184 bus privatised

recedite

Its on the list.
I'm an irregular user of the bus, but last time I tried to get this bus, I timed my Dart out from the city centre so that the second last train would get into Greystones a few minutes before the connection with the last bus. But the last bus never arrived. Either that or it arrived 10 minutes early and was already gone. Buses that disappear off the timetable is something that really annoys me, and I know that it drives tourists mad. Strangely, its a thing that most Irish bus users just seem to shrug their shoulders at.

Last time was actually on the bus, it traveled at a very fast speed, almost reckless, until it caught up with another 184 bus and passed it out. Not sure what that was all about.
In fairness the 184 was generally on time, for those times that I did manage to catch it.

Looking forward to the new operator now, I might use the bus a bit more.

Annasopra

Hmmmmm but who will actually be maintaining the rtpi system for Go Ahead routes. I think NTA maintains it now so that wont change.

There is a lot of assumption being made that this will change service but actually it may not significantly afeect service at all. The NTA PSO contract will pretty set out that it has to provide almost the exact same as Dublin Bus.

recedite

Real time information is something I haven't got into yet, although it makes sense for regular bus users (who have the smartphones and internet access needed to access it).
I suppose my point is, you wouldn't need real time info if the bus ran according to the timetable.

The J Stands for Jay

recedite wrote: »

I timed my Dart out from the city centre so that the second last train would get into Greystones a few minutes before the connection with the last bus. But the last bus never arrived.

Or the time I did the same, but after I have seen it disappeared from the rtpi, given up and went to the taxi rank, a bus showed up, marked out of service and with the interior lights turned down low and dropped passengers off.

alexnapier101

recedite wrote: »

Its on the list.
I'm an irregular user of the bus, but last time I tried to get this bus, I timed my Dart out from the city centre so that the second last train would get into Greystones a few minutes before the connection with the last bus. But the last bus never arrived. Either that or it arrived 10 minutes early and was already gone. Buses that disappear off the timetable is something that really annoys me, and I know that it drives tourists mad. Strangely, its a thing that most Irish bus users just seem to shrug their shoulders at.

Last time was actually on the bus, it traveled at a very fast speed, almost reckless, until it caught up with another 184 bus and passed it out. Not sure what that was all about.
In fairness the 184 was generally on time, for those times that I did manage to catch it.

Looking forward to the new operator now, I might use the bus a bit more.

I completely agree with your comments. It is extremely frustrating that the bus often runs ahead of schedule, when traffic is light, and as a result, misses the incoming Dart by a few minutes at the Greystones stop.

In an ideal world, the 184 and 84 should be better aligned to meet the incoming dart and serve as a connection to commuters who need to travel further on. If both organisations were able to get this right, both dart and bus operators would see a rise in passenger numbers. It is a case of one hand washes the other.

I appreciate this a simplistic view on what is a complex operation, but surely with the use of technology advancements, this could be a possibility.

Annasopra

alexnapier101 wrote: »

I completely agree with your comments. It is extremely frustrating that the bus often runs ahead of schedule, when traffic is light, and as a result, misses the incoming Dart by a few minutes at the Greystones stop.

In an ideal world, the 184 and 84 should be better aligned to meet the incoming dart and serve as a connection to commuters who need to travel further on. If both organisations were able to get this right, both dart and bus operators would see a rise in passenger numbers. It is a case of one hand washes the other.

I appreciate this a simplistic view on what is a complex operation, but surely with the use of technology advancements, this could be a possibility.

Yes in an ideal world but think the logistical nightmare of aligning every bus and train timetable dont really make it feasible. People always suggest this as if it is easily achievable. It isn't easily achievable at all given the car traffic.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Real time information is something I haven't got into yet, although it makes sense for regular bus users (who have the smartphones and internet access needed to access it).
I suppose my point is, you wouldn't need real time info if the bus ran according to the timetable.

Buses running exactly to timetable after their departure is not really possible given the peaks and flows of traffic.

recedite

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Buses running exactly to timetable after their departure is not really possible given the peaks and flows of traffic.

The occasional bus running late is unavoidable and understandable. However I can't understand why a bus running ahead of schedule would not wait a few minutes at the Dart station. Its very easy to know when a train comes in; there is a big rush of people pouring out onto the street all at once.
If the Dart itself was running early, it would slow down or stop between platforms until it was back on schedule.
Buses that don't run because the driver has gone home early are unforgivable. That causes people to turn away from public transport, which in turn makes the routes uneconomical to run.

alexnapier101

recedite wrote: »

The occasional bus running late is unavoidable and understandable. However I can't understand why a bus running ahead of schedule would not wait a few minutes at the Dart station. Its very easy to know when a train comes in; there is a big rush of people pouring out onto the street all at once.
If the Dart itself was running early, it would slow down or stop between platforms until it was back on schedule.

