Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs)

[M803UYA]

Is this the first year allocation or this is? My local authority (Somerset), bid for £161m, so to receive £11m is somewhat different. But then some of their ideas were pretty mad anyway

I was expecting Somerset to get nothing. I could be cynical and point to the three largest constituencies (Somerton & Frome, Taunton and Yeovil) which have turned Conservative in the last 10 years and suggest it has some connection to their wanting to remain as such.
To see North Yorkshire get nothing is a surprise. Their plan read as quite credible with some thought put into it.

 

[markymark2000]

And even without BSIP funding the "bad news" letter includes a list of demands and things we must do!

Are you able to share some or all of the list of demands from the government? Also roughly how much will the demands cost? Could that be a kick in the teeth for subsidised bus services as councils try to balance the books?

 

[RT4038]

The problem is, the Govt. want local politicians to commit to bus priority schemes (capital, one-off spending), particularly those that will save the bus companies money on running their services and/or encourage more passengers to ride, thereby making services profitable and sustainable.

In the Shire counties, the bus industry has lost 96% + of its market share since the peak year of 1954 or whenever. Most people have got cars and will not support local politicians to emasculate or deprioritise their use. Democracy in action. Congestion is seen as a problem in their towns, but buses are definitely not seen as part of the solution. In these areas, most bus improvement measures equal car restrictions and most of the population are not interested. Hence no BSIP money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is, the Govt. want local politicians to commit to bus priority schemes (capital, one-off spending), particularly those that will save the bus companies money on running their services and/or encourage more passengers to ride, thereby making services profitable and sustainable.

Why's that a problem? It seems a good idea to me, even if the services are later regulated it's better that you make them stand on their own two feet by way of capital investment rather than having to continue to pour in operating subsidy.

Over on t'railway, it's one thing in favour of Metrolink conversions in Manchester - you move from a subsidy-hungry, poor diesel heavy rail service, by way of a load of capital, to a frequent tram service that generally washes its face.

 

[markymark2000]

Why's that a problem? It seems a good idea to me, even if the services are later regulated it's better that you make them stand on their own two feet by way of capital investment rather than having to continue to pour in operating subsidy.

The issue is not the Govt Logic but the response from such measures being taken. Car drivers, by and large, are selfish people and believe that they have a right to be on that stretch of road and believe that they are more entitled to it than someone else. Losing road space or making the journey slower in any way attracts a lot of upset. It did so in Chester with the emergency active travel lanes, people petitioned in large numbers against it. The local conservatives were some of the most vocal against it despite it being the conservative government giving the money to the council for that specific purpose.

As a result, a chance to make car journeys slower and improve bus journey speeds (and certainly make buses look faster as they drive past all the cars stuck in the traffic), has now been removed because of the huge uproar and local community groups threw everything that they could at the council to get the lanes removed. Lo and behold, they won.

 

[Dai Corner]

The issue is not the Govt Logic but the response from such measures being taken. Car drivers, by and large, are selfish people and believe that they have a right to be on that stretch of road and believe that they are more entitled to it than someone else. Losing road space or making the journey slower in any way attracts a lot of upset. It did so in Chester with the emergency active travel lanes, people petitioned in large numbers against it. The local conservatives were some of the most vocal against it despite it being the conservative government giving the money to the council for that specific purpose.

As a result, a chance to make car journeys slower and improve bus journey speeds (and certainly make buses look faster as they drive past all the cars stuck in the traffic), has now been removed because of the huge uproar and local community groups threw everything that they could at the council to get the lanes removed. Lo and behold, they won.

The majority of the public got what they wanted. I think that's called democracy.

 

[RT4038]

Why's that a problem? It seems a good idea to me, even if the services are later regulated it's better that you make them stand on their own two feet by way of capital investment rather than having to continue to pour in operating subsidy.

It is a problem if you are a shire county that would like to improve bus services but have no prospect of gaining political support for bus priority, or for the majority of your road network, any need.
I have no issue with the theory of the Govt. thinking, but as can be seen, one third of the population has got nothing out of the BSIP process, and it does not help the small minority who use buses in those areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is a problem if you are a shire county that would like to improve bus services but have no prospect of gaining political support for bus priority, or for the majority of your road network, any need.
I have no issue with the theory of the Govt. thinking, but as can be seen, one third of the population has got nothing out of the BSIP process, and it does not help the small minority who use buses in those areas.

