Dublin Bus livery to be phased out from 2019

This area is for news and questions only.
It is not an area to discuss operators or members
bk
Joined: July 4th, 2012, 9:49 am

June 12th, 2018, 4:09 pm #31

SL10 wrote: What I find most strange about tendering et all is that I point out numerous issues and the reason given is along the lines of its EU regulation or it’s required by the EU. However I’m not sure if anyone actually stops to think if it makes sense or not. Just because it is an EU regulation doesn’t mean it is correct or in this instance better for commuters or the taxpayer.
Well the question I'd ask is how do the people of Dublin benefit from our money being simply given to DB with no transparency or competition?

Seem like a recipe for inefficiency and waste too me.

An open tender where all companies including DB can compete seems far more open and transparent to me and more likely to return better value for money for the tax payer.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 19th, 2011, 4:36 pm

June 12th, 2018, 5:45 pm #32

bk wrote:
SL10 wrote: What I find most strange about tendering et all is that I point out numerous issues and the reason given is along the lines of its EU regulation or it’s required by the EU. However I’m not sure if anyone actually stops to think if it makes sense or not. Just because it is an EU regulation doesn’t mean it is correct or in this instance better for commuters or the taxpayer.
Well the question I'd ask is how do the people of Dublin benefit from our money being simply given to DB with no transparency or competition?

Seem like a recipe for inefficiency and waste too me.

An open tender where all companies including DB can compete seems far more open and transparent to me and more likely to return better value for money for the tax payer.
We know clearly what Dublin Bus is costing us. Let’s look at the changes Dublin Bus has undergone. Certainly doesn’t seem like a recipe for waste and inefficiency.

2008
Subvention €83.5m
Loss -€14m
Passengers 143.5m
Buses 1200

2017
Subvention €47.5m
Profit €1m
Passengers 139.4m
Buses 1017

Losses have been turned to profit while subvention has been reduced by 43%. In all fairness how much more do you think can be squeezed out of that subvention? How much more can an open tender reduce this by?

Not sure how you find the tender process more open and transparent? It seems top secret what the companies bid and how they scored! That’s the point I was trying to make.

To conclude, it’s the tendering that lacks transparency, not the Dublin Bus direct award contract.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 12th, 2016, 4:34 pm

June 13th, 2018, 11:43 am #33

It does disappoint me that, even with FOI, you say that we're unlikely to get answers. Then again, I'm used to the tendering process in Poland where, since the latest Public Order Law Act came in, authorities have had to publish every single criteria made by every single offer once the offers were opened. In a lot of cases this means that many enthusiasts are capable of grading the offers themselves (as the entire documentation is made public, including the scoring system) and of judging which offer is the most likely to win, notwithstanding offer exclusions based on legal issues (incomplete offers, drastically low price offers, etc.). On the other hand, here... I don't think I have to expand any more than this.

However...
SL10 >> Just because it is an EU regulation doesn’t mean it is correct or in this instance better for commuters or the taxpayer.
Dublin Bus isn't the worst monopoly I've seen to date. But it is a monopoly, and not only does the EU not approve of monopolies (except for BVG and RATP who somehow managed to maintain the status quo, but I suppose some heavy political backing must have happened. And even then, BVG doesn't have an absolute monopoly, but I'm not sure if the few companies that run are contracted by VBB or subcontracted by BVG), there is perfectly good reason to - monopolies can do whatever they want to do.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 19th, 2011, 4:36 pm

June 15th, 2018, 12:28 am #34

PiotrSekula wrote: It does disappoint me that, even with FOI, you say that we're unlikely to get answers. Then again, I'm used to the tendering process in Poland where, since the latest Public Order Law Act came in, authorities have had to publish every single criteria made by every single offer once the offers were opened. In a lot of cases this means that many enthusiasts are capable of grading the offers themselves (as the entire documentation is made public, including the scoring system) and of judging which offer is the most likely to win, notwithstanding offer exclusions based on legal issues (incomplete offers, drastically low price offers, etc.). On the other hand, here... I don't think I have to expand any more than this.

However...
SL10 >> Just because it is an EU regulation doesn’t mean it is correct or in this instance better for commuters or the taxpayer.
Dublin Bus isn't the worst monopoly I've seen to date. But it is a monopoly, and not only does the EU not approve of monopolies (except for BVG and RATP who somehow managed to maintain the status quo, but I suppose some heavy political backing must have happened. And even then, BVG doesn't have an absolute monopoly, but I'm not sure if the few companies that run are contracted by VBB or subcontracted by BVG), there is perfectly good reason to - monopolies can do whatever they want to do.
Dublin Bus isn’t a monopoly in the traditional sense however. Yes prior to the NTA’s existence it was. However it operates a set number of routes under contract to the NTA. The issue with a monopoly is that it can abuse its market position and charge whatever it wants. However fares, routes, frequency’s are all heavily regulated by the NTA and DB cannot do what it wants.

Introducing GA does not reduce this ‘monopoly’. If a person is using a Dublin Bus route they don’t have the option of switching to a GA route as they are different. If you argue that Dublin Bus has a monopoly on its routes as it is the only operator one could argue GA has a monopoly on its routes. However with heavy regulation from the NTA as noted above neither is a monopoly.

An example of an actual monopoly in the Irish transport sphere is Bus Eireann’s school transport scheme.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 12th, 2016, 4:34 pm

June 15th, 2018, 11:56 am #35

Fair point excluding "However fares, routes, frequency’s are all heavily regulated by the NTA and DB cannot do what it wants."
While I agree that NTA has the final say regarding fares, a lot of any timetable changes and routing changes are implemented on a basis where Dublin Bus create their bills, send the routing and departure times off to NTA and a letter comes back approving whatever DB created. Yes, DB are currently bound by the minimum service level constraints of their current PSO contract (that is to say, they shouldn't be able to reduce operating frequencies without annexing the contract), but generally speaking most things that DB send up to Harcourt Lane will get the approval stamp as is.
Perhaps I may have abused the word 'monopoly', but it does stand that Dublin Bus does not have any competitor on the Dublin city PSO market (which happens to be one of the definitions in OED as well). Therefore it stands that there is also no means of comparing the effficiency and/or effectiveness of Dublin Bus' operations on a local scale. Furthermore, as there is nothing for DB to be compared against, it allows them to operate a number of things as they wish, often with the staff doing whatever they want (the latter was thankfully reduced down a lot with the introduction of AVL, but still happens) and service quality dropping.

BTW,
SL10 >> If you argue that Dublin Bus has a monopoly on its routes as it is the only operator one could argue GA has a monopoly on its routes.
I wouldn't, it'd make me a hypocrite. Back in my homecity there are currently 25 routes with four operators operating under three different contracts. With the exception of two routes, each operator has a "monopoly" on that route, ie. they're the only ones to operate it. However, this should be assessed at network level, where obviously there isn't a sole operator. Granted, the once state operator still holds a majority (about 68% of the annual vehiclekilometres operated) which was guaranteed after a series of strikes in 1996, but they will never have 100% of the network again.
Quote
Like
Share