Patton Flyer on RTE 1 now.

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:

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

John R

markpb wrote: »

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.

Then why don't you start one?

As it happens I think that it is a very good idea and something that is long overdue. I do think it is a pity that P11/RUI were not at all interested in non-rail public transport as one central pressure group would have more clout than several smaller groups but they were not at all interested when I tried to bring the topic up.

iwudluvit

Why is the Patton flyer bus parking overnight now illegally on a corner on Killiney Road? Surely it's not becasue the driver lives there? Isn't there a place to park their buses - must be 9 or 10 of them somewhere?

Fratton Fred

iwudluvit wrote: »

Why is the Patton flyer bus parking overnight now illegally on a corner on Killiney Road? Surely it's not becasue the driver lives there? Isn't there a place to park their buses - must be 9 or 10 of them somewhere?

I think they only have three or four buses, two of which are running pretty much all the time from 4am to midnight.

They quite often park one at the Dalkey stop, not sure why they would want to park one on Killiney Road unless, as you say, the driver (Or maybe Mr Patton himself) lives there

AlekSmart

Oddly enuf,one of the aspects of fully complying with the Law of the Land is that as part of the Route Licencing structure,an applicant is required to provide to an Garda Siochana details of those stops which are proposed for the service.

This would allow for the Full Safety Audit which we now understand is de rigeur for such items as Bus Stops in Dublin....

However,since the PF hasnt bothered to comply with the Route Licencing requirements of a toothless Dept of Transport why on earth should such mundane items as Bus Stop notification bother them...or anybody else ??

Fratton Fred

AlekSmart wrote: »

Oddly enuf,one of the aspects of fully complying with the Law of the Land is that as part of the Route Licencing structure,an applicant is required to provide to an Garda Siochana details of those stops which are proposed for the service.

This would allow for the Full Safety Audit which we now understand is de rigeur for such items as Bus Stops in Dublin....

However,since the PF hasnt bothered to comply with the Route Licencing requirements of a toothless Dept of Transport why on earth should such mundane items as Bus Stop notification bother them...or anybody else ??

Maybe they have.

Dalkey Garda don't seem too worried about the service.

Sizzler

Could there be grounds for complaint for the Patton flyer under the trade description act? Does it actually fly

AlekSmart

I assume the Dalkey members are`nt too bothered as they have other more onerous duties too attend to
....or perhaps its because the Minister for Transport has not yet replied to the Garda Commissioners letter seeking "clarification" of the relevant points of the 1932 Road Transport Act which were cited in the Department of Transports (Licencing Section) letter to the Gardai reporting the breach to them
....At some future point this particular Minister for Transport will require a Boswell (Buswell ?) to collate and record all of the missives he is issuing........:eek:

John R

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think they only have three or four buses, two of which are running pretty much all the time from 4am to midnight.

They quite often park one at the Dalkey stop, not sure why they would want to park one on Killiney Road unless, as you say, the driver (Or maybe Mr Patton himself) lives there

They don't have a proper stop at Dalkey (or anywhere else for that matter), the stop in Dalkey they usually illegally park at is in fact the (incorrectly located) Dublin Bus 59 stop.

The location they use to pick-up passengers is in or beside pay-and-display car parking bays at Hyde Park.

KC61

Interesting discussion in the Dáil last week with regard to the Patton Flyer:



Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Transport if he will expedite the processing of the application in respect of a company (details supplied) for a licence to operate bus passenger services between Dalkey and Dublin Airport, serving intermediate points via Glasthule, Dún Laoghaire, Monkstown and Blackrock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7038/09]

Minister for Transport (Deputy Noel Dempsey): The company to which the Deputy refers was advised on 16 January 2009 of the terms on which a licence could be granted in respect of the operation of the services in question. They were also afforded a period of three weeks during which they could indicate acceptance of those terms. Further clarification of the position was given to representatives of the company at a meeting with officials of my Department, held on 3rd February. I understand that the company indicated at that meeting that it would be making a further submission to my Department. That submission is awaited.

samray

I'd like to know if alexsmart can get me a job in Aircoach as you seem to get a remarkable amount of time there to fanny around on the net

devnull

1) Thats a trolling post - Aleksmart does not work for Aircoach
2) There is another thread on this subject, not an anchant old one.

samray

Thanks Devnull, but what exactly is a trolling post? And where is the other thread so that I can pass the same comment about aleksmart there?

Calina

samray if you post the same comment about aleksmart in another thread I will ban you end of story.

thread locked.