It's a problem if you're not able to sell public transport and really don't care about it. See Lancashire County Council as an example; hopefully the upcoming unitaries will do it better, though even the structure of those is sub-optimal.

If you are committed to it as a Council, then it allows you to make services profitable to free up money to subsidise other services. It also makes the service more attractive as it's quicker.

 

[Wolfie]

The majority of the public got what they wanted. I think that's called democracy.

The majority or the most vociferous? Often two quite different things.

 

[RT4038]

It's a problem if you're not able to sell public transport and really don't care about it. See Lancashire County Council as an example; hopefully the upcoming unitaries will do it better, though even the structure of those is sub-optimal.

If you are committed to it as a Council, then it allows you to make services profitable to free up money to subsidise other services. It also makes the service more attractive as it's quicker.

One has to be pragmatic - the weight of car ownership and use is too great to overcome. The Council cannot be committed - they are, after all, representing the majority of the voters, and as for the Officers - all use cars and are almost completely car orientated. However, nearly everyone would like to see better bus services, but not at the expense of car mobility.

 

[158756]

It's a problem if you're not able to sell public transport and really don't care about it. See Lancashire County Council as an example; hopefully the upcoming unitaries will do it better, though even the structure of those is sub-optimal.

If you are committed to it as a Council, then it allows you to make services profitable to free up money to subsidise other services. It also makes the service more attractive as it's quicker.

Lancashire have actually got some funding through this scheme, unlike a lot of other councils. What it will actually achieve I don't know, they have a massive wishlist of schemes, mostly in Preston, but I doubt there's enough money for all of it.

The unitaries I think are very much a case of be careful what you wish for. Blackpool will become part of a much larger authority whose voters might well wonder why they are supporting a bus company or tramway which doesn't serve most of them. Blackburn (which doesn't subsidise any buses aside from school runs) has the opportunity to extend its influence across the East of the county.

 

[markymark2000]

Lancashire have actually got some funding through this scheme, unlike a lot of other councils. What it will actually achieve I don't know, they have a massive wishlist of schemes, mostly in Preston, but I doubt there's enough money for all of it.

The unitaries I think are very much a case of be careful what you wish for. Blackpool will become part of a much larger authority whose voters might well wonder why they are supporting a bus company or tramway which doesn't serve most of them. Blackburn (which doesn't subsidise any buses aside from school runs) has the opportunity to extend its influence across the East of the county.

Blackburn does support some buses but they were extremely poorly executed. They won funding and then due to low passenger numbers, they had to change some of the routes and stuff. 33 Moving People is a low quality, poorly advertised service and got cut back due to low usage. A works bus ran by BPH was very low used so the funding got changed to be a Saturday service.

Blackburn does however have a good record with bus priority. Seems to be a good amount of that.

 

[A0]

The problem is, the Govt. want local politicians to commit to bus priority schemes (capital, one-off spending), particularly those that will save the bus companies money on running their services and/or encourage more passengers to ride, thereby making services profitable and sustainable.

In the Shire counties, the bus industry has lost 96% + of its market share since the peak year of 1954 or whenever. Most people have got cars and will not support local politicians to emasculate or deprioritise their use. Democracy in action. Congestion is seen as a problem in their towns, but buses are definitely not seen as part of the solution. In these areas, most bus improvement measures equal car restrictions and most of the population are not interested. Hence no BSIP money.

The other point, oft ignored, is the way people live has fundamentally changed since the time when buses had that kind of market share. Fewer people worked, fewer people travelled beyond their local town to work, shopping habits and social habits were quite different.

You mention the "Shire" counties, but even within them there are some fundamental differences - if you compared Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Leicestershire for example the solution for one is nothing like the solution for the other two.

Staying on Herts for a moment, I maintain it was badly served as a result of the LTPB act in the 1930s which drew arbitrary lines across the county which gave LT a virtual monopoly on one side of and forced other operators to work around on the other. To this day, we see on boards like these a claim that there should be 'cross county' links linking up Bishops Stortford and Rickmansworth or Tring and Waltham Cross - I can only surmise people who are suggesting these things have *never* lived in the area and simply don't understand that there really isn't the demand (nor was there ever such demand). I grew up in one of the towns which is pretty much in the middle of Hertfordshire - and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times in all those years that we went to Bishops Stortford or Tring or Rickmansworth. Even Hertford was rarely visited despite being the "county town" - basically it's a small town with few shops and leisure facilities for those who don't know.

