Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
This is one of those stats that often gets quoted but entirely misunderstood in a way that makes it look worse for the industry. There are 3 broad strands of funding from government only 1 of which comes with little say and even then this has been adjusted and modified to influence behaviour and along the way this has caused a reduction in that funding overall:
1. The purchase of travel whether through free travel for concessionary passengers, student tickets for travel to school on commercial services and other fares promotions. These are a direct purchase of a product from a supplier, little different to the purchase of stationary or the like and whilst you may not get a major say in how the product is provided you are getting exactly what you are paying for (& in terms of concessionary travel the government dictate how much they pay not the operator) and as a major customer you can have a lot of influence. This category has been increasing as more and more groups look for discounted travel (like under 18's) plus a lot of BSIP schemes come with some form of free or discounted ticket offers as part of their proposals as they are often relatively cheaper than paying for a bus service and when promoted as a special offer are less of a problem to withdraw when the initial funding ends.
2. The contracting of bus services. This is the direct purchase of a service and the government as the purchaser has absolute say of how it is run and provided as far as they wish via that contract which will vary depending one what they are funding and how much influence they want or feel they should have. With lots of BSIP funded enhancements this category has been increasing for probably the first time in years though the increase in costs mean councils have had to pay more to keep the same but as the recovery has gone on some routes have left funding again (we have routes that around COVID went fully tendered but have now returned to having commercial cores as revenue has improved reducing the pressure on council coffers).
3. Fuel Duty Rebate (as was, now known as Bus Service Operators Grant) though there is still some remnants of the post-COVID recovery grant is still hanging around. This is a rebate on some of the tax payed on fuel to help reduce the cost of provision of bus services to make it more competitive to private motoring. Whilst this is a less direct relationship of funding to influence what BSOG is paid against does have some influence on outcomes via things like incentives. This category was falling for many years as successive governments reduced the amount paid though the remnants of the Recovery Grants have meant that has slightly reversed recently.
All money going to the bus industry is lumped together and called "subsidy" and then considered as keeping companies afloat when only the 3rd category really fits that description. The second category is subsidy of the network but in terms of the operator it is a commercial arrangement with control over how that money is spent and how the service is delivered and if it wasn't provided the commercial network would be unchanged (though the whole network would be substantially diminished and that is not a desirable position). The first category is a subsidy of the passenger not the industry (and in the case of concessionary passengers the operators are also partly subsidising that scheme as many reimbursement rates are below what they should be for "no better & no Worse off" and in effect the operator would receive the equivalent from the passenger if the local authority didn't pay it (& often more than the government pay, with some reimbursement rates being so low you could lose half the passengers and still earn more money). We don't consider the sub-contracting of waste disposal or the purchase of furniture by the government as a subsidy of those industries but we seem to do so with buses.
Thanks for the clear explanation, that's really helpful in understanding where the money goes.
I probably wouldn't be bothered if the buses were still private, as long as it became one network, one ticket in every county.
And bit in bold, did that ever happen anywhere? When I look at bus news, I see operators and counties cutting routes (usually contracted routes) and they are complaining that concessionary travel hasn't recovered enough to keep going.
And bit in bold, did that ever happen anywhere? When I look at bus news, I see operators and counties cutting routes (usually contracted routes) and they are complaining that concessionary travel hasn't recovered enough to keep going.
No because it can't, operators have to accept concessionary travel by law and at a rate determined by the government (there is an appeals process but the guidance on how to calculate the reimbursement was written by government consultants so errs on the side of the government in how much is paid) so there is no legal way to try it. My point was if there was no scheme and those passengers would have to pay full adult fare it is likely that the increase in income from the remaining passengers would be higher than the compensation from the government for free travellers even if those travellers who previously travelled free made half the trips they did before. What we have in the moment is fewer passengers are travelling under the scheme but at the same payment per passenger so income is falling which is causing the problem, in some urban settings this is compensated by an increase in full fare passengers so whilst the total passenger numbers may still be slightly down the income is actually higher as the average income per passenger has increased (in our biggest urban network at one point total passengers were at around 90% of pre-COVID figures but full-fare payers were at 110% so income was better).