Exactly, a bus should never run ahead of schedule. I feel really sorry for people who rely on the last bus and are left stranded only to realise the bus arrived ahead of schedule.

Edgar_Murl

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes in an ideal world but think the logistical nightmare of aligning every bus and train timetable dont really make it feasible. People always suggest this as if it is easily achievable. It isn't easily achievable at all given the car traffic.

Yes, but the bus should not depart Greystones Dart Station before the designated time. It seems that the drivers ignore the timetable when the bus is ahead of schedule.

Cookie_Monster

It's not being privatised. The NTA still controls the service*, just being tendered out to a different operator to DB, nothing more.

* - exactly the same as it controls DB operated routes and timetables.

There is a lot of assumption being made that this will change service but actually it may not significantly afeect service at all.

it should improve the service, average 35% increase in services as a result of this is being advertised. Whether or not this will apply to the 184 specifically isn't yet know AFAIC

loobylou

I spent many years collecting schoolkids from DART station, often 3 seperate trains per day.
I watched in awe at the antics of the busdrivers to get away ahead of the trains arrival. One time the driver actuallyverbally harassed the passengers to hurry up exiting his bus as he stared over his shoulder at the arrival of a train.
After a litle while I realised I was able to time the arrival of the train by the departure of the bus.

Annasopra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's not being privatised. The NTA still controls the service*, just being tendered out to a different operator to DB, nothing more.

* - exactly the same as it controls DB operated routes and timetables.

it should improve the service, average 35% increase in services as a result of this is being advertised. Whether or not this will apply to the 184 specifically isn't yet know AFAIC

It is moving from being operated by a state owned company to a private UK company. This is privatisation!

Cerco

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is moving from being operated by a state owned company to a private UK company. This is privatisation!

I would not see this as privatisation since the ownership remains with the state.
The state will retain overall responsibility for budgets, p&l etc.
It is simply a case of subcontracting the day to day running of the service.

Annasopra

Cerco wrote: »

I would not see this as privatisation since the ownership remains with the state.
The state will retain overall responsibility for budgets, p&l etc.
It is simply a case of subcontracting the day to day running of the service.

Subcontracting to a PRIVATE operator. The state will not control the budgets or p an l of the private operator

Cookie_Monster

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Subcontracting to a PRIVATE operator. The state will not control the budgets or p an l of the private operator

so / and...

how does that impact anything? The state will pay X per year and that's the end of it. Failure to meet targets mean lower payments.

Same way motorway maintenance is tendered or Speed Camera Vans or rubbish collection...

This is privatisation!

state retains the assets, state retains the fare revenue, state retains timetable controls, state retain right to set service levels, how exactly is that privatisation as opposed to tendering the service?

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Subcontracting to a PRIVATE operator. The state will not control the budgets or p an l of the private operator

Privatisation is where the state sells off an asset to a private. The state still has control of this assets therefore it is not privatisation.

Annasopra

Huh?

Seriously. State company runing a service changing to a private company running a service is not privatisation?

The definition of privatisation is not JUST selling assets at all. It also includes transfer of companies or services.

In this case they are privatising the service of the route operation. I really dont know how anyone can claim this is not privatisation. It very clearly is a privatisation of a service operation.

Annasopra

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so / and...

how does that impact anything? The state will pay X per year and that's the end of it.

It is naive to think there will be no impact. In fact I find it extraordinary that Go Aheads bid tender was more expensive than Dublin Bus.

Dublin Bus will have a seriously reduced turnover from losing 10% of its routes. Although the orbital routes represent routes that are less economical the privatisation of the orbital routes means a 5-8% reduction in finances available to Dublin Bus to provide public services on all routes. This means that other Dublin Bus routes could potentially suffer from the privatisation and leave much more of Dublin Buses ripe to be privatised and eventually like the UK big price hikes.

jpd

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Dublin Bus will have a seriously reduced turnover from losing 10% of its routes. Although the orbital routes represent routes that are less economical the privatisation of the orbital routes means a 5-8% reduction in finances available to Dublin Bus to provide public services on all routes.

Do I follow your argument correctly?

If Dublin Bus can not run bus services at a profit (ie fares cover the operating costs and capital costs), they should be subsidised by other routes that do make a profit?