Buses in that environment work as a way of providing a link within a town e.g. to the main shopping area from the housing areas, to the railway station, perhaps even to a couple of local towns, but the idea that there is a viable and sustainable demand for cross-county links is fanciful at best.

If you compared Herts to Leicestershire though - Leicestershire has one very big "pull" more or less in the middle of the county - Leicester itself (whereas the only "big" pull for Herts is London, not one of the other towns in the county). You've then got a number of smaller, but sustainable towns around the rest of the county - places like Hinckley, Market Harborough, Loughborough or Melton Mowbray. For some of those their pull won't necessarily be Leicester - take Hinckley, it's got Leicester, Coventry and Birmingham all in reasonable proximity, it's got decent rail links - so what should the priority for a BSIP around there be ? Is traffic congestion an issue in Hinckley ? Not on the evidence of what I've seen on the various times I've driven through it. So what role can / should the bus play there ?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The other point, oft ignored, is the way people live has fundamentally changed since the time when buses had that kind of market share. Fewer people worked, fewer people travelled beyond their local town to work, shopping habits and social habits were quite different.

You mention the "Shire" counties, but even within them there are some fundamental differences - if you compared Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Leicestershire for example the solution for one is nothing like the solution for the other two.

Staying on Herts for a moment, I maintain it was badly served as a result of the LTPB act in the 1930s which drew arbitrary lines across the county which gave LT a virtual monopoly on one side of and forced other operators to work around on the other. To this day, we see on boards like these a claim that there should be 'cross county' links linking up Bishops Stortford and Rickmansworth or Tring and Waltham Cross - I can only surmise people who are suggesting these things have *never* lived in the area and simply don't understand that there really isn't the demand (nor was there ever such demand). I grew up in one of the towns which is pretty much in the middle of Hertfordshire - and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times in all those years that we went to Bishops Stortford or Tring or Rickmansworth. Even Hertford was rarely visited despite being the "county town" - basically it's a small town with few shops and leisure facilities for those who don't know.

Buses in that environment work as a way of providing a link within a town e.g. to the main shopping area from the housing areas, to the railway station, perhaps even to a couple of local towns, but the idea that there is a viable and sustainable demand for cross-county links is fanciful at best.

If you compared Herts to Leicestershire though - Leicestershire has one very big "pull" more or less in the middle of the county - Leicester itself (whereas the only "big" pull for Herts is London, not one of the other towns in the county). You've then got a number of smaller, but sustainable towns around the rest of the county - places like Hinckley, Market Harborough, Loughborough or Melton Mowbray. For some of those their pull won't necessarily be Leicester - take Hinckley, it's got Leicester, Coventry and Birmingham all in reasonable proximity, it's got decent rail links - so what should the priority for a BSIP around there be ? Is traffic congestion an issue in Hinckley ? Not on the evidence of what I've seen on the various times I've driven through it. So what role can / should the bus play there ?

You hit a nail on the head with your last point.

Should bus service improvements simply be about addressing traffic issues eg congestion busting and park-and-ride, or about meeting the needs of those without cars, regardless of traffic levels? As a bus user in a suburban area, I don't want to wait until there is a massive queue of traffic, or high pollution levels before I can have a decent, usable, bus service. I'm sure public transport dependent rural residents would have similar thoughts.

 

[RT4038]

The other point, oft ignored, is the way people live has fundamentally changed since the time when buses had that kind of market share. Fewer people worked, fewer people travelled beyond their local town to work, shopping habits and social habits were quite different.

Well of course, but people's commuting ,shopping and social habits have changed because they have abandoned reliance on the bus, and as car ownership and use rose facilities have become orientated towards the car [mainly because car owners are generally the more affluent, with more disposable income, and therefore more attractive for business]. This doesn't alter the fact that bus operators have either chosen not, or been unable, to compete with the car and have lost most of their business, down to becoming an irrelevance to the vast majority in the 'shire' counties.

You mention the "Shire" counties, but even within them there are some fundamental differences - if you compared Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Leicestershire for example the solution for one is nothing like the solution for the other two.

Well quite - most of the Shires have similarities, and also differences, which means that any statement about them are generalities. Hertfordshire is one of the 'Home' counties, and clearly London has an enormous pull (Buckinghamshire and Surrey are similar, but Essex and Kent less so.) Comparing Herts. to Herefordshire is somewhat dubious, aside from both having some quite rural parts - Herts. much less than Hereford!)

Staying on Herts for a moment, I maintain it was badly served as a result of the LTPB act in the 1930s which drew arbitrary lines across the county which gave LT a virtual monopoly on one side of and forced other operators to work around on the other. To this day, we see on boards like these a claim that there should be 'cross county' links linking up Bishops Stortford and Rickmansworth or Tring and Waltham Cross - I can only surmise people who are suggesting these things have *never* lived in the area and simply don't understand that there really isn't the demand (nor was there ever such demand). I grew up in one of the towns which is pretty much in the middle of Hertfordshire - and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times in all those years that we went to Bishops Stortford or Tring or Rickmansworth. Even Hertford was rarely visited despite being the "county town" - basically it's a small town with few shops and leisure facilities for those who don't know.

I am not sure whether the route network in Hertfordshire would have been much different with a BET or Tilling operator rather than the LPTB, at least not until the establishment of the new towns in the mid 50s onwards. Sure services could have been provided more cheaply, but I suspect there wouldn't have been any more services and Hertfordshire got much more out of cross subsidy from Central operations than it lost.....

Buses in that environment work as a way of providing a link within a town e.g. to the main shopping area from the housing areas, to the railway station, perhaps even to a couple of local towns, but the idea that there is a viable and sustainable demand for cross-county links is fanciful at best.

If you compared Herts to Leicestershire though - Leicestershire has one very big "pull" more or less in the middle of the county - Leicester itself (whereas the only "big" pull for Herts is London, not one of the other towns in the county). You've then got a number of smaller, but sustainable towns around the rest of the county - places like Hinckley, Market Harborough, Loughborough or Melton Mowbray. For some of those their pull won't necessarily be Leicester - take Hinckley, it's got Leicester, Coventry and Birmingham all in reasonable proximity, it's got decent rail links - so what should the priority for a BSIP around there be ? Is traffic congestion an issue in Hinckley ? Not on the evidence of what I've seen on the various times I've driven through it. So what role can / should the bus play there ?

Almost certainly this debate needs to be had. The Govt. answer may well be a county only served by DRT however.......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2022 ==

You hit a nail on the head with your last point.

Should bus service improvements simply be about addressing traffic issues eg congestion busting and park-and-ride, or about meeting the needs of those without cars, regardless of traffic levels? As a bus user in a suburban area, I don't want to wait until there is a massive queue of traffic, or high pollution levels before I can have a decent, usable, bus service. I'm sure public transport dependent rural residents would have similar thoughts.

All depends on the definition of 'decent, usable, bus service'? If the current services in many shire counties are to go by, people have voted with their feet and only small numbers of passengers are left, even in suburban areas. As for public transport dependent rural residents, a couple of services a week at shopping times could fall in that definition, supplemented by a taxi a few times a year.

 

[markymark2000]

I don't think it's just about peoples habbits which have changed but everything is moving out of town/city centres. Historically, it was quite easy to serve a lot of areas and link them into the town/city for work/leisure. Now everything is in out of town retail and office parks. Housing developments are miles away and built very car centric. Warehouses (Seemingly the biggest employer right now), are in out of town locations and no bus operator will take the plunge and try to serve them to get passengers (almost all buses which serve warehouses are funded in some way).

All depends on the definition of 'decent, usable, bus service'?

To most people, if you ask them for more details, it will end up being a very unrealistic approach. Generally the responses come back as something along the lines of free buses every few minutes. People who don't want to use the bus set unrealistic standards which they know won't be met so that they can keep justifying not using their bus.

Infact, here is one such unreasonable comment from someone in Blackburn

Letter: 'My bus service is an absolute disgrace'

I READ with interest that Blackburn with Darwen Council has received £34.2m to boost bus services.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk

My bus service is an absolute disgrace; my life is ruled by it so much so I have to spend a fortune on taxis even though I have a free bus pass.
cont....
We also need a bus system where buses go from Blackburn bus station further afield like the coast instead of having to go to Preston. I have tried this and the round trip took me three hours travelling time and I only went to Blackpool.

Saying that the bus network is a disgrace because there isn't a direct Blackburn to Blackpool bus and you have to change at Preston and the journey time takes a while.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't think it's just about peoples habbits which have changed but everything is moving out of town/city centres. Historically, it was quite easy to serve a lot of areas and link them into the town/city for work/leisure. Now everything is in out of town retail and office parks. Housing developments are miles away and built very car centric. Warehouses (Seemingly the biggest employer right now), are in out of town locations and no bus operator will take the plunge and try to serve them to get passengers (almost all buses which serve warehouses are funded in some way).



To most people, if you ask them for more details, it will end up being a very unrealistic approach. Generally the responses come back as something along the lines of free buses every few minutes. People who don't want to use the bus set unrealistic standards which they know won't be met so that they can keep justifying not using their bus.

Infact, here is one such unreasonable comment from someone in Blackburn

Letter: 'My bus service is an absolute disgrace'

I READ with interest that Blackburn with Darwen Council has received £34.2m to boost bus services.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk

Saying that the bus network is a disgrace because there isn't a direct Blackburn to Blackpool bus and you have to change at Preston and the journey time takes a while.

Well, to reply to his point, it does take a long time. But even if you joined two services together at Preston it would still take a long time minus the connection time. What he actually wants is an express / limited stop bus. If only there were a precedent. If only Lancashire was the type of place that used to have an operator running so many limited stop and express services that they needed a hefty timetable book to list them, along with four other timetables for their stage carriage sevices.

Asking long-term non-users is perhaps not the most productive approach, especially in the short term. It will take massive investment to offer something even close to attractive to a lifetime car user. You need to ask those who have recently abandoned or dramatically cut back their use. They will say: reductions / removal of evening services; ditto Sunday services; reduced frequency in the daytime resulting in long waits for connections or if you just miss one; and reductions in network coverage meaning you can no longer reasonably get where you want, when you want. The first two can be addressed quickly and easily at a cost of the drivers hours (if you can get them at the moment) and fuel/wear and tear etc. Adding back frequency requires extra buses, as would re-instating abandoned routes so a longer lead time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, to reply to his point, it does take a long time. But even if you joined two services together at Preston it would still take a long time minus the connection time. What he actually wants is an express / limited stop bus.

There is absolutely no need for an express bus for that route. There is a perfectly good railway.

"But my ENCTS pass doesn't work on the railway" -> fix the actual problem rather than pointlessly duplicating trains with buses.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There is absolutely no need for an express bus for that route. There is a perfectly good railway.

"But my ENCTS pass doesn't work on the railway" -> fix the actual problem rather than pointlessly duplicating trains with buses.

Well that comes down to his home location with regard to the bus service and the train station. Remember Blackburn recently moved its bus station away from the station forecourt!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well that comes down to his home location with regard to the bus service and the train station. Remember Blackburn recently moved its bus station away from the station forecourt!

And Cardiff, and it was a bad move in both cases, as was not taking the opportunity to move Preston's.

But either way, it's pointless duplication of service. If someone wants to do it commercially, fine, but no bus service should receive a penny of subsidy to directly duplicate a rail service.

 

[A0]

But either way, it's pointless duplication of service. If someone wants to do it commercially, fine, but no bus service should receive a penny of subsidy to directly duplicate a rail service.

How do you define "directly duplicate"?

To give an example, Herts County Council subsidse evening and weekend journeys on routes like 321 between Luton, St Albans and Watford which shadow the MML and Abbey line, or the 301 between Stevenage and Hatfield serving Knebworth and Welwyn GC - as the railway does.

Similarly buses between Hertford, Watton at Stone and Stevenage are Herts CC contracts - shadows the railway line - direct duplication?

 

[markymark2000]

"But my ENCTS pass doesn't work on the railway" -> fix the actual problem rather than pointlessly duplicating trains with buses.

The solution is to scrap ENCTS passes because all it's done is create a generation of entitled freeloaders. That's another topic though.

 

[A0]

The solution is to scrap ENCTS passes because all it's done is create a generation of entitled freeloaders. That's another topic though.

Scrap is a bit strong, but certainly some form of limitation would be appropriate - it was another of Gordon Brown's "freebie" bribes like "free" TV licences that were anything but "free".

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How do you define "directly duplicate"?

To give an example, Herts CC subsidse evening and weekend journeys on routes like 321 between Luton, St Albans and Watford which shadow the MML and Abbey line, or the 301 between Stevenage and Hatfield serving Knebworth and Welwyn GC - as the railway does.

Similarly buses between Hertford, Watton at Stone and Stevenage are Herts CC contracts - shadows the railway line - direct duplication?

We have been over this ground so many times and I share your frustration.

So many times we see this perceived "duplication" of bus services vs rail when there is nothing of the sort. Some sort of parallel between start and finish points but that's where any similarly ends. I mean, there are tendered bus services between Milton Keynes and Northampton but, of course, there are a myriad of points in between and that is the point - bus services exist (either commercially or in tendered form) because there are a whole raft of journeys that cannot be provided by rail. The irony of saying " no bus service should receive a penny of subsidy to directly duplicate a rail service" when rail receives considerably more in terms of subsidy is quite funny when you think about it.

As for the example from Blackburn to Preston, that person clearly has a personal wish and doesn't want to pay despite options being available. We can write that one off methinks.

 

[Cesarcollie]

And Cardiff, and it was a bad move in both cases, as was not taking the opportunity to move Preston's.

But either way, it's pointless duplication of service. If someone wants to do it commercially, fine, but no bus service should receive a penny of subsidy to directly duplicate a rail service.

should it also be said therefore that no rail service should receive a penny in subsidy to directly duplicate a bus service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you define "directly duplicate"?

An express bus service from Blackpool via Blackburn, I guess calling at Preston and running via the motorways as the person in discussion wants, directly duplicates the railway.

Local stopping bus services from Blackpool to Preston and from Preston to Blackburn do not, as they serve places the railway does not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2022 ==

should it also be said therefore that no rail service should receive a penny in subsidy to directly duplicate a bus service?

If it is decided there should be a railway, it is the core public transport provision and express buses directly competing with it should not receive subsidy. Another option is that we decide there isn't a railway and close it; in that case an express coach service should be subsidised to replace it if the route is seen as necessary and not commercially viable.

It is wasteful to provide, with public funding, two forms of land public transport serving the same route and calling points.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2022 ==

So many times we see this perceived "duplication" of bus services vs rail when there is nothing of the sort. Some sort of parallel between start and finish points but that's where any similarly ends. I mean, there are tendered bus services between Milton Keynes and Northampton but, of course, there are a myriad of points in between and that is the point - bus services exist (either commercially or in tendered form) because there are a whole raft of journeys that cannot be provided by rail. The irony of saying " no bus service should receive a penny of subsidy to directly duplicate a rail service" when rail receives considerably more in terms of subsidy is quite funny when you think about it.

As for the example from Blackburn to Preston, that person clearly has a personal wish and doesn't want to pay despite options being available. We can write that one off methinks.

It is that specific example I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the X4 which serves settlements along the A508 which have no rail service and thus is of value (and is commercial anyway, isn't it?). Or the 33 is useless for MK-Northampton journeys because it's so slow - it's about connecting villages to one end or the other.

If there was a proposal for a subsidised express coach service between Central Milton Keynes and Northampton with no stops along the way, or with only a stop in Wolverton, I would be opposed to it. Obviously if a bus company wishes to do that commercially that's on them.

For infrequent rail services, the bus may be of value if it complements rather than competes with it, which would require either single-fare pricing or interavailability of returns and a co-ordinated timetable rather than running at similar times. The Conwy Valley (right hand side) is one example where this has value and is proposed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Apr 2022 ==

Scrap is a bit strong, but certainly some form of limitation would be appropriate - it was another of Gordon Brown's "freebie" bribes like "free" TV licences that were anything but "free".