And bit in bold, did that ever happen anywhere? When I look at bus news, I see operators and counties cutting routes (usually contracted routes) and they are complaining that concessionary travel hasn't recovered enough to keep going.
This is part of the issue within the wider industry at present . . . the press tells us that bus routes are being withdrawn, and automatically blames those awful "privatised bus barons". As you comment . . . many of the withdrawn bus routes over the last years have been contracted routes that simply carry few passengers. Commercial routes are generally performing better, and hence are continuing to operate.
No because it can't, operators have to accept concessionary travel by law and at a rate determined by the government (there is an appeals process but the guidance on how to calculate the reimbursement was written by government consultants so errs on the side of the government in how much is paid) so there is no legal way to try it.
The rule, as defined in 1986 (!) is that operators should be "no worse and no better off" when being compensated for accepting concessionary passes. In practice (and again dating back to 1986) it is accepted that a "generation factor" should be applied . . . put simply, passholders would travel more frequently than if they had to pay half-fare. This was set at 70% . . . so if a passholder "did" make 7 journeys before, then they would make 10 journeys after. The principle continued after ENCTS passes were made free. Operators accepted that it was probably fair, and didn't challenge it.
In 2008, ENCTS passes were made free (for over 60s) after 0930 on weekdays, and at anytime at weekends. This was funded directly by Government as a "sop" to elderly voters. It was soon determined that this cost far too much to fund, so the qualifying age was steadily raised to 66, and responsibility for financing the concession was passed to LTAs, although DfT do provide some funding through local transport grants. However, such funding wasn't "ring-fenced" for concessionary passes, so the generation factor has steadily reduced to around 50% in most authorities . . . in some cases as low as 30%. Pre-Covid, the only way to balance the books was to increase on-bus fares . . . as 50% of £5 is better than 50% of £4 ! Even then, in some areas a full bus of "Wombles" still didn't cover costs fully!
And then came Covid . . . it is generally accepted that ENCTS travel has settled at around 80% of pre-Covid levels, whereas "regular" passenger numbers are pretty close to those in 2019.
As @Dwarfer1979 comments . . . there is no way to challenge the rules now, so operators have to make the best of it. Also bear in mind that, with most tendered services, the tenderer retains ALL the revenue, both concessionary and cash fares, so the operator relies on tendering at the correct price . . . there is no incentive to grow passenger numbers, so they don't often try.
And, to drag this thread back to topic (!!) . . . franchising will make absolutely no difference. A municipal bus regime will make absolutely no difference . . . all it will do is relieve the operator of any financial worries . . . if they get the contract price right, they will make a profit. The risk (what if insufficient passengers travel) will be transferred to the municipal regime, and the taxpayers (ALL taxpayers) will pay, whether they use the bus or not. In Manchester, all the students at University will benefit from cheap fares and more frequent buses, even though they will not contribute in taxes.
Any commercial acumen at bus operators will be stifled, as we already see in London, and at a huge annual cost. I'm always surprised that taxpayers who never use the bus in London haven't challenged the cheap fares and high service levels yet . . .
Very cogent and detail responses from @greenline712 and @Dwarfer1979 - folks who have been at the sharp end. @greenline712 is on the money (!) when talking about franchising not tackling the fundamental issues.
London's buses receive £800m in direct internal subsidy within TfL. Despite this ever increasing figure, passenger figures have declined since 2014 so talk of impact from Lizzie Line and tube extensions is a distraction. The fundamental issues of slower journeys as more road space is devoted to cycle lanes (and I'm a cyclist so not a pejorative reference) and widening of headways has made bus travel less attractive despite the panacea of the 2016 hopper fare. Manchester is following this similar path. Andy Burnham quietly abandoned the Clean Air Zone (it went for a consultation!!) and now the signs are being removed so that is the abandonment confirmed. More buses are being added to PVRs (I think the 53 and 135 were so treated) as peak journey times are slowed - yes, more reliable but more cost and borne by the Bee Network, not the operator.
The experience of post-Covid bounce-back is borne out by my industry contacts. It is ENCTS that has not bounced back and this despite it being free. Also, typically, not the demographic using evening buses or multi-modal journeys. Frankly, a number simply never got their pass when eligible (why bother - they were locked down) whilst others became more fearful of travelling in proximity with others. They also believe that there was a decline in the activities that prompted bus travel - that afternoon club never reappeared, or that cafe they visited closed. That's the reality of the situation in much of England.
