Privatising Dublin Bus Routes

BrianD

As I understand it, the minister wants to flog off a number of existing routes from the Dublin Bus network for the private sector to operate. Is this supposed to be competitive??? It is possibly the most ridiculous move I have heard of.

In fairness to Dublin Bus, they have started doing a reasonable job over the past few years. All new buses, new routes and a general improvement of their customer service. Still plenty to improve on.

We want more buses and routes. Not the same amount of routes being operated by a number of bus companies. How will privatising a number of existing routes achieve this? Surely the DTO should be identifying new routes and putting them out to tender so that Dublin Bus or the private sector can put in their bid.

With integrated ticketing, fares will essentially be fixed so there is no price advantage for the consumer from privatising routes.

There will never be competing companies on the same commuter route. It would be senseless and has yet to happen anywhere else in the world. The only exception in Dublin is the airport route but this is essentially a premium route as opposed to a normal commuter route.

The minister should open new routes to competing tenders from different operators. If existing bus routes are to be privatised, Dublin Bus should also be allowed to tender. Interestingly, the general public only seem to consider privatising Dublin Bus when they are inconvenienced by industrial action. There is nothing to stop private bus staff going on strike either.

Xterminator

Brian,

Dublin Buses own figures show that not even its busiest routes have broken even.
That means that taxpayers money is being used to subsise routes that through dublin buses inefficency need not be losing money, or in some cases not losing as much money.

I'm not advocating we dont subsidse public transport. I just find it mind boggleig that a route like the no. 11 , the no. 10 etc loses money!!!

Dublin buses hav made improvements, but many of their workplace practices are ridiculous, and the drivers who have it handy dont want to see their job conditions eroded. Thus the unions grudgingly give as little as possible, when in neotiations.

Thats human nature, but as long as they are using public money, i think the minister is obliged to see if we are getting maximum benifit for the funds we are providing.

The current proposals are that when a company tenders for a route, they specify what quality of coverage they can provide, and how much subsidy they require. The route wont nessacarly go to the cheapest, but the best balance of service and economy of subsidy.

The regulator then has the job to see the bus company meet the level of service they have promised, eg 1 bus every 15 minutes etc.

X

Andrew Duffy

There is competition to the 67 and 25A routes; Morton's operates a good service with modern clean buses. Most of the industrial estates have private operators running services to them as well.

I agree with your point. Privateering will reduce the amount of money DB have to subsidise low volume routes, so it will either worsen the service or increase the need for government subsidy. But what do you expect from a government that models itself on the politcs of New Labour, Old Conservatives and the USA?

BuffyBot

I don't think it will be a case of letting different people operate 3 versions of the 25A and see who wins.

I imagine it will be something like the London system where the 25A is put up for tender and private companies can bid for the licence to operate it, with one winner.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Xterminator

The current proposals are that when a company tenders for a route, they specify what quality of coverage they can provide, and how much subsidy they require. The route wont nessacarly go to the cheapest, but the best balance of service and economy of subsidy.

What often happens with privatisation is that the company says "we'll need X amount of subsidy to run this route", the Government says "Brilliant, you win the contract", then a couple of years later the company comes back and says "Did we say X amount of subsidy? Cos we meant twice that". Governments are very reluctanct to go through the bother of terminating the contract and taking back the service (see recent history of rail network in UK) so they usually just cough up the money.

The problem is that there's so much incentive for private companies to do this. And yeah, I know public companies can overcharge too, but there's not the same incentives and governments are better able to regulate them so there's not the same level of risk.

BrianD

I fully agree that there is huge improvements necessary within Dublin Bus to improve efficiencies and reduce costs. A tender or minimum service level agreement needs to be implemented for every route no matter who runs it. Personally I believe it would be better to whip DB into shape. The privatisation issue is just another excuse for Brennnan to ignore present issues and move onto something else that may never be achieved. For example, it's easy to promise building a metro so you can conveniently ignore immediate solutions.

John R

Originally posted by Xterminator
Brian,

Dublin Buses own figures show that not even its busiest routes have broken even.
That means that taxpayers money is being used to subsise routes that through dublin buses inefficency need not be losing money, or in some cases not losing as much money.

I'm not advocating we dont subsidse public transport. I just find it mind boggleig that a route like the no. 11 , the no. 10 etc loses money!!!

Really, and where do you get that from? State your source. How about the CIE annual report.
Quote: The Group provides its services within a difficult operating environment. Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann recorded deficits in 2002 of €22.5 million and €9.4 million respectively. On the other hand, Bus Átha Cliath recorded a surplus of €3.4 million while the holding company posted a surplus of €24.9 million.

From: http://www.cie.ie/about_us/chairmans_statement.asp

The current proposals are that when a company tenders for a route, they specify what quality of coverage they can provide, and how much subsidy they require. The route wont nessacarly go to the cheapest, but the best balance of service and economy of subsidy.

The regulator then has the job to see the bus company meet the level of service they have promised, eg 1 bus every 15 minutes etc.

X

The current proposals are to privatise 25% within x amount of months (x being whatever number Brennan thinks up on the spot) There is no regulator set up so far and no framework for quality control on tendering or service, the department have been promising privitisation for several years now and just want it done asap.

BuffyBot

Governments are very reluctanct to go through the bother of terminating the contract and taking back the service (see recent history of rail network in UK) so they usually just cough up the money.

Not quite. Connex had their rail franchise removed and several London bus operators have had the routes given to other operators. All it needs is a proper, independent and powerful regulator - now that's what I would be worried about, especially with the Government's track record of toothless regulators

shotamoose

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Connex had their rail franchise removed

Only after a long history of notoriously bad service, demonstrating the reluctance of the government to get involved once they thought had washed their hands of it. And it's still the only example of a rail franchise being taken back despite constant complaints about the services provided.

and several London bus operators have had the routes given to other operators.

True, but London bus is unusually well regulated. And, as you say below,

All it needs is a proper, independent and powerful regulator - now that's what I would be worried about, especially with the Government's track record of toothless regulators

.

Yup.

BuffyBot

Only after a long history of notoriously bad service, demonstrating the reluctance of the government to get involved once they thought had washed their hands of it. And it's still the only example of a rail franchise being taken back despite constant

Ah yes, but with the notable exception of Connex, most of the train companies are an improvement on the old BR offerings