Circle Line to Close, Blame unfair competion from Dublin Bus

tvnutz

J-B wrote: »

Just to let everyone know, I got an update on the meeting on Weds. Apparently Dublin Bus have submitted an application for a licence to run an extra 3 67X buses in the morning and in the evening. This is currently with the Department (interesting given that the Minister's response to me made no reference to this!) Kildare County Council are writing to the Minister to ask him to address this issue.

The need for other areas in Celbridge to be covered by Dublin Bus was also discussed but it was not clear in the response received as to whether a licence application had actually been made for this service.

So I'm planning to write to Dublin Bus to get them to clarify exactly what they have applied for and to ask them, if they have not done already, to apply for a licence to run an additional route along the route covered previously by the Circle Line. I'm also planning to write back to the Minister to request details on the status of the licence applications. Anyone want to join me?

extra 67X's still won't connect Celbridge and Lucan with Ballsbridge where a huge amount of people from both towns work.

bazzer

tvnutz wrote: »

extra 67X's still won't connect Celbridge and Lucan with Ballsbridge where a huge amount of people from both towns work.

... unless they apply for a version of the 67X specifically operating to or via Ballsbridge. Look at how many versions of the 25X there are, so it's not impossible.

AlekSmart

Quote J-B "This is currently with the Department (interesting given that the Minister's response to me made no reference to this!)"

The lack of Ministerial reference to an important aspect of the current situation should not surprise regular observers of the Transport scene.

It is a matter of public record that the current Secretary General of the Dept of Transport is quite selective about what aspects of Public Transport policy deserve a Ministerial briefing.

The debacle of the Aer Lingus/Shannon Airport issue plus aspects of the Integrated Ticketing issue have all to clearly demonstrated how this Department is being run as several disconnected sections,very few of which even communicate with each other,let alone the Minister or in turn theTravelling Public.

The current situation as described by tvnutz and as mentioned by bazzer is EASILY addressed by the Licencing Section of the Department REQUESTING Bus Atha Cliath to operate services on this alignment.

If Bus Atha Cliath were to decline this request and given the incumbent Licence Holder (CLB) is unable to meet the conditions of their still-extant Licence,it is then open to the Minister under the provisions of the 1932 Transport Act to DIRECT Bus Atha Cliath to meet the all too obvious public service requirement which now exists.

The Important issue here is that ALL of the relevant powers currently exist under the 1932 Act which confer upon the Minister for Transport many strong regulatory powers to be used at his/her complete discretion.

Why is the Minister so poorly informed as to his wide ranging powers ?
What advice EXACTLY is being given to him?
What is the Departmental reasoning for advising (or failing to so do) of his options/powers ?

I wonder if there are any interested Transport related Journalists out there who are prepared to read the 1932 Transport Act and ask the appropriate questions at the opportune moment ? :eek:

lostexpectation

reading this explained alot for me, i still can't get over the guy mentionling the deadly accident in his press release

http://busrage.com/2008/06/20/circle-line-bus-company-ceases-operations-in-dublin/

jimmycrackcorm

just heard on the news that extra 25a/x and 67 busses are on the way. It would make sense to have some cover ballsbridge route that circle line did as there was a proven demand

bazzer

Which news was that? Can't find anything about it anywhere .....

jimmycrackcorm

It was on either FM104 or 98FM news at 7 pm. A local politician was also quoting how great it would be for the people of Cellbridge.

J-B

One of the local TDs wrote to me to say that the licence application was granted by the Department. There will be an additional 3 morning peak services and 2 evening peak services on the 67A route. He did not have a start date for those services.

He is aware this is an interim measure only and will be seeking further meetings with Dublin Bus to raise the following issues:

• the need to reroute some 67 services around Celbridge
• additional services to cope with the demand from September
• additional express services which bypass Lucan and Chapelizod.