It is ENCTS that has not bounced back and this despite it being free. Also, typically, not the demographic using evening buses or multi-modal journeys. Frankly, a number simply never got their pass when eligible (why bother - they were locked down) whilst others became more fearful of travelling in proximity with others. They also believe that there was a decline in the activities that prompted bus travel - that afternoon club never reappeared, or that cafe they visited closed. That's the reality of the situation in much of England.
I live in an apartment block for over 55s, so I see the travel habits of a sample of about 100 neighbours, most of them qualifying for an ENCTS pass. I know that my sample isn't fully representative, but what I see fits with this.
One other aspect that may be relevant is the increasing take up of Personal Independence Payments. As a life long public transport user I still struggle to get my head round the large numbers of my neighbours who use taxis for journeys where they could use the bus for free.
And, to drag this thread back to topic (!!) . . . franchising will make absolutely no difference. A municipal bus regime will make absolutely no difference . . . all it will do is relieve the operator of any financial worries . . . if they get the contract price right, they will make a profit. The risk (what if insufficient passengers travel) will be transferred to the municipal regime, and the taxpayers (ALL taxpayers) will pay, whether they use the bus or not. In Manchester, all the students at University will benefit from cheap fares and more frequent buses, even though they will not contribute in taxes.
Any commercial acumen at bus operators will be stifled, as we already see in London, and at a huge annual cost. I'm always surprised that taxpayers who never use the bus in London haven't challenged the cheap fares and high service levels yet . . .
I think it will make a big difference. I look at a bus map of Hertfordshire as it is today and find it's a fragmented mess. I also have a London Country map from the 70s, the busy corridors between the main towns haven't actually changed much when I looked hard enough, even with Greenline almost gone, many rural routes are similar but many are gone too. To me, the uniformity (or not) of route numbers, the way information is presented and the idea of one network identity for everything would make it a lot easier as a passenger to understand and know what journeys are possible with one change of bus for example. If potential passengers have in their head, they can't even go 10 miles across their county/ let alone cross-boundary by bus, they won't and then everywhere is congested, which is what we have now. This is especially likely if people can get somewhere and then find they can't home again as there is no more buses for the day.
I understand it's not 100% the same, but having been on a number of Amersham and District running days, I loved that all the buses were that dark green and all the routes were in the 300s or 700s. It seemed like something you can depend on it.
I find Uno have got increasingly better at promoting their network, but the idea it's completely separate from Arriva's or Central Connect or Sullivan's or even the railway is nuts. The current deregulated system doesn't show the bigger picture, which distorts where people think they can go. All companies having their own set of tickets, not accepted elsewhere is absurd too and adds to it. And yes the county has made major steps to alleviate this but a long way to go.
As for London and Manchester, I really don't see the problem with the subsidy they get. The Bee Network reforms made it much simpler to use buses and trams and positively improved our interaction with that city, benefitting local businesses and attractions. Knowing you will never pay more than a certain amount like a fiver for the day for example is powerful stuff, same with the hopper fare. It felt magical in Dublin with the 2 euro 90 minute fare even being valid on the train.
I find your suggestion of taxpayers taking issue with London's 'cheap fares' (at least one thing in London is affordable for a change!) and the high service levels, an odd one. The alternative is far far worse (likely would cost far more long term, if the housing crisis or the hidden costs of traffic are remotely comparable), London especially is congested enough, any attempt to make buses break even on their own, would risk the last 20 years of policy to reduce driving there. The city would barely move at all and any major reductions in bus service (cutting late evening journeys or routes through residential areas for example) seriously undermines the lot. We may not need them very often, but knowing a bus or train is even half hourly at 8, 9, 10, 11pm into Midnight gives serious confidence in using the service at all. At it's most extreme, how many people ever need to travel from Kingston to Enfield at 1am on a Monday morning?, but it is possible by bus! I think that's amazing and I would rather our taxes go on something like that than yet another war!