In that case, why not make all buses free and let the taxpayer pay?

The best way we know to run services efficiently is by having the market set prices - ie if people can't or won't pay for a service, then obviously it is of no value to them or they believe that they can get other people to pay for it

Annasopra

jpd wrote: »

Do I follow your argument correctly?

If Dublin Bus can not run bus services at a profit (ie fares cover the operating costs and capital costs), they should be subsidised by other routes that do make a profit?

Yes. Thats the whole point of a public service. Thats why we provide free travel passes to older people and people with disabilities. Thats why the Irish state and almost every other state provide financisl subsidies to public transport. It is a community asset. Subsidising it also helps the general public in reducing climate change and traffic congestion.

Yes of course routes that do not make make a profit should be subsidised. Indeed this contract will oblige go ahead to provide all routes regardless of their profit making capacity. Thats why it is called a "public service obligation" contract.

Leaving things to the general market means routes with low footfall would be cut off and thereby further marginslising many peoole who might be already disadvantaged through poverty or isloation.

The purpose of public transport provision is not to make profit. It is to provide a public service.

jpd wrote: »

The best way we know to run services efficiently is by having the market set prices - ie if people can't or won't pay for a service, then obviously it is of no value to them or they believe that they can get other people to pay for it

The market doesnt set prices. The regulator does.

I have no problem providing free travel to elderly people and people with disabilities. The idea that it is of no value because many of them cant afford to pay is complete nonsense. Also elderly peoole have paid for it through their income tax over many years.

jpd

So the fares are set by someone in an office somewhere who decides to set a price on the basis of his/her ideas with input from a whole host of interested parties - taxpayers, bus operators, politicians, unions and maybe even customers.

How is that supposed to be efficient?

It would surely be cheaper to make all fares free and fund the whole thing from general taxation and let the politicians decide where to run services based on the community knowledge and pressure from voters

recedite

But the question is, how will all this affect the passengers? According to Leo Varadkar..

As a result of this tendering, the volume of services will increase by 35% over what is currently offered and there will be increased punctuality requirements put in place...
The Taoiseach continued “It will take time for Go-Ahead to get fully set up but it is expected they will be operating all these routes by February 2019.
“While Go-Ahead will be operating the buses, matters such as fares, frequency and scheduling for the service will all be set by the National Transport Authority (NTA).

It seems to be similar to the contract for the Luas.
Dublin Bus treated the passengers and the general public as a nuisance. They seemed to prefer to run the buses empty.

In a fully privatised route, the operator would want to pick up as many passengers (fares) as possible.

In this new model contract, the private operator "Go Ahead" will still get paid the same amount whether or not they pick up any passengers. On the other hand, if they provide a poor service, they may lose the contract to another operator when the tender comes up for renewal.

So, all in all, I would expect some improvement in volume of services, keeping to the timetable, and treatment of passengers.

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

But the question is, how will all this affect the passengers? According to Leo Varadkar..
It seems to be similar to the contract for the Luas.
Dublin Bus treated the passengers and the general public as a nuisance. They seemed to prefer to run the buses empty.

In a fully privatised route, the operator would want to pick up as many passengers (fares) as possible.

In this new model contract, the private operator "Go Ahead" will still get paid the same amount whether or not they pick up any passengers. On the other hand, if they provide a poor service, they may lose the contract to another operator when the tender comes up for renewal.

So, all in all, I would expect some improvement in volume of services, keeping to the timetable, and treatment of passengers.

Its really not clear what 35% means though. That 35% could be on 1 route or 7 routes or perhaps on all of the 24 routes. Also Go Ahead has to have a depot but if they for example have a depot somewhere near the airport then it might mean little or no improvement on the schedules of the North Wicklow routes.

recedite

Its a bit vague alright, as is " increased punctuality requirements".
But the main point is that Go Ahead will be well aware that they could lose the contract if they fail to provide a good service. Which is something that never occurred to Dublin Bus (until they lost it).
So just because of that, I would expect some kind of an improvement.

CaoimheSquee

It would be great if they looked at the scheduling of the 184 too. It always seems to be running within a few minutes of the 84 so that that 2 buses come together with a 40-50 minute wait in between some times. I would have thought staggering them a bit a better would make more sense....

Cookie_Monster

recedite wrote: »

It seems to be similar to the contract for the Luas.

Indeed, and we all know how utterly terrible the Luas is... right, right?

Charlie-Bravo

I....must....post....this:



These are the rules of the internet