I didn't realise the issue about the lack of service to Ballsbridge but obviously that should be raised also. I suppose its good that they have put some extra buses on but getting the non express bus in the morning is not exactly the quickest way of getting to work!

angrycommuter80

We have definetely one local representative to thank for this, he worked like a trojan on this matter. The labour party cllr was the only one to listen to many peoples issues on this matter and also worked along side dublin bus and other local party reps. From my understanding this interim measure was agreed following last Wedensdays meetign and we can be thankfull for those extra buses in the morning that will take the pressure off a lot of commuters.

markf909

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0723/bus.html

All over Morning Ireland.

Should someone tell RTE about the Patton Flyer also :rolleyes:

angrycommuter80

Can anyone please explain when all these extra Dublin buses that CL are saying saturated their routes actually were. i can certainly say the Celbridge route was never saturated! Are they speaking of extra 25x??? Surely what we need to do is move on from even referring to circle lines moans and excuses and giving them the publciity they are craving after deserting thousands of passengers.

Rawr

Indeed. Where were these 'auxillery services' which were operated on a 'permanent basis'?

I would have loved nothing more than to take advantage of these serivces (as Leixlip never had CL).

But this is terrible news from RTE, because it may give the DoT a wonderful excuse to bury it's head even further in the sand and forsake North Kildare's commuters for another few years. I really hope not.

bazzer

While I don't know the details of route licensing, who's to say that only one bus can cover one single departure? For example, maybe the 0715 from Celbridge was getting so overloaded that Dublin Bus decided to make two buses operate the same journey to cope with loadings.

Maybe that was a sort of loophole that Dublin Bus took advantage of. If so, fair play. Better than leaving people standing in the rain, rather than satisfying bureaucrats from the department who know shag-all about trying to run a bus service that works.

manc

from RTE.ie

Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:42
Research by the Department of Transport shows Dublin Bus has been running routes which were not authorised by the Government, in competition with a private operator.

Last month an operator went into liquidation citing unfair competition from the State-owned bus company.

Circle Line ran buses from Lucan and Celbridge through Dublin city centre to Rathfarnham.

The company said from the start of its services in 2002 that Dublin Bus saturated its routes with buses.

A Freedom of Information request by RTÉ News shows the Department of Transport monitored activity in the area.

It found morning services by Dublin Bus almost doubled on the routes operated by Circle Line.

Officials said Dublin Bus services did not comply with its timetables and operated auxiliary services on a permanent basis.

The department wrote to the State bus company on eight occasions warning it was operating unauthorised services.

Dublin Bus responded saying its interpretation of legislation differed from that of the department.

Last month Circle Line went into voluntary liquidation with the loss of 20 jobs.

In a statement Dublin Bus today said it was fully compliant with authorisations for bus routes.

KC61

It would appear that they are discussing the 25X.

Sainttoff

Maybe these people that do these investigations should look at how full the 25x is everytime.

Dublin bus are running extra 25x's as there is a demand for it.
People that makes these decisions in government dont do their homework!


And Circle line never served all parts of South Lucan, so someone had to do it!

angrycommuter80

There is the same if not more of a demand of 67x services than there is for 25x. And there are doubole the amount of 25a services than there are 67a. They need to try travelling to Celbridge daily on a inadequate bus services that go via Lucan, delaying the journey home unneccesarily. They need when discussing this issue to differenciate between Lucan and Celbridge as there is a vast difference in the number of buses servicing these towns.

spadder

I heard the boss of circle line on newstalk today, can he move his buses to another route? ( i.e. Trim-Dublin), or would c.i.e. shaft him again?

I live in Trim, and the town needs a more frequent service.

markf909

Swords Express in the Four Goldmines tomorrow suing the DoT because of DB competition on their routes.

Snake Plisken

Circleline ran a crap service to Lucan, where were these buses that ran 17 hours a day? Actually if RTE did any decent research they would see that Circleline ran buses without the required licenses as well! 25X's are always crowded both mornings and evenings, if the demand is there why shouldn't Dublin Bus not put on extra buses? I don't see Dublin Bus reducing their runs to Lucan now the competition is gone and are actually trying to be pro-active by looking to put on more buses to service the extra demand!

Sainttoff

Your welcome to have cirlce line bus in Trim. They will only run from 7-9 am and 5-630 pm! Hope all your people up there can move within those hours! Also if bus full you have no other buses coming!!

