York and north Yorkshire franchising

[Redgown]

An interesting statement by the mayor of York and north Yorkshire yesterday.

Right, we need to talk about buses.

They aren’t working and I want to fix that. Next week I’ll sign a Statutory Notice of Intent, that starts the assessment process to see what a franchised bus service might look like in York and North Yorkshire.

❗️But, I need my Cabinet to approve the funding to get this work done. They’ll make that decision next Friday, 2 October, at our meeting.

I think it’s time to change how buses work in York and North Yorkshire. Profits made on our buses should go back into supporting less profitable or unprofitable routes, not to shareholders.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[Simon75]

An interesting statement by the mayor of York and north Yorkshire yesterday.

Right, we need to talk about buses.

They aren’t working and I want to fix that. Next week I’ll sign a Statutory Notice of Intent, that starts the assessment process to see what a franchised bus service might look like in York and North Yorkshire.

❗️But, I need my Cabinet to approve the funding to get this work done. They’ll make that decision next Friday, 2 October, at our meeting.

I think it’s time to change how buses work in York and North Yorkshire. Profits made on our buses should go back into supporting less profitable or unprofitable routes, not to shareholders.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Even when buses were nationalised, they did cut back on services

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

An interesting statement by the mayor of York and north Yorkshire yesterday.

Right, we need to talk about buses.

They aren’t working and I want to fix that. Next week I’ll sign a Statutory Notice of Intent, that starts the assessment process to see what a franchised bus service might look like in York and North Yorkshire.

❗️But, I need my Cabinet to approve the funding to get this work done. They’ll make that decision next Friday, 2 October, at our meeting.

I think it’s time to change how buses work in York and North Yorkshire. Profits made on our buses should go back into supporting less profitable or unprofitable routes, not to shareholders.

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

It's simply the way the political winds are blowing. Relatively few bus users have benefitted from deregulation so I doubt there will be many complaints from the public about it. The biggest issues must surely be accountability and affordability.

Of course there will be difficulties during the transition and some, mostly small, operators will find the rug being pulled from under their feet and the likes of Transdev will be unhappy about losing control of a business they have worked to develop. But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Things are going to change, people need to get used to it.

 

[stevieinselby]

It feels like he's barking up the wrong tree.

Franchising can make sense in a large urban area where otherwise the majority of services are provided commercially and so the local authority has no say in them. If the incumbent operators are not doing a good enough job – whether that's in terms of weak timetabling, lack of ticketing integration or poor delivery – franchising can take control of those issues and the services can easily be divvied up into a small number of core depots plus some additional routes around the margins.

I'm less convinced that's the case in rural areas. The vast majority of routes across York and North Yorkshire are already subsidised fully or in part. That means that the authorities are already in control of them! The idea of authority-owned depots that can be included as part of the process would either lead to large gaps in provision that would need to be filled with "small lots" (which would be little different to the current subsidy regime), a vast increase in dead mileage if depots were consolidated, or a colossal expense in having lots of smaller authority-owned depots scattered across the county.

I would want to see a better articulation of what he thinks the issues are and how franchising will resolve them before forming a view, but I am inclined against it.

• If the top problem is an inadequate service to very rural areas (which is my guess, from his previous pronouncements) then it is already within his gift to improve those through an expanded subsidy offer.
• If the top problem is that operators are cherry-picking profitable core daytime routes and then bilking the authority for subsidies for journeys/services that they could have covered from their profits, I'm sceptical.
• If the top problem is that commercial services are being run on a shoestring, it's could be very expensive to bring them up to a higher standard.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Oh the irony...

North Yorkshire County Council has always been lukewarm about the support for bus services. IIRC, bus timetables weren't produced until the early 1990s and they then disappeared. It was only when the Rural Bus Challenge funding came along that they did anything significant in terms of developing or supporting services. When the government cut the funds to councils, North Yorkshire swung the axe more than most counties, using either welfare minibuses between peaks or encouraging community schemes.

The idea that there's some great wealth of lucrative services that can support England's largest and one of the most rural counties is bonkers.

In terms of commercial services, outside of York... There's the 36 and a number of the Harrogate locals (though some will be probably a bit marginal), and same with Scarborough where there's some local routes plus Brid and the X93 to Whitby and Coastliner. The rest of the county... it's pretty parlous... I reckon in what was Richmondshire and Hambleton, there's probably about 3 commercial routes (X26/7, 28A, 73).

 

[YorkRailFan]

I tend to agree with comments above, franchising in such a vast rural area will come with all sorts of complications with limited benefits as North Yorkshire Council already funds a lot of services.

Franchising within the City of York Council area could work for the services that operate within the city (First York network along with some council funded routes operated by Transdev, East Yorkshire, Connexions and York Pullman). Primarily because York has a lot of the commercial services in the County and with it being an urban area, is easier to take over by franchising.

If we look at where the biggest depots in North Yorkshire are:
James Street, York (First)
Rawcliffe, York (Transdev)
Starbeck, Harrogate (Transdev)
Selby (Arriva)
Barry's Lane, Scarborough* (Go Ahead)
Westwood Road, Scarborough* (Go Ahead)

*Set to be replaced by a new depot at Scarborough Business Park

There are then smaller depots and outstations:
Tockwith (Connexions)
Malton (Transdev)
Whitby (Arriva)
Leeming Bar, Northallerton (Go Ahead)
Rufforth, York (York Pullman)
Strensall, York (York Pullman)
Tockwith (DM Motor Services)
(Not counting Community Transport operators)

As you can see, these are primarily situated on the fringes of the County with some exceptions (like Leeming Bar) but leave big gaps in the Dales & Moors which are filled by Community Transport operators and North Yorkshire Council's own minibus fleet (DalesBus & Moorsbus on Summer weekends as well). There are also some operators which operate in the Dales & Moors under tender by North Yorkshire Council such as Transdev Keighley, Hodgsons, Arriva North East, Lonsdale Buses and Stagecoach.

As mