Citylink told to stop unlicenced non stop Dublin Galway route.

Run_to_da_hills

Citylink was told to stop the Galway to Dublin non stop route or face possible Garda prosecution. I didn't think that there was a difference between licences for non stop and stop off on the same route.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1023/1224257293904.html

irishguy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Citylink was told to stop the Galway to Dublin non stop route or face possible Garda prosecution. I didn't think that there was a difference between licences for non stop and stop off on the same route.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1023/1224257293904.html

Thats a total joke, have they nothing better to do

Run_to_da_hills

irishguy wrote: »

Thats a total joke, have they nothing better to do

The authorities were probably under pressure from Iarnrod Eireann, the real looses on this route.

wayne2107

What about the patton flyer?

Cookie_Monster

wayne2107 wrote: »

What about the patton flyer?

yeah, i was about to ask this. citilink can now use this as a defence of sorts. how long has Patton been operating his service illegally now? 3-4 years?

Run_to_da_hills

wayne2107 wrote: »

What about the patton flyer?

The Patton Flyer is only a minibus, I believe its exempt.

AlekSmart

The Patton Flyer is only a minibus, I believe its exempt.

Not so.
Although the Patton Flyer currently utilises a Midi Coach,the service itself must be licenced by the Dept of Transport.

It is not,therefore it is an illegal service.
This illegality has been reported by the Department to an Garda Siochana who for their own reasons have not yet taken any action on foot of the Departments action.

What may be of more import is the attitude of the Irish Insurers Federation in relation to what level of Insurance Cover is in effect for vehicles being knowingly operated in an illegal manner.

There is also another issue of the fitness to hold a Certificate of Professional Competency.
Currently one of the requirements for holding such a certificate is that the holder be of "Good Repute".
I`m not certain as to whether ignoring a lawful request from the relevant Regulatory Department can therefore allow a person to still hold a certificate issued by the State itself.

The Citylink case is merely the logical extention of the Patton Flyer situation,for a larger stake and reflects equally poorly on the state of chassis within the agencies of State who are being proven to have no actual powers at all.

On a broader scale it accurately reflects the present "adrift without a paddle" position which Ireland currently enjoys..

westtip

irishguy wrote: »

Thats a total joke, have they nothing better to do

exactly.

Ham'nd'egger

irishguy wrote: »

Thats a total joke, have they nothing better to do

Care to explain why the Authorities should do nothing about it if this service is unlicenced?

GerardKeating

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The authorities were probably under pressure from Iarnrod Eireann, the real looses on this route.

One of the media reports cited a compliant from GoBus, who are licensed for a non-stop service on the route.

crocro

This is the worst bit...

irish times wrote:

The department’s intervention follows a complaint by rival coach operators GoBus (trading as Evobus Ltd), which obtained a licence from the department for a non-stop service between Dublin and Galway last August after almost three years of waiting

This is the third time I've read press reports of the DoT taking years to assess a licence application.

What is this? The Department for Preventing Transport? I would love to see them have to account for what they were doing during those three years.

The minister has to bear responsibility for this as he's the boss.

trad

The Patton Flyer is a red herring. It does not have a route licence and operates as a private hire under a loophole in the 1932 Act.

Both Citylink and Gobus are licenced operators. Both have licences to operate between Dublin and Galway but on different routes. Gobus operates from Dublin Airport, Dublin City and direct to Galway via the N/M4 and M/N6 non stop to Galway. Citylink has a licence to operate Dublin to Galway on the old route via all the towns enroute.

The Paton flyer operates as a private hire. Example - Pat and 40 of his mates want to go to Dublin Airport so instead of using the aircoach Pat rings a coach operator and hires a bus for a fixed fee. Pat then divides up the cost of the bus and collects the "fare" from each of his mates and Pat pays the coach operator the agreed fee. In the flyers case the coach is hired in under private hire and a person from Pattons collects the "fare".

Cookie_Monster

trad wrote: »

The Patton Flyer is a red herring. It does not have a route licence and operates as a private hire under a loophole in the 1932 Act.

Both Citylink and Gobus are licenced operators. Both have licences to operate between Dublin and Galway but on different routes. Gobus operates from Dublin Airport, Dublin City and direct to Galway via the N/M4 and M/N6 non stop to Galway. Citylink has a licence to operate Dublin to Galway on the old route via all the towns enroute.

The Paton flyer operates as a private hire. Example - Pat and 40 of his mates want to go to Dublin Airport so instead of using the aircoach Pat rings a coach operator and hires a bus for a fixed fee. Pat then divides up the cost of the bus and collects the "fare" from each of his mates and Pat pays the coach operator the agreed fee. In the flyers case the coach is hired in under private hire and a person from Pattons collects the "fare".

how does that work though? it has regular stops along the route.

Capt'n Midnight

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how does that work though? it has regular stops along the route.

same as the old travel club dodge,

you joined the club for the duration of the journey
free bus trip, once you paid your membership to the driver

AlekSmart

The Patton Flyer is a red herring. It does not have a route licence and operates as a private hire under a loophole in the 1932 Act.

Trad,I suspect you may be relying on outdated information re the P. Flyers status.

The time-honoured "Travel Club" work-around was AFAIR closed off by the Department of Transport some years back.

The Patton Flyer advertises a "Scheduled Bus Service" and also advertises specific Stops.

www.thepattonflyer.ie

It is worth noting also that the location of such stops for a legally operated service must first be inspectyed and approved by the Garda authorities.

This process,largely operated on a nod/wink basis up until the Wellington Quay disaster but subsequent to that the Gardai now attach great importance to the process.

The major problem for the Department of Transport here is that it has allowed an operator to simply ignore an entire section of legal requirements.

If this is seen as some form of protest by that operator then fair enough,BUT,the Minister for Transport is the responsible official in charge of the Department,therefore I would be most interested in what would occur if a Patton Flyer vehicle or Passenger is involved in a serious accident whilst on an illegal scheduled service as advertised.

The entire thing is totally academic UNTIL something happens,then in true Irish Public Administrative style the feathers will fly as the great and good scramble to deflect the responsibility.

Either the Department of Transport is presiding over its Legal Responsibilities or it is not.
If not then it must advise the Public and the Industry that a free-for-all now exists.

This particular Galway Road spat has nothing whatever to do with Iarnrod Eireann,but everything to do with a falling out between former business partners.

Also worth watching in the near future will be the response of the actual holder of the licence for the route section which the Patton Flyer sought approval for.

First/Aircoach may well decide to seek to recover the income it`s losing to the Patton Flyer operation from the relevant enforcement authority....Minister Dempsey.....Tee Hee Ted...where would you see the likes of it !!! :P

veryangryman

What Citylink are doing is nothing new.

This is the very same idea Ryanair did to kill Easyjet out of Shannon

I would tell Gobus to get bent. This is business. Also im not a fan of them after they left Athlone out of the service (yes i know its non-stop but citylink do non-stop and a seperate multi-stop which covers us)

Off topic, A 1-stop service covering Athlone and just using motorway rest of the way would be great for business for either operator in my opinion And yes i say that with vested interests

Nostradamus

westtip wrote: »

exactly.

Get the sniffer dogs down to the CIE offices and see if they can find any of the alleged missing invoices.

parsi

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The authorities were probably under pressure from Iarnrod Eireann, the real looses on this route.

They were under pressure from another Private Operator - GoBus.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a diatribe...

trad

If anyone is interested and has the time to read the 1932 Road Transport Act here it is,
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1932/en/act/pub/0002/index.html

In 1932 horses and steam were familiar sights on Irish Roads. The 1932 act is still what licences bus operations on Irish roads. I spent a number of years enforcing Road Transport legislation and we (the Gardai) made a number of attempts to stop what was ironically the Civil Service Travel Club who operated on much the same lines as Patton flyer bringing country people home for the weekend. We were being made protect a state monopoly, the then CIE, who wouldn't provide the service at that time.

The current situation regarding the issue of route licenses is, I believe, as a result of a High Court action by a coach operator against the Department of Transport resulting in the liberalisation of route licences.

I have no idea why Patton has been denied a route license but if any of you are journalists or have money to spare lob in a FOI request to the Department of Transport and you can post the reply here for all to see.

A simular situation occured with the Swords Express, set up by a boardsie, where he had a licence to operate through the port tunnel and Dublin Bus didn't. He would be an authority on route licences if he wishes to join in.

cast_iron

AlekSmart wrote: »

The major problem for the Department of Transport here is that it has allowed an operator to simply ignore an entire section of legal requirements.

Which legal requirements exactly are they ignoring?

AlekSmart

Which legal requirements exactly are they ignoring?
Today

The requirement to possess a Route Licence as issued by the Minister for Transport in relation to a licenced scheduled service.

The requirement to submit to an Garda Siochana,for their approval a list of all stops it is proposed to serve in advance of commencing operations.

We then move on into a whole raft of stuff concerning the requirement to be of "good repute" which I suppose in the current political climate is somewhat dangerous territory....

Carawaystick

It's kind of funny that what the customer wants is not taken into account by the department headed by a man who gets fourteen grand worth of limos and a chopper home to meath when he wants. The same man also exhorted us, the plain people of Ireland to use public transport yet followed up by saying the Gardaí said it was too dangerous for him to use it (Why not have a transport police to fix that issue noel?)

Capt'n Midnight

trad wrote: »

In 1932 horses and steam were familiar sights on Irish Roads.

and all over Europe for most of the 1940's too

Mrs OBumble

AlekSmart wrote: »

... The requirement to submit to an Garda Siochana,for their approval a list of all stops it is proposed to serve in advance of commencing operations.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

But how do BE get away with saying that their regional services "stop on request when and where required"? Or is it that their drivers are so much more skilled that the don't need the guards to check things out? :rolleyes:

(source)

AlekSmart

Definitely worth Just Mary`s time to contact Bus Eireann`s Press Office and have them review their wording here to something like..."Stop at request stops when and where required".

Bus Eireann are no different in this respect than any other operator running a LICENCED service.
If it`s Stage Carriage,a list of stops releveant to the route will have been submitted to and reviewed by the Polis.

The only departures from this are Drivers who TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES to drop or pickup passengers between Stops.

This was always a traditional part of the oul come-all-ye Irish friendliness which got sidelined by the arrival of motorways and wealth,although Drivers will still need ears of cloth to deal with many such passengers who require to be dropped off on the hard-shoulder near the oul gate......:eek:

If JustMary is in any doubt about the safety of a particular stopping point then she should ring the local Gardai and give them an earful which I can guarantee will result in them "Checking It out" pretty damn quick !

Vic_08

veryangryman wrote: »

What Citylink are doing is nothing new.

This is the very same idea Ryanair did to kill Easyjet out of Shannon

Except that Ryanair, however much people despise them did it within the law. If these reports are accurate then Citylink are flaunting the law in order to run a legally compliant operator out of business.

veryangryman wrote: »

I would tell Gobus to get bent. This is business. Also im not a fan of them after they left Athlone out of the service (yes i know its non-stop but citylink do non-stop and a seperate multi-stop which covers us)

Well everybody wants a bus leaving exactly at their convenience and stopping nowhere bar their destination but as you said THIS IS BUSINESS and Galway is the only destination on that road likely to generate enough traffic from Dublin to warrant a frequent non-stop service.

veryangryman wrote: »

Off topic, A 1-stop service covering Athlone and just using motorway rest of the way would be great for business for either operator in my opinion And yes i say that with vested interests

If all the resources currently put into bus services on the entire N4/5/6 corridor by all the operators using it (there are at least 5) were correctly re-allocated and integrated IMO it would be possible to provide a much better service to the majority of passengers with more frequent and quicker journeys for all the main flows.

An hourly fast service to Athlone would be viable in such a framework but now with competing operators splitting the passengers up between them it isn't.

There was a post in Galway with a link to an interview from Gobus about this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62557807&postcount=24
Don't know if it will still work.

It did make it sound that Citylink were trying to put Gobus out of business by operating an unlicensed service.

Edit: Pricing is very aggressive on the route aswell.

KC61

Just to reiterate what the penalties are regarding non-compliance (from the 1932 Transport Act):

"Every person who carries on a passenger road service in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues."

I suspect that Citylink (and indeed Delgro) and Patton Flyer can well afford to pay these penalties.

KC61

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's kind of funny that what the customer wants is not taken into account by the department headed by a man who gets fourteen grand worth of limos and a chopper home to meath when he wants. The same man also exhorted us, the plain people of Ireland to use public transport yet followed up by saying the Gardaí said it was too dangerous for him to use it (Why not have a transport police to fix that issue noel?)

I'm not sure however that the route can sustain 60 return bus journeys per day (30 of them non-stop) - someone is going to end up being burnt here and I suspect that given Citylink is backed by Singapore giant Delgro that it won't be them...

There has to be some element of regulation in the provision of public transport (albeit sensible regulation) - otherwise we will end up with a total free for all and the customer will end up the loser as in many areas of the UK.

KC61

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bus-firm-faces-just-8364635-a-day-fine-for-running-illegal-service-1924940.html

Bus firm faces just €6.35 a day fine for running 'illegal' service

THE Department of Transport has admitted that it is powerless to stop a private company running an "illegal" bus service between Galway and Dublin.

CityLink faces paltry fines of just €6.35 a day for refusing to stop operating a non-stop service which the company claims costs as a little as €1 each way for passengers who book online.

Despite the department ordering the CityLink bus company to stop operating the service, it has refused and has asserted that it is fully licensed to operate.

But the company has made an application for permission to run an express service, despite legal advice suggesting it was entitled to do so using its existing licence.

A spokesman added that the department had confirmed "that it is not in their remit to stop these services".

"Therefore coach users will continue to benefit from the lower fares and the quality and frequency of service that Citylink offers," he added.

The Department of Transport has confirmed that gardai have been asked to investigate if the company is breaking the law.

Citylink operates 28 return non-stop journeys per day from Galway to Dublin city and Dublin Airport.

Attempts to book seats from Galway to Dublin and Dublin Airport, travelling yesterday, for €1 each way were unsuccessful. The trips cost €8 to Dublin, and €13 to the airport.

CityLink is owned by the world's second largest transport group, ComfortDelGro, which had a turnover of $1.5bn (€1bn) in 2008.

The service started operating on October 1, and has been sharply criticised by local bus operators. Jim Burke from Go Bus, which operates a rival service, said CityLink's activities were damaging his business.

"We were the first operator to have a non-stop service, and we applied for our licence in June 2006," he said. "We only got a letter of offer in February this year. It has had a major impact on us, we'd be down 50pc on passenger numbers."

Bus Eireann last night warned the "illegal activity" was damaging revenues which would have a knock-on effect on services.

"We have always used revenues from services such as Galway-Dublin to help maintain loss-making routes in rural areas, but these unlicensed services are now making it even harder to keep those rural services going," a spokesman said.

Damage

"It would appear that CityLink is trying to damage indigenous bus operators by running illegal services that enable them to 'cherrypick' our customers."

The commercial semi-state transport company also applied for a licence to operate direct services in 2005 but is still awaiting a decision.

The Department of Transport confirmed it had instructed CityLink to stop operating the service, and that the company had refused to do so. But it admitted that if convicted the company faced a fine of €63.49 on conviction and €6.35 for every day during which the offence continues.

The Consumers Association of Ireland said that consumers should be aware that the company was operating an unlicensed service.

Spokesman Dermott Jewell said: "All we can say to consumers is you need to be satisfied that in all eventualities you're covered (by insurers). If there's a problem of non-registration, consumers should be aware of that."

- Paul Melia

Irish Independent

KC61

For me the most telling comment in this piece is:

The commercial semi-state transport company also applied for a licence to operate direct services in 2005 but is still awaiting a decision.

How many other services have Bus Eireann applied for and not heard back from the Department in a similar vein?

That certainly does refute some of the comments that I've read about BE not being prepared to provide services to customers.

AlekSmart

Notwithstanding the fact that Ireland now has a Government Department admitting that it has NO Remit over its own area of operations,(Better make that TWO Govt Departments.....I was forgetting the Dept of Finance....),we need to perhaps take Dermot Jewell`s warning at face value.

Both of the operators currently trying it on in relation to observing the Legal requirements of Public Transport provision are admitting to their actions.

This,of itself,immediately places them in a position of Ill Repute regarding their commercial standing and their entitlement to possess a Certificate of Professional Competency (another Legal Requirement)

These items are very definitely within the Department of Transports remit to police and it raises serious questions as to the Departments competence as to why the regulations are not being enforced.

Even under the much,often unfairly, maligned 1932 Road Transport Act it is open to the Minister to set or vary many of the penalties and fee`s payable for various transgressions or servicces provided under that Act.

The relevant phraseology is "At the Ministers discretion" or "As directed by the Minister" or any variation of those.
Essentially this allows the Minister,by virtue of the Making of a Ministerial Order (Statutory Instrument) to alter or amend such elements of the Act as he/she sees fit and with regard to THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

One thing IS certain,it is NOT in the Public Interest for ANY legitimate operator to openly refuse to comply with the Legal Requirements of the State.

It is a moot point as to what the Singaporean authorities might do if it was Bus Eireann attempting to give the two-fingers to its domestic laws ?

We are also seeing,yet again,the Dept of Transport attempting to deflect the responsibility onto the Gardai with it`s somewhat craven statement about asking them to "Investigate" this situation.

The Gardai have had quite some time now to "Investigate" the Patton Flyer situation and have been markedly reluctant to take action of any sort in this regard.

However,back to the Consumer Associations Dermot Jewell and his warning re insurance.......

Lest anybody be in doubt about it,the providers of Motor Insurance Cover and associated Public Liability cover will,in the event of a Major accident/incident,do their utmost to avoid any damaging payout.

It may well be worthwhile to contact the Irish Insurers Federation to ascertain if their Motor and Public Liability underwriters will now cover a client who knowingly refuses to comply with a Statutory Requirement.

If their response is positive,then we private citizens then possess precedence to assume that any and all of our illegal actions are thus similarly covered.
The alternative is that the Insurance Companies have some form of "secret list" of Illegalities which they WILL indemnify the operator against.

However I can well imagine the usual Irish reaction as being "Ah sure,that might never happen" and if so that`s fine......BUT...When it DOES happen then nobody can go whinging to Liveline when they are cut adrift to do their own thing.

Both of these situations go FAR beyond the Public Transport realm and instead strike directly at the heart of the BIG problem for Ireland......Is ANYBODY in charge of the Country ?????

KC61

trad wrote: »

I have no idea why Patton has been denied a route license but if any of you are journalists or have money to spare lob in a FOI request to the Department of Transport and you can post the reply here for all to see.

A simular situation occured with the Swords Express, set up by a boardsie, where he had a licence to operate through the port tunnel and Dublin Bus didn't. He would be an authority on route licences if he wishes to join in.

The Patton Flyer is in conflict with the already licensed Aircoach service to/from Greystones according to the Department (both are picking up/setting down between Blackrock and the Eastlink).

Dublin Bus attempted to introduce an extended 37 to/from Blanchardstown Shopping Centre but the DoT refused it as it would conflict with the UrBus service (between Ashtown/Castleknock and Blanchardstown). Their proposed 141 service from Swords to Rathmines via the Old Swords Road was refused as it would conflict with Swords Express which operates via the Port Tunnel.

Swords Express licence application took several years to get approval and they (I understand) are still awaiting a response to an application to service more areas of Swords.

There is one common problem in all of this....the DoT!!!!!

trad

KC61, if you follow through on your reasoning regarding patton that they are in conflict with another licenced service (aircoach) then it could be argued that the 145 is in conflict with the 46A as the both pick up / set down between Foxrock Church and the City Centre. Citylink, GoBus and Bus Eireann all operate between Dublin and Galway, so the operation of 2 services over 5 km would not, in my opinion, would not be a valid reason to refuse the issue of a license.

I agree the problem is the DOT.

serfboard

GoBus are rightly frustrated that, by waiting until they had got a licence from the DOT to operate their service, a practice that took three years, CityLink just decide to ignore the Department and the need for licencing and start their own service.

I agree with other posters who have correctly said that this creates a bad precedent and makes this country seem like a right lawless joke.

Can you imagine this kind of thing happening in Germany or Switzerland, for example?

KC61

trad wrote: »

KC61, if you follow through on your reasoning regarding patton that they are in conflict with another licenced service (aircoach) then it could be argued that the 145 is in conflict with the 46A as the both pick up / set down between Foxrock Church and the City Centre. Citylink, GoBus and Bus Eireann all operate between Dublin and Galway, so the operation of 2 services over 5 km would not, in my opinion, would not be a valid reason to refuse the issue of a license.

I agree the problem is the DOT.

Well unfortunately Trad that IS the case.

There are Dail questions and answers that indicate Patton was refused a licence (when he did apply) as Aircoach got in ahead of him with their Greystones service and his service would conflict with theirs; similarly Dublin Bus route 37 was held to be in conflict with UrBus because they operated along about 1-2 miles of common route. Utter madness, but there you go.

There is no real logic to their approach other than (from what I can see) they are running scared of potential litigation from private operators claiming unfair competition by semi-state companies.

The 145 and 46a are operated by the same operator (Dublin Bus) so no conflict there.

In arriving at a decision the DoT look at both the route and timetables - it really is in no-one's interest for current service patterns to perpetuate on Dublin/Galway.

Mrs OBumble

serfboard wrote: »

I agree with other posters who have correctly said that this creates a bad precedent and makes this country seem like a right lawless joke.

Can you imagine this kind of thing happening in Germany or Switzerland, for example?

Some work I've done on Google lately makes me think that there are quite a few unlicenced bus services in RoI.

I'm not 100% sure (eg what are the rules re licencing on cross-border services, do they need licences on both sides? what about mini-bus services? etc). But have a strong suspicion.

dub_commuter

Regarding cross border services a license is not needed for passengers who get on in the North and get on in the Republic, or vice versa.

However the operator has to get a license to allow people to get on in Ireland and get off in Ireland, and to get off in Northern Ireland and get on there etc.

This is why until recently on the Aircoach Belfast service, you could only get on one side of the border and get off the other, they recently got a license that allows people to get on and off in ROI, but they still cannot pick people up in NI and also get off there as they don't have approval from NI.

AlekSmart

Some work I've done on Google lately makes me think that there are quite a few unlicenced bus services in RoI.

Well JustMary,have a gander at this extract from the Dáil Committee on Transport`s illuminating intercourse with Senior Officials of the Department of Transport on December 12th 2007.

Please try to remain objective and accept that what follows is Not a Script from a 1960`s Peter Cook and Dudley Moore satirical review,but an official Dáil record of......What ??...I`m actually very unsure of how best to describe it...except to recommend Mr Michéal Ó Méalóid for Best Deadpan Comedy exchange Oscar 2007 !!

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: Is Mr. Ó Méalóid aware of any unlicensed operators?

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: On the community licence side there are some. It is difficult to estimate how many because they do not tell us they are unlicensed.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: That is the key question because there may be vehicles in the country that do not meet the standards. I am concerned about this. How does one deal with it? Is it sufficient to leave it to the operators? I do not doubt their integrity and professionalism, but we should be able to ensure they are licensed and there must be a better way to do it.

Mr. John Weafer: Under the current regime all vehicles that have a community licence must display it in the vehicle. This includes all vehicles that provide services from any EU country. Our vehicles going abroad must display this. That is a starting point for good enforcement. However, the fact that the mutual assistance provisions proposed here are vastly improved on our current situation will mean a better range of information will go automatically between the member states. This will make it easier for member states to keep a watching brief on operations in their own countries and because registration can be deployed on an European basis, one could have targeted enforcement by a number of states over particular periods or target particular types of services.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd:I accept what Mr. Weafer is saying. My concern is that cowboy operators might be getting away with it. When the Department has become aware of unlicensed operators, have court cases been initiated or what process, if any, has been followed?

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: The RSA is responsible for the enforcement of the licensing rules.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: However, the Department identifies whether operators are licensed.

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: The RSA has a hotline

---

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: When the Department believes an operator is unlicensed, what does it do?

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: We have regular contact with the RSA on all these issues. The RSA has a hotline which members of the public can contact if they think an operator is illegal.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: How many has the Department been made aware of? This is a critical question.

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: I could not put a figure on it.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: Mr. Ó Méalóid said he was aware of some.

Mr. Micheál Ó Méalóid: We are aware they exist, but we do not have numbers because they do not tell us they are operating illegally. Figures I have heard from the RSA's transport office suggest approximately 20% of the market could be illegal.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd: That is a serious issue.

There ya have it from the Horses (Perhaps Asses might be more apt) Mouths....circa 20% unlicenced and illegal......mind you it`s only what the Man has been led to believe by some other sub-department of a different agency....and of course,when all else fails......you just can`t beat the oul Hotline :mad:

It`s Worth Noting,that in the very best Sir Humphrey style,Mr Ó M never did say exactly WHAT his Department did when it became aware of unlicenced operators...of course we now know......NOTHING-NADA-Sweet F.A.

Where can we go from here......?

antoinolachtnai

The licensing referred to in AlekSmart's excerpt is vehicle and operator licensing, not route licensing. That is what is meant by the 'community licence'.

This is a very different thing.

If you travel on a vehicle that is not properly licensed, then the insurance issue certainly arises.

Travelling on a route where the legitimacy of the route licence is disputed in some respect - it is not likely to give rise to a problem with insurance. If it were, there would be real problems.

If you go through the letter of the timetables and the route notifications, I think you will find a number of CIE routes do not have their papers fully in line with current operations. There is simply not a high degree of accuracy in this work. This is not necessarily a criticism of the CIE operations (there are many others that could be made), simply a reflection of the reality of operating a service.

The new legislation that is going through the Dail opens the way for reforming the way buses operate. This is required by a new European Directive (1370/2007). In all honesty, the statute on licensing will not really change that much. Enforcement will probably be more difficult rather than easier. However, the directive will mean that the way route licensing is done will have to work on a very different basis. The plan seems to be that the new NTA will be better equipped to operate route licensing and contracting than the Department of Transport.

The real difference now is that there will be a body responsible for development of public transport outside of CIE/Dublin Bus, who in practice, were previously responsible.

The new authority will have to decide how they want to work the situation as regards public service contract (subsidised) and licensed (unsubsidised) services.

This situation is really fraught with pitfalls. What happens next really depends on how the NTA plays its cards. If they do not do it carefully, they will fail commercially and leave themselves open to legal challenges. On the other hand, if they do a decent job of it, they will be able to marshal the existing resources to put quite a good public transport system together.

dermo88

A rose by any other name would smell so sweet.

Frankly, this strikes me as protectionism under the guise of law enforcement. It stinks to high heaven, when we consider that a private operator, its employees, and its passengers pay taxes to subsidise a competitor operating on the same route.

Competition works.

But.....with transport, in a country with dispersed population patterns such as Ireland, cherry picking will take place. The 1932 Transport Act, although outdated, was designed to prevent the utter chaotic "Free for all" that took place in transport when private operators cherry picked routes. This would lead to small towns and villages losing their services, particularly at a time when there were fewer cars around.

Lets face it, I despise CIE.

Fast forward 77 years later, and this act looks like a joke. It needs to be drastically reformed.

My view.

Buses meet trains, or buses go direct, quickly, from places not served by trains. Bus Eireann/CIE can stop at every bogshop if the passenger wants it, but please, let the rest of us get their as quickly and safely as possible. It works, but nobody wants the glorified social employment scheme that is CIE.

Its insanity to have effectively, four competing modes on one route, three out of four modes paid for by the taxpayer. If one (Private Express Bus) is profitable, its paying taxes to pay for the Air and Rail.

I think the Gardai have better things to be doing than persecuting a businessman trying to grind an honest days living, while CIE can freely throw as many buses as they wish with taxpayer support and put him out of business.

Mrs OBumble

AlekSmart wrote: »

It`s Worth Noting,that in the very best Sir Humphrey style,Mr Ó M never did say exactly WHAT his Department did when it became aware of unlicenced operators...of course we now know......NOTHING-NADA-Sweet F.A.

To be fair, if the penalties really are as low as a previous poster suggested, then I'd say that the department is doing exactly the right thing! Imagine the fuss if it came out that the department had spent however-many-hundreds-of-thousand on prosecutions, but recouped only a few hundred from fines - and that the companies were continuing to operate the unlicenced services anyway, because they were still profitable even with the fines.

I've worked for a government regulatory body before (overseas, in a different area to public transport), and it looks to me like the DoT is between a rock and a hard place, in terms of both working out what licences to issue, and enforcing operations.

antoinolachtnai

To emphasize, the penalty for not having a 'community licence' are very different from those in relation to a route licence. Not having one of these licences attracts a much higher fine (thousands of euros or more).

See http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/11648-4__RPTOL_GUIDELINES__JUNE_2009-3.PDF

It is certainly the case that Gardai are vigorously enforcing the rules, in the Dublin area at least.

AlekSmart

The licensing referred to in AlekSmart's excerpt is vehicle and operator licensing, not route licensing. That is what is meant by the 'community licence'.

This is a very different thing.

If you travel on a vehicle that is not properly licensed, then the insurance issue certainly arises.

Travelling on a route where the legitimacy of the route licence is disputed in some respect - it is not likely to give rise to a problem with insurance. If it were, there would be real problems.

Antoin`s point is ,of course,valid,however from my perspective the exchange quoted illustrates a Departmental attitude which is far removed from any notion of Administrative "Best Practice" anywhere,let alone a first-tier member of the European Union.

I would contend that if the operator has decided to deliberately forgo the possession of a Route Licence,then that service is NOT Properly Licenced.

Whilst I accept also,Antoins point re Insurance cover,I remain wary of the term "not likely to" in relation to any cover problems with an Insurer IN THE EVENT OF AN INCIDENT.

I`m not sure I can agree with JustMary`s contention here:

To be fair, if the penalties really are as low as a previous poster suggested, then I'd say that the department is doing exactly the right thing! Imagine the fuss if it came out that the department had spent however-many-hundreds-of-thousand on prosecutions, but recouped only a few hundred from fines

Perhaps as an ex member of such a Reg Body,JustMary is reflecting the prevailing internal attitude towards policing their own domain ?

I remain of the belief that the amount of the Fine is immaterial in this case.

What IS of import is the securing of Convictions by the relevant Department in order to preserve at least the notion of somebody actually looking after the business of enforcing the rules.
It also establishes a Paper Trail of that Operators willingness to comply with ANY Legal Strictures which in turn impacts on a great many "Fitness to Hold Position" requirements.

In any business there is always a temptation to sail close to the wind in relation to observation of those annoying little licences,permits and permissions required by an increasingly byzantine State.

By and large however most legitimate Businesspeople DO comply and remain within the pale.
Once one,or two,or three begin to openly defy the Legal Requirements then,as sure as Night follows Day,the extent and scale of such defiance will increase.

This is as much a threat to Private Entreprenures such as Antoin and Swords Express as it is to Bus Éireann.

Sadly however the prevailing attitude as expressed by Dermo88 probably best reflects our National Physche.....

Lets face it, I despise CIE.

It works, but nobody wants the glorified social employment scheme that is CIE.

I think the Gardai have better things to be doing than persecuting a businessman trying to grind an honest days living, while CIE can freely throw as many buses as they wish with taxpayer support and put him out of business.

Indeed,I`m reminded of the old Martin Cahill saying about the Gards giving an "Ordinary Decent Criminal" a hard time...the cheek of them

Mind you it`s worth pointing out that other than applying for a direct route licence 1n 2005,Bus Éireann has had no input whatever into this present falling out amongst former business partners.

So perhaps Dermo88 might get better satisfaction from targeting a different area of CIE operations,there`s plenty to choose from it seems

In the meantime Dermo88,JustMary,Antoin and myself continue to,more than adequately fund the salaries and pensions of a Minister and Secrtary General neither of whom appear to peep out from behind the heavy curtains these days !

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would contend that if the operator has decided to deliberately forgo the possession of a Route Licence,then that service is NOT Properly Licenced.

Whilst I accept also,Antoins point re Insurance cover,I remain wary of the term "not likely to" in relation to any cover problems with an Insurer IN THE EVENT OF AN INCIDENT.

Same arises with regard to Dublin Bus services, which are not be operated in accordance with the authorization.

To take the most innocent example, if a dublin bus leaves the depot late, but the supervisor at the depot allowed it to leave even though it was late, is the insurance void? What about if a driver runs his colleague down to his house at the end of the route?

If an extra bus is assigned to a route to meet demand but without the permission of the Department of Transport, is the insurance void? Is it void on just the bus effected, or on all the buses on the route? If the bus was whipped from another route, is that route's insurance void too?

What if an NDP-funded bus, replete with NDP stickers, is used on a commercial route (as I noticed recently on the Dublin Bus airport service) in blatant and knowing defiance of EU law?

Really, you cannot tie vehicle insurance to the route licensing in this way.

In any case, if you are injured in a road accident and you are not at fault, you will be compensated from the fund if the responsible driver and vehicle were not insured for some reason. (http://www.mibi.ie/)

So although there is some argument to be had about the insurance cover, it is really academic. The reality is that if you have an accident that is not your own fault while travelling on a bus, you will be covered.

Obviously, no one should be operating without a licence, but there are many practical issues to be considered.

As Alek says, we all have to do as much as we can to pay as much tax as possible.

Seriously though, the big issue facing public transport in Ireland for the next five years is going to be cost and funding. Who is going to pay?

KC61

dermo88 wrote: »

A rose by any other name would smell so sweet.

Frankly, this strikes me as protectionism under the guise of law enforcement. It stinks to high heaven, when we consider that a private operator, its employees, and its passengers pay taxes to subsidise a competitor operating on the same route.

Competition works.

But.....with transport, in a country with dispersed population patterns such as Ireland, cherry picking will take place. The 1932 Transport Act, although outdated, was designed to prevent the utter chaotic "Free for all" that took place in transport when private operators cherry picked routes. This would lead to small towns and villages losing their services, particularly at a time when there were fewer cars around.

Lets face it, I despise CIE.

Fast forward 77 years later, and this act looks like a joke. It needs to be drastically reformed.

My view.

Buses meet trains, or buses go direct, quickly, from places not served by trains. Bus Eireann/CIE can stop at every bogshop if the passenger wants it, but please, let the rest of us get their as quickly and safely as possible. It works, but nobody wants the glorified social employment scheme that is CIE.

Its insanity to have effectively, four competing modes on one route, three out of four modes paid for by the taxpayer. If one (Private Express Bus) is profitable, its paying taxes to pay for the Air and Rail.

I think the Gardai have better things to be doing than persecuting a businessman trying to grind an honest days living, while CIE can freely throw as many buses as they wish with taxpayer support and put him out of business.

This is the same totally inefficient CIE that 4 years ago applied to operate a non-stop service on the route and seemingly hasn't heard back from the DoT? Bus Eireann have been found to be efficiently operated per the recently published Deloitte report. Dublin Bus are in the process of a major network review and redesign - Dermo I think you are being a tad unfair here!!

The fundamental problem IS the department's intransigence and inability to think like a consumer.

dub_commuter

At the end of the day I don't care who operates the service as long as it's a decent service, and whilst some parts of DB are very good, and some parts of CIE as a whole are very good, there is work to be done, I've seen progress in some areas but there is still a way to go.

As stated previously however the real villain at the moment is the department of transport who have directly contributed to a lot of the problems that are existing at the moment, I think private operators can play a bigger role and improve transport for people, but public and private a like are only going to be more efficient if the dot get a better grip.

Talking months or years to issue licenses is quite frankly crazy, and benefits nobody at all.

Mrs OBumble

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps as an ex member of such a Reg Body,JustMary is reflecting the prevailing internal attitude towards policing their own domain ?

Nope: we were vigorous with ensuring that services only operated as licenced AND that if they hold a licence then they MUST provide that service.

The only exception was for one-day changes, for example if a particular small town was having a funeral/festival/whatever and the service operators decided that they wanted to vary service days/times that week. (And even then, some staff insisted on issuing paperwork for the one-day change.) I'll bet my bottom dollar that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in public transport licencing here!

Actually, the point about "if you have a licence, you must operate the service" is an interesting one. To make it work, there needs to be continuous system for applying for and deciding on licence changes. But it's necessary if the department's criteria for operating a service include need for additional transport services.

AlekSmart

I'll bet my bottom dollar that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in public transport licencing here!

JustMary,your bottom`s buck is safe to invest elsewhere and you well know it....That sort of thing is best left to forreners

Actually, the point about "if you have a licence, you must operate the service" is an interesting one.

This is one of the major points of the Dublin Transport Authority bill and long awaited too.
It will surprise many people when the extent of "fallow" licences is actually released especially when it`s noted that these unoperated licences actually prevented REAL operators from running services during what was supposed to be our National Boom !!!!

serfboard

More on this from GalwayNews:

Fri 30th October 2009

An investigation is being called for into competition between two bus companies operating a direct service between Galway and Dublin.

Senator Terry Leydon has called on Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey to initiate the investigation.

The Department of Transport ordered that Citylink stop operating a direct service between Galway and Dublin after a complaint by rival company, GoBus.

The Department says Citylink is operating outside its licence, but the bus company is disputing this and has refused to stop the service.

Speaking in the Seanad, Senator Leydon said Citylink buses should be seized pending an investigation by the Department.

Not that anyone pays much attention to what he says. Two chances of that happening.

KC61

Senator Leydon obviuosly didn't bother checking up the legislation - as I've said before, the only penalties available are from the 1932 Act:

"Every person who carries on a passenger road service in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues."

That's €63.50 and then €6.35 per day!!