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0724/1216741027926.html

Dublin Bus behaviour against rival 'disgraceful'

TIM O'BRIENTHE OIREACHTAS Committee on Transport is to seek an urgent meeting with Dublin Bus after members accused the company of "using taxpayers' money to put competitors out of business and make commuters' journey times longer".

A Fine Gael spokesman described the company's behaviour as appalling and disgraceful.

Addressing allegations from private, Dublin-based bus operator Mortons that Dublin Bus had forced it to withdraw from serving some city routes, committee chairman Frank Fahey described the allegations as disturbing. Mr Fahey said Dublin Bus and Mortons would be asked to come before the committee.

The controversy overshadowed yesterday's launch of the committee's two-year action plan aimed at ensuring 80 per cent of Dublin commuters use bus services by 2010. A major recommendation is that buses should be allowed to use the Dublin Port Tunnel to help tackle traffic congestion.

The committee intended to focus on well-flagged recommendations in the report, including banning private cars from Dame Street, College Green, Westmoreland Street and O'Connell Street. It recommended the provision of two temporary Liffey bridges and the acquisition of an additional 350 buses for the city network.

But as the launch got under way yesterday, Fine Gael transport spokesman Fergus O'Dowd said Dublin Bus funding had doubled since 2000 and he accused the company of "using that to put private bus operators out of business".

He said the allegations were that Dublin Bus had dramatically increased its services on what was known as the "circle line" because of competition from Mortons.

He also said Dublin Bus had failed to respond to eight letters from the Department of Transport, while the company also operated unauthorised routes. It was he said, "appalling and disgraceful" behaviour.

Asked if he supported the comments, Mr Fahey repeated it was the committee's intention to ask Dublin Bus and Mortons to come before it as soon as possible.

He said he had talks with Ceann Comhairle John O'Donoghue about the prospect of introducing the Dublin Transport Office scheme, One Small Step, for Oireachtas members. This would involve TDs and Senators agreeing not to take their cars to work on one day a week. While its adoption would require formal approval by the Oireachtas, he said its implementation could negate the need to build a proposed underground car park in Leinster House.

Mr Fahey was supported by Timmy Dooley TD who said since taking the train from his Co Clare constituency he had avoided having a car parked in Leinster House.

Michael Kennedy TD, Dublin North, said the key point of the committee's report was that buses were an absolute priority, but they had to be more efficient.

In addition to the traffic management aspects, the 100-page report also recommends an increase in bus marketing and infrastructural developments such as additional bus corridors and on-street ticket vending machines.

The report noted that significant financial resources have been made available in recent years by the Department of Transport for bus-based park-and-ride facilities but there had been very limited take-up by local authorities.

© 2008 The Irish Times

AlekSmart

Any readers who have followed the hearings of the Committee will be aware of some of the usual "grandstanding" which sadly has to be tolerated as part of the price of democracy.
Thus Fine Gael`s Fergus O Dowd and other party types will engage in the usual oul shyte largely for the benefit of any media persons present.

That nonsense can be safely ignored and put to one side.:D

There are however some nuggets to be unearthed such as how many Route Licences held by private operators are not currently being operated or indeed how many have NEVER been operated.

There is of course the present situation concerning the Circle Line CL1+2 licences which are still extant and presumably held by the last Circle Line entity.

Are these licences held by that entity or did they remain in the possession of the ORIGINAL Paul Morton owned company..?

Either way if they are now not being operated will the Minister move to rescind them to allow Bus Atha Cliath the freedom to address the current emergency even on a temporary basis ?

There are a wide variety of options available to the Minister under the 1932 Transport Act,which drafted in the immediate aftermath of some of the worst unregulated competition ever seen in Ireland and which as a result contains some VERY strong functions to be used at a Ministers discretion....

John R

spadder wrote: »

I heard the boss of circle line on newstalk today, can he move his buses to another route? ( i.e. Trim-Dublin), or would c.i.e. shaft him again?

I live in Trim, and the town needs a more frequent service.

There already is a private operator running Trim-Dublin.

Buffman

Out of interest has anyone actually used or seen any of these 'auxiliary' services, or what does the term even describe? Is it another bus which follows on a full bus or what?

The more buses the better anyway, as a user of both CL & DB services to & from Celbridge, I think CL should have stuck with their rush hour services, as the demand for an all day service to Nutgrove was and is practically non-existant, while their rush hour services were always busy enough. A better buisness model for them may have been to use their fleet to run every 10-15min from 06.30-08.30, and 16.30-18.30, going for private hire jobs during the day.

I just hope for the love of God that these new 67X's don't serve Lucan, as adding anything from 10-30min to the jouney in'st what I'd call an express.

KC61

The use of auxiliary services has been a common practice across the bus industry. Basically, when the existing scheduled bus cannot cope with the loadings, a second bus would operate to clear the road of the waiting passengers.

It is probably most obvious on the Stillorgan QBC where empty buses are held at Foxrock Church and fed into service as either a long gap appears in 46A/145 service or where the buses are arriving at the stop full. There are auxiliary departures in the morning and evening peaks across the Dublin Bus network in order to ensure that everyone can actually get on the bus. If there were no auxiliary departures, then most corridors would not cope with demand, especially during the school/college terms when loadings are at their highest.

At peak times, Bus Éireann often operate two if not three buses on individual departures in order to ensure that everyone gets onto the service. Last weekend I saw three St. Kevin's buses operating their 11:00 departure from Dawson Street to Glendalough in order to cope with loadings.

The point in this case in Lucan is that passengers were actually being left behind! Hence the auxiliary departures.

But the neither the media nor the politicians seem interest in the fact that consumers are not getting the product that they should be!

Buffman

Thanks for the info KC, I can't see how Mr Morton would have any problems with these types of services, & as usual the media are just at their usual scare mongering, with the politicians adding their usual non-informed soundbytes. What would they recommend as an alternative, leave all those passengers standing there?

KC61

Buffman wrote: »

Thanks for the info KC, I can't see how Mr Morton would have any problems with these types of services, & as usual the media are just at their usual scare mongering, with the politicians adding their usual non-informed soundbytes. What would they recommend as an alternative, leave all those passengers standing there?

Well that's exactly what's happening.....

Ham'nd'egger

Buffman wrote: »

Thanks for the info KC, I can't see how Mr Morton would have any problems with these types of services, & as usual the media are just at their usual scare mongering, with the politicians adding their usual non-informed soundbytes. What would they recommend as an alternative, leave all those passengers standing there?

Morton is most likely looking for damages from DB for Circle going "bust" on his routes that DB "interfered" with; ie money for not operating the services. All the more farcical given that DB can't introduce routes that conflict with private services yet private services are able to run services in competition with DB; now they feel they can get paid for not having a level playing field.

I doubt that he is too bothered with re-introducing services again, given that many of the buses used on CL routes have been busy on private hire services so any monies won here won't be going into his public services. One wonders at times if some of these private undertakings are actually devoted to running a company to serve the public or are they looking at some sort of gravy train

spareman

Well wonder no more, I can tell you for sure right now that no private operator niether here or anywhere else for that matter are devoted to running a service for the public goodness, all they are interested in is profit. Are mortons backrupt? I dont think so. Will the managing directors of this so called circle line basically a divison of mortons be on the breadline now, I doubt it. The only people getting burned here and the staff and customers of these private operators. Public Bus Services should be kept as a public service. How can somebody get rich providing a public service, If there is profit to be made from any public services the government should get the right management in place and retain profits themselves.

AlekSmart

I would suspect that Ham n egger`s assessment of the current situation is correct.

It`s all about legal positioning with a view towards setting up the Dept of Transport for a major loss of commercial opportunity claim.

Thus far,an apparently rudderless,leaderless and intellectually derelict Department has performed like a proverbial Patsy straight out of central casting.

Indeed,so succcessful has Mr Mortons power play been that Swords Express`s legal team have decided to also get their retaliation in first...and fair play to them

Now from the Department of Transport`s point of view there has been no deviation from the Status Quo.
Most importantly no senior official has been forced to accept responsibility for what the rest of the Public Transport world view as an unmitigated disaster for the concept of integrated affordable and frequent public bus services.
The thin blue Civil Service line has held strong.
So strong in fact that the payment of "performance" related bonuses for 2007/8 will be made as per the standing agreement.

