waste their money.

    To repeat
    - There is nothing to support Go-Ahead getting €3m in advance payments
    - There is nothing to support Go-Ahead having a depot provided for them
    - There is nothing to support Go-Ahead being provided money up-front for BE services.

    We have a couple of paragraphs cherry picked from a document that we are unable to see in full and have no idea where it came from or who wrote it and until those questions are answered it cannot be taken seriously as a source.

    The politician then claims that the statement in the source, suggests that €3m has gone to Go-Ahead in order to take routes off Bus Eireann when it doesn't say that whatsoever, it doesn't even say who the money is for, let alone who got it. This somewhat misrepresents what is in the document or possibly shows that the politician has misunderstood what the text means.

    In summary - an unverified source, no shortage of presumption and a politician either misunderstanding or making a comment that does not represent what is actually said in the source, leads to a narrative that isn't very plausible.


  • Options
    #3020
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    2) well for example, bus Eireann and go-ahead drivers are hired , employed by the respective companies , not the NTA , we're not NTA employees, so training and so on are funded purely by the companies , not from the NTA.

    Actually this is not correct and I know this due to correspondence between the unions, the NTA and the WRC where it has been confirmed by the NTA that they pay for training as it is considered a cost associated with the running of a service. This has come up twice in issues we dealt with involving both IE and BE.


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    The depot situation was outlined in the tender was it not ? The operator had to supply a depot for themselves, hence the current go-ahead depot is leased in Ballymount - not owned.

    No, it was never clarified in the tender, it said they may have to or the NTA may supply a site, it was only clarified after bids were received, see this post.


  • Options
    #3021
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    bus Eireann and go-ahead drivers are hired , employed by the respective companies , not the NTA , we're not NTA employees, so training and so on are funded purely by the companies , not from the NTA.

    That’s not exactly true. GAI are hiring the drivers now but, if they lose the contract, the new operator will be obliged under EU TUPE law, to transfer the drivers over to continue to operate the NTA services. The drivers are as much an NTA asset as they are to GAI or any future operator.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3022
    BowWow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭BowWow


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6466861/Neighbours-slam-transport-bosses-dumped-toilet-block-street.html


  • Options
    #3023
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    One thing I've noticed from the Go-Ahead Twitter page is that a lot the responses are please see TFI Updates especially with issues such as real time info and people are unhappy that the timetables at the bus stops haven't been updated to reflect the recent timetable changes on their Southside routes.

    I think the problems about the lack of integration are coming to show it's riddiculous that there needs to be three Twitter accounts if you want to find out info about city buses in Dublin DB, TFI and GAI all depending on what your issue is and what operator is running your route. There should be one TFI account incorporating all Dublin city bus services reps from DB and GAI should be feeding by telling the TFI/NTA social media team what the info the customer needs is rather than directly responding to tweets.


  • Options
    #3024
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    devnull wrote: »
    It also doesn't say anywhere GoAhead got 3m.
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »
    If the 3mil was split to Band Go-ahead then that would make more sense. Bcurrently receiving payments until the routes hand over and the amount Go-ahead receive being their PSO funding then that would be fine.

    The snippet from an unknown source that she put up explicitlly mentions both BE and GAI, so she is misleading in the first place that is going to GAi only. But also that it appears to be money paid out for work done or in progress.

    I am more and more convinced that what she is referencing is the payment to BE for services awarded under tender, and to GAI for services awarded under tender, which both are already running.

    I do wonder what the Ross response was, any half decent minister will ahve set her straight but he probably bumbeled around and made it look like the story she insinuated.


  • Options
    #3025
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I do wonder what the Ross response was, any half decent minister will ahve set her straight but he probably bumbeled around and made it look like the story she insinuated.

    He's inept and he's asleep at the wheel. He couldn't give a flying f*ck about transport.


  • Options
    #3026
    Technocentral
    Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    220 was due to take over from DB Dec 2nd, wonder what happened?


  • Options
    #3027
    thomasj
    Registered Users Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭thomasj


    Technocentral wrote: »
    220 was due to take over from DB Dec 2nd, wonder what happened?

    Yeah im wondering what happened myself. All the stops on the 220 route towards ballymun have the new NTA stops .


  • Options
    #3028
    StreetLight
    Registered Users Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭StreetLight


    thomasj wrote: »
    Yeah im wondering what happened myself. All the stops on the 220 route towards ballymun have the new NTA stops .

    Put off until next month, I believe.


  • Options
    #3029
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    StreetLight wrote: »
    Put off until next month, I believe.

    Correct as with the 104 I believe. A few dates have changed now.


  • Options
    #3030
    Technocentral
    Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    StreetLight wrote: »
    thomasj wrote: »
    Yeah im wondering what happened myself. All the stops on the 220 route towards ballymun have the new NTA stops .

    Put off until next month, I believe.

    There own site has it down for Dec 2nd still, pretty poor.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3031
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Technocentral wrote: »
    There own site has it down for Dec 2nd still, pretty poor.

    That's from a press release from July


Advertisement