I'd say London's buses once inside their network have the right coverage and level of service. North of the Thames, they are always busy (routes like the 18 and 29 are hell!), south, especially south east London not so much due to lower population density (similar to Cheshunt actually), but they are doing what are they supposed to. And yes Superloop is a silly name, but I bet people on those routes have far more awareness of that than anyone on the limited stop 721, 724, 725 and X10 routes in Hertfordshire.
We cut the service and then the cost is borne on the individual, either in money or time or both, which in many cases falls back on the council. Resulting in people either going out less or just driving instead. Neither is a good outcome.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The experience of post-Covid bounce-back is borne out by my industry contacts. It is ENCTS that has not bounced back and this despite it being free. Also, typically, not the demographic using evening buses or multi-modal journeys. Frankly, a number simply never got their pass when eligible (why bother - they were locked down) whilst others became more fearful of travelling in proximity with others. They also believe that there was a decline in the activities that prompted bus travel - that afternoon club never reappeared, or that cafe they visited closed. That's the reality of the situation in much of England.
Travel patterns have changed significantly since Covid. So I wouldn't be surprised if pensioners especially go out a lot less. More likely to lose their friends or relatives. More likely to have to shield. Where they used to go every week shut down. I don't understand why people ignore what happened, it was so disruptive for years and we all either have family or know someone who died in that time. It's not talked about but I'd say you are bang on. The inflation and subsequent strikes probably didn't help either.
My Uncle has always had a strong work ethic, but since the pandemic, he doesn't see the point anymore. So if enough people feel the same, no wonder it can't go back to how it was in 2019. Maybe what was seen as normal was the problem.
As for London and Manchester, I really don't see the problem with the subsidy they get. The Bee Network reforms made it much simpler to use buses and trams and positively improved our interaction with that city, benefitting local businesses and attractions. Knowing you will never pay more than a certain amount like a fiver for the day for example is powerful stuff, same with the hopper fare. It felt magical in Dublin with the 2 euro 90 minute fare even being valid on the train.
It's not a case of disagreeing on subsidy. More a reflection that London is in a very special place in that it has the ability to cross subsidise (though arguably, you are then not investing in the actual thing that makes the money so is that counter productive - not a discussion for here). Manchester has some very targeted funding for set up and capital not for ongoing running costs though they did get a nice bit of BSIP funding (£66m).
The fact is that Hertfordshire does not have the money to do what TfL does. Arguably, TfL doesn't have the money which is why we see this programme of frequency reductions etc. Hertfordshire certainly doesn't have the killer bus routes to subsidise a network. In fact, if you look at the total amount of funding in England from BSIP 2025/6, it is less than the £807m that London gets.
We may not need them very often, but knowing a bus or train is even half hourly at 8, 9, 10, 11pm into Midnight gives serious confidence in using the service at all. At it's most extreme, how many people ever need to travel from Kingston to Enfield at 1am on a Monday morning?, but it is possible by bus! I think that's amazing and I would rather our taxes go on something like that than yet another war!
There is obviously a need (or perceived need) to have that level of service in Enfield or Kingston but as ever, it comes down to money. And yes, whilst you and many others on this forum are pro-public transport, ask the average person on the street what they want their taxes used on. Public transport comes pretty far down the list so it's not a major political consideration. That is the reality.
Thanks for the clear explanation, that's really helpful in understanding where the money goes.
I probably wouldn't be bothered if the buses were still private, as long as it became one network, one ticket in every county.
And bit in bold, did that ever happen anywhere? When I look at bus news, I see operators and counties cutting routes (usually contracted routes) and they are complaining that concessionary travel hasn't recovered enough to keep going.
It’s irrelevant where the taxpayer funding ultimately lands. The core issue is that bus companies are predominantly funded by public money. (your og point is correct!) When it comes to socially necessary tenders, local authorities often only receive enough to operate services from around 6am to 6pm. This severely limits their ability to grow or improve the network.
Control of the network remains firmly in the hands of private operators. Most socially necessary services are hourly and operate for just twelve hours a day. To highlight how limited this is: a service running every ten minutes would deliver the same number of trips in just two hours. In the broader context, these tenders are almost negligible and won't ever have commercial value.
On top of that, commercial services are currently subsidised through mechanisms like BSOG+. Many of them also rely on local authorities to fund early morning and late evening journeys, yet those same authorities have no say over how the core daytime services are planned or run, despite propping up their viability as public services.
As for those who continue to misrepresent the finances behind The Bee Network: around 50% of the network is funded by farebox revenue. That’s comparable to many private bus operations. Critics often overlook that the supposedly “high” costs of the Bee Network include infrastructure and operational expenses that existed well before franchising. If these same costs were added to private operators, on top of their profit margins, they too would appear loss-making and "expensive".
It’s irrelevant where the taxpayer funding ultimately lands. The core issue is that bus companies are predominantly funded by public money. (your og point is correct!) When it comes to socially necessary tenders, local authorities often only receive enough to operate services from around 6am to 6pm. This severely limits their ability to grow or improve the network.
For the vast majority of alleged funding, it is simply reimbursing revenue that the operator has foregone. That's ENCTS funding and that's not a subsidy to the company. They are supposed to be "no better, no worse off" but the pitiful levels of reimbursement means that it isn't reimbursement - businesses are worse off. ENCTS was a pre-election bribe, the cost of which was underestimated. Instead of funding it properly, the reimbursement was cut (moving the goalposts) so the operators had a choice - lose money or restructure fares to work the system. Only in the first few years did operators have any benefit; the rest of the time, they and their "opportunistic" customers (i.e. not regular passengers) have had to subsidise Gerald and Marjorie's trips out.
As regards tendered services, the model was actually working as envisaged until the years of Tory austerity. Services were provided commercially and the local authority could provide socially necessary services. However, the Cam-borne years saw local authority funding cut and services were cut accordingly. Noticeably, bus company margins also shrank in this period as they tried to maintain networks by operating some stuff that wasn't viable on its own but they saw the value in retaining it. And to say that local authorities should have influence... they do. They issue the tender and can make various stipulations involving times, vehicle specs, liveries etc. As @dwarfer mentioned, it's really only BSOG which can be classed as a payment "for nothing" to the operator but this has been much reduced, again under the Tory austerity policy
However, if you think that because public money is provided to a bus company for services rendered then that should entitle more influence...
You are employed? You provide a service to your employer, based on certain criteria e.g. certain hours, minimum standards of performance. You get paid. It's a financial transaction. Your employer also has the right to demand to know how and where you spend your money? In fact, they can stipulate how and where you spend your money? After all, they're funding you...
Control of the network remains firmly in the hands of private operators. Most socially necessary services are hourly and operate for just twelve hours a day. To highlight how limited this is: a service running every ten minutes would deliver the same number of trips in just two hours. In the broader context, these tenders are almost negligible and won't ever have commercial value.
I don't know what your point is. That some services are never going to be viable? This is not something that is new and the problem in the 1970s was that the burden of unremunerative services began to way so heavily that major service cuts were enacted as part of National Bus Company and Scottish Bus Group exercises.
As for those who continue to misrepresent the finances behind The Bee Network: around 50% of the network is funded by farebox revenue. That’s comparable to many private bus operations. Critics often overlook that the supposedly “high” costs of the Bee Network include infrastructure and operational expenses that existed well before franchising. If these same costs were added to private operators, on top of their profit margins, they too would appear loss-making and "expensive".
Please highlight where the Bee Network's finances are being misrepresented.
I'm not certain that there is much change from commercial days as we are less than two years since tranche 1 started. There was a dowry provided in order to fund the purchase of depots and other infrastructure as well as other funding streams such as ZEBRA and BSIP. Developments have been relatively minor (two new minor routes and some bolstering of PVRs and a few evening frequency enhancements?). It will be more insightful to see in a year or two how like for like patronage is changing.
I live in an apartment block for over 55s, so I see the travel habits of a sample of about 100 neighbours, most of them qualifying for an ENCTS pass. I know that my sample isn't fully representative, but what I see fits with this.
One other aspect that may be relevant is the increasing take up of Personal Independence Payments. As a life long public transport user I still struggle to get my head round the large numbers of my neighbours who use taxis for journeys where they could use the bus for free.
One of the issues here is that, as travel has become increasingly based on the private car journey, multiple generations have never used a bus since they left school and simply have no idea how to use a bus - no idea where they go, how often, how long it takes, how much it costs or even how to find out. That's if bus travel is actually on their mental radar: if you've not taken a bus in 30 years, it probably won't cross your mind to take one now.