In the meantime anybody unfortunate to be living in the area colloquially known as Lawlorland and relying on Public Transport can go whistle dixie.

Its not that long ago when a display of such monumental incompetance from a Civil Authority might have merited a sacking or two...but that would only have occurred in some brutal third-world regieme....one where Public Transport manages to still be affordable,reliable and well managed even after decades of corrupt colonoial rule.

In Ireland,mother Ireland we do things differently...and pay a heavy price for it !!! :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

AlekSmart wrote: »

There are a wide variety of options available to the Minister under the 1932 Transport Act,which drafted in the immediate aftermath of some of the worst unregulated competition ever seen in Ireland and which as a result contains some VERY strong functions to be used at a Ministers discretion....

Alek, you've often mentioned this, and that the Minister/DoT are either unwilling to use the powers the act gives them, or possibly even unaware of these powers.

I wonder could there be another problem regarding the 1932 Transport Act - the 1932 part.

It's legislation brought in under the Free State, and is assumed to comply with our present constitution unless challenged - but was never subject to Presidential approval and possible challenge before being signed into law. I wonder are the DoT afraid that any attempt to actually use these powers would lead to the act being struck down?

Of course then the answer is to bring in new legislation and remove this doubt - ball remains firmly in the DoT's court then... :rolleyes:

Ham'nd'egger

ninja900 wrote: »

Alek, you've often mentioned this, and that the Minister/DoT are either unwilling to use the powers the act gives them, or possibly even unaware of these powers.

I wonder could there be another problem regarding the 1932 Transport Act - the 1932 part.

It's legislation brought in under the Free State, and is assumed to comply with our present constitution unless challenged - but was never subject to Presidential approval and possible challenge before being signed into law. I wonder are the DoT afraid that any attempt to actually use these powers would lead to the act being struck down?

Of course then the answer is to bring in new legislation and remove this doubt - ball remains firmly in the DoT's court then... :rolleyes:

There is an opinion that feels that the problem is more so in the application of the Act, along with it's 1934 brother than the Act being obsolete or irrelevant.

It is worthwhile to clarify that these acts were in many ways created to prevent a crazy free for all in those who provided public transport in the then "Free State". These acts came in at a time when the only legal protection a passenger had in getting onto a half decent vehicle was the local Carriage Officer of the Gardaí, even then his role was to inspect a vehicle. At the time, many bus services were opened and serviced by people who would buy buses and operate routes; in many cases routes would change from day to day as would the times of same. While there was some larger companies and co-ops of smaller operators, the problem of renegade operators was creating an unreliable and at times aggressive and unsafe service. Stories of buses running ahead of and stopping in front of trams were ten a farthing they were so common while some fist fights were even recorded between crews!

The Act's role back them helped to create a larger public transport concern to eliminate the ad hoc running of buses, trams and trains and latterly freight carriers and served to create a more coherent and intergrated timetable. Companies were either invited to, or in a few cases compulsorily taken over by the larger company in order to allow for the larger company to run all the services in a tighter manner. All of this was done by companies who were private undertakings, many of which were floated on the Irish Stock Market. It was not until 1948 that CIE as a company was taken over fully and bought by the State, some companies (mainly railways) that were ineligible to be absorbed. Back then, the Act was robust and worked well, CIE only replacing railways with buses and trucks when suitable road conditions allowed so.

The ability of Private Operators to apply to run routes always existed; either the market conditions or the desire to never seemed to exist for allow same. Morton has run private buses for many a year, he had a lot of time to examine and understand just what he had to do to run a bus company and make money on it. My fear here now is that if his case is successful, as indeed the case of Swords Express, there will be no protection or structure left on our public transport market. Irish Rail and Luas will be safe as they own/lease their network but the public roads will be a free for all. There isn't really any reason why it can't work today if the Department makes it work. If the current apathy and head in sand approach, Morton and Swords will be the Christy Humphries of buses and we will be looking at exactly what they Act set out to protect; the publics ability to rely on buses to get us there.