My view is that it would be better if pensioners received a local pass for all modes rather than a national pass for one mode. This would require some thought in terms of what "local" meant (e.g. people who live in Ormskirk mostly want to go to Liverpool, not Preston, and some may want to go to Wigan or Southport which aren't in Lancashire either, but if passes were by county they'd only offer Preston), but if that thought was properly carried out then it would solve the issue as well as the related one of tourist areas being whacked with high costs for paying for tourist ENCTS use.

This would also remove the pressure such as that from the person under discussion who clearly wants an express bus because it'd be free, and I'm sure would just use the train if that was free.

 

[markymark2000]

As for the example from Blackburn to Preston, that person clearly has a personal wish and doesn't want to pay despite options being available. We can write that one off methinks.

It is just a perfect example to highlight the point of what some people would call a 'decent' bus service.

My view is that it would be better if pensioners received a local pass for all modes rather than a national pass for one mode. This would require some thought in terms of what "local" meant (e.g. people who live in Ormskirk mostly want to go to Liverpool, not Preston, and some may want to go to Wigan or Southport which aren't in Lancashire either, but if passes were by county they'd only offer Preston), but if that thought was properly carried out then it would solve the issue as well as the related one of tourist areas being whacked with high costs for paying for tourist ENCTS use.

You're opening up a can of worms with changing it in that way though. As you've highlighted, people want to travel to different places and so that would cause a lot of friction. The only thing that you could do is say local journeys within your borough and journeys which start or end within the borough (same as the Wales Conc passes. Valid into England as long as your journey starts or finishes in Wales). Adding in trains opens up a whole other layer of complexity though. I'd say it'd be better to just get an ENCTS pass which can have a senior railcard added to the pass (no separate pass needed) upon payment of the relevant fee.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is that specific example I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the X4 which serves settlements along the A508 which have no rail service and thus is of value (and is commercial anyway, isn't it?). Or the 33 is useless for MK-Northampton journeys because it's so slow - it's about connecting villages to one end or the other.

If there was a proposal for a subsidised express coach service between Central Milton Keynes and Northampton with no stops along the way, or with only a stop in Wolverton, I would be opposed to it. Obviously if a bus company wishes to do that commercially that's on them.

For infrequent rail services, the bus may be of value if it complements rather than competes with it, which would require either single-fare pricing or interavailability of returns and a co-ordinated timetable rather than running at similar times. The Conwy Valley (right hand side) is one example where this has value and is proposed.

I struggle to think of many examples where there is a subsidised bus service, nor a commercial one, that acts as direct competition. Obviously, long distance coach services do (London to Newcastle) because the massive difference in time and price enables market segmentation to take place. For most other journeys, the speed of the train outweighs the relatively small price premium compared to buses.

In fact, we have seen plenty of examples where trains have been introduced (new stations, rail reopenings) and buses simply cannot and do not compete.

 

[820KDV]

I've just realised that "Bus Back Better has been a complete success!"

Now, I don't suppose you ever expected me to say that, as someone deeply involved in an unsuccessful BSIP bid, but in one way it is a success.

The Bus Services Act 2017 introduced 'new powers and opportunities' for 'local authorities when improving bus services'. They were

• Enhanced Partnership
• Advance Quality Partnership
• Franchising

I remember at the time we all read the document, discussed it around the office, and having got our heads round quite complex procedures decided "nice idea, but nothing in it for us".

Yes, Hertfordshire showed what could be done, but didn't really seem to be a good fit with our resources and capabilities (both staffing and financial) and more importantly our political masters. But, we'd had some success in partnership with one of the major operators and some Government Kickstart funding, and that same operator had done good work in a similar vein on another route, albeit without Kickstart funding. In many ways it was a case of 'right person, right time' with regard to the MD who really drove the projects, but, we felt, that sort of partnership was the way forward for us and the politicians liked it as a photo opportunity now and again.

But all was not well at DfT towers. They had expected us all to gleefully play with the new toys they had given us, whereas in reality we'd looked at the box, and discarded it quietly in a corner, unopened. A couple of authorities had looked at franchising, Nexus gave up while Manchester still has nothing to show for all the money they've spent thinking about it. We even had a visit from one of the high up regional DfT guys to ask us why we weren't busy forming our Enhanced Partnership, after all this was the best thing since sliced bread. We left him in no doubt that without funding, and significant amounts of it, it was more like the 'emperors new clothes'. And, if there was a large amount of cash available, well, we might actually look at franchising instead, except we're not a Mayoral Authority and so didn't have automatic rights to that option.