As regards tendered services, the model was actually working as envisaged until the years of Tory austerity. Services were provided commercially and the local authority could provide socially necessary services. However, the Cam-borne years saw local authority funding cut and services were cut accordingly. Noticeably, bus company margins also shrank in this period as they tried to maintain networks by operating some stuff that wasn't viable on its own but they saw the value in retaining it. And to say that local authorities should have influence... they do. They issue the tender and can make various stipulations involving times, vehicle specs, liveries etc. As @dwarfer mentioned, it's really only BSOG which can be classed as a payment "for nothing" to the operator but this has been much reduced, again under the Tory austerity policy
I think this is what frustrates me. There was a proper evening bus service in my town until 2015 into 2016, the county used to subsidise the services after 7pm. What was stupid though was that the evening and Sunday service was often ran by a different company to the Monday to Saturday service, which is a big problem when tickets aren't accepted on a different operator. I think even if it worked for a few decades, it was always contradictory running the buses like this. So when the economy got tougher, that was the end of it. We are still picking up the pieces of austerity now and talk of national debt, it never reduced because you have to grow the economy faster than the debt to reduce it. Unbelievably if you listen to Tories now, they haven't learned a thing.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It’s irrelevant where the taxpayer funding ultimately lands. The core issue is that bus companies are predominantly funded by public money. (your og point is correct!) When it comes to socially necessary tenders, local authorities often only receive enough to operate services from around 6am to 6pm. This severely limits their ability to grow or improve the network.
Control of the network remains firmly in the hands of private operators. Most socially necessary services are hourly and operate for just twelve hours a day. To highlight how limited this is: a service running every ten minutes would deliver the same number of trips in just two hours. In the broader context, these tenders are almost negligible and won't ever have commercial value.
As for those who continue to misrepresent the finances behind The Bee Network: around 50% of the network is funded by farebox revenue. That’s comparable to many private bus operations. Critics often overlook that the supposedly “high” costs of the Bee Network include infrastructure and operational expenses that existed well before franchising. If these same costs were added to private operators, on top of their profit margins, they too would appear loss-making and "expensive".
As a night owl who doesn't drive, I tend to go out later, unfortunately that makes buses a bit useless for me as I can go out but there is no bus to realistically take me home. Makes a social life far harder too.
I think some places it makes sense to have an hourly service and others a 10 minute frequency or anything inbetween, it depends on the population and what possible destinations will attract people. Unfortunately if unwalkable and car centric estates keep getting built, that makes the buses job even harder. One thing public control really is superior at compared to private is that the services will stick around for much longer and policies much bigger than the individual routes can be developed to really attract modal shift. As long as the busy routes are fragmented and councils are left with the scraps, no wonder it's all dwindling. Literally impossible to develop the network and work towards bigger social and economic goals whilst buses are deregulated everywhere.
I thought a big part of the high costs of the Bee Network was their goal to make every bus electric, this is essential but not cheap. Arriva mucking around essentially delayed this in Herts, and now Uno has the handful of electric buses instead. Also Manchester as the 1st area to go from deregulation to franchising (London never was disrupted by privatisation, apart from some places on the edges). Manchester had to figure it out on their own, and now they've done it, they can better advise all the other areas they will follow their policy and that will save money as there's expertise now when none previously existed. I saw Vernon Everitt who helped with the Bee Network, will now advise Transport for Wales through their own franchising plans. No one else (except maybe Glasgow) will have to fight out bus franchising in the courts, the Labour government removed a lot of the barriers.
I think what I like most about the Bee Network so far is the integration with trams and the ticketing changes making things very straightforward. They also mapped the city region better and even have a high frequency (12 minutes or better) map. This presentation of information and a common identity is great.
One of the issues here is that, as travel has become increasingly based on the private car journey, multiple generations have never used a bus since they left school and simply have no idea how to use a bus - no idea where they go, how often, how long it takes, how much it costs or even how to find out. That's if bus travel is actually on their mental radar: if you've not taken a bus in 30 years, it probably won't cross your mind to take one now.
My observation of my neighbours matches with this. A lot of older people stay in their comfort zone, and for many the pandemic shrunk that. I'd count myself among them.
This can lead to some peculiar results. I have one neighbour who won't walk to the nearest bus stop, about 200m away, for a stage service, but will get in their car, drive to a Park and Ride, and get the bus from there.
As for those who continue to misrepresent the finances behind The Bee Network: around 50% of the network is funded by farebox revenue. That’s comparable to many private bus operations. Critics often overlook that the supposedly “high” costs of the Bee Network include infrastructure and operational expenses that existed well before franchising. If these same costs were added to private operators, on top of their profit margins, they too would appear loss-making and "expensive".
Some of those costs were paid by the operators previously, it may not have been enough to cover all the costs but operators paid for access to TfGM owned facilities such as bus stations for instance. Departure charges are unlikely to cover the full cost of running the bus station, if you try to do that it makes the charges to high to justify running services from there, as a fully equipped bus station isn't really a commercial proposition in itself just as a place for passengers to wait but you can offset by rent from retail facilities and if you can add other facilities (offices & driver break rooms for instance which operators may pay for as they need one somewhere and a bus station is more convenient) the cost of having one can become more of a realistic proposition.
I think any reasonable person would say it is too early to judge Manchester & the Bee Network, there is a lot of extra money going in but there is a lot of talk about improvements and whatever structure you have improvements require investment from someone the long term question is whether that investment will create sufficient future income to not require extra support in the future. There is a significant set-up costs, all authorities looking at franchising acknowledge that as they have to create structures to manage the system that they didn't before, and there is the question of whether that cost is justified by what it allows you to do and whilst we can all have our opinion in advance it can only really be judged in the fullness of time. There is a bit of a backlash caused by TfGM being a bit too keen to put positive spin on everything (their initial high profile announcement of passenger growth as a great benefit of franchising when it was less than many commercial operators were reporting at the same time was one but to be fair their more recent announcement on that for their latest period does appear to be something much more to shout about as the growth claimed now is much more top end) but it hasn't gone badly initially and TfGM haven't tried to do to much too soon so there is clearly more to come before we can make a proper judgement.
I think any reasonable person would say it is too early to judge Manchester & the Bee Network, there is a lot of extra money going in but there is a lot of talk about improvements and whatever structure you have improvements require investment from someone the long term question is whether that investment will create sufficient future income to not require extra support in the future. There is a significant set-up costs, all authorities looking at franchising acknowledge that as they have to create structures to manage the system that they didn't before, and there is the question of whether that cost is justified by what it allows you to do and whilst we can all have our opinion in advance it can only really be judged in the fullness of time. There is a bit of a backlash caused by TfGM being a bit too keen to put positive spin on everything (their initial high profile announcement of passenger growth as a great benefit of franchising when it was less than many commercial operators were reporting at the same time was one but to be fair their more recent announcement on that for their latest period does appear to be something much more to shout about as the growth claimed now is much more top end) but it hasn't gone badly initially and TfGM haven't tried to do to much too soon so there is clearly more to come before we can make a proper judgement.
As I said above, there hasn't been a massive change in the operation in terms of service enhancement (some night routes, a few evening and Sunday enhancements, a couple of very minor new routes) so I can't expect why anyone would think things would be massively different.
Much of the money spent has been capital investment provided by various sources (BSIP, central govt funds to enable franchising, ZEBRA) though some funding has been targeted at fares. That can really be excluded. The test will be, as mentioned by @Dwarfer1979, whether the new regime can fund the administration of the network and its development without needing major support.
As it is, the first tranche seemed to go ok, whilst the second tranche was a very smooth transition. Tranche 3 has obviously experienced some fairly sizeable challenges to Metroline in terms of staffing. Some of the press releases from TfGM really didn't pass muster because the figures quoted didn't have context e.g. the increase in passenger numbers (hooray) being less than non-regulated commercial operations elsewhere (oh?) or the 40 additional vehicles added into the tranche 1 and 2 networks to increase capacity (but at what cost and to what benefit).
For all the nice words about connectivity and uniformity of image, I'll wait to see the results but it'll be a while yet. I hope it's positive but for those on either side of the discussion, it's really too early to tell.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