Clearly DfT was unamused at our lack of interest in their new ideas. "Cornwall!" they said, "look at Cornwall". "Yes," we replied "we have been: lots of money spent and a unique geography" and still the powers of the 2017 Act lay unused.

And so, with a big £5bn bag of money, DfT returned and said "here is funding like you've never seen before" before adding, in the depths of the detail, "and if you want any of it you will create an Enhanced Partnership, like we wanted you to do back in 2017". Along the way £5bn became £1.2bn, and many were left disappointed. But we all have (or very nearly have) an Enhanced Partnership. Success!

Of course for those who didn't get any of the funding the only difference between then and now is we have a document titled Enhanced Partnership. It is as empty and as meaningless as the concept was when we looked at it in 2017 and said "nice idea, but nothing in it for us."

 

[northwichcat]

Over on t'railway, it's one thing in favour of Metrolink conversions in Manchester - you move from a subsidy-hungry, poor diesel heavy rail service, by way of a load of capital, to a frequent tram service that generally washes its face.

Only the Oldham line has been converted from a diesel rail service to an electric tram service and even prior to conversion it had a train every 15 minutes, which isn't exactly poor even if the rolling stock was outdated.

My understanding is Metrolink fares didn't cover the conversion costs, just the operational costs post-conversion. Now things aren't so rosey as Metrolink, like London Underground, relied on a huge volume of daily commuters.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2022 ==

Clearly DfT was unamused at our lack of interest in their new ideas. "Cornwall!" they said, "look at Cornwall". "Yes, we replied we have been: lots of money spent and a unique geography" and still the powers of the 2017 Act lay unused.

It's seems Cornwall already has a county-wide all-operator ticket for £9 but the additional funding will reduce it just £5.

The question is why is Cornwall so special that it needs further investment to reduce the cost of a ticketing system already in existence, when the ticketing system it has doesn't exist in most counties? In Cheshire you can end up paying around £12 for 2 x operator day tickets and still not have adequate tickets to covers all bus services in the county.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2022 ==

Results of the Bus Service Improvment Plan (BSIP) have been announced.

BSIP funding announced - Bus & Coach Buyer

Thirty-one counties, city regions and unitary authorities have been chosen for the Government’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding. The successful areas have been chosen because of their ambition to repeat the success achieved in London, according to the Government. In its announcement...

www.busandcoachbuyer.com

This actually gives credit to @tbtc's claim in another thread. £70m for West Yorkshire and not 1p for Sheffeld, Rotherham or Doncaster. The Metro Mayor has said the area was shafted

South Yorkshire has been "shafted" by the government on bus funding, the area's elected mayor has said.
Dan Jarvis said the county had received nothing despite lodging a bid for £474m as a part of a national scheme to improve services.
Neighbouring West Yorkshire received £70m while the city of York got £17m.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said "areas not showing sufficient ambition" would not get funding under the bus strategy scheme.
Areas were chosen because of their "ambition to repeat the success achieved in London", the DfT added.
Mr Jarvis, who is also Labour MP for Barnsley Central, said: "We've been shafted.
"We needed central government to put its money where its mouth is and back our ambition."

South Yorkshire mayor says county shafted in bus funding plans

South Yorkshire gets nothing as West Yorkshire is awarded £70m and York gets £17m in extra bus funds.

www.bbc.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Apr 2022 ==

I suspect that's the total for the whole period. To be fair the government did encourage off the wall ideas and didn't want anything boring like 'save the serves we already have'.

Perhaps this is why Cheshire East's bid was rejected. 'Phase 1' was too boring and the more innovative phases needed phase 1 improvements in place first, so a partial award wouldn't have generated anything too exciting.

● Phase one: Stabilisation of the bus network (2021-23) – improving reliability and punctuality, simplifying fares and improving integration of public transport;
● Phase two: Improving quality (2022-25 and beyond to 2030) – including more frequent services, better access and information and improved value for money; and
● Phase three: Network growth (2023-25 and beyond to 2030) – making bus use more attractive, such as via investment in bus/rail interchanges and multi-modal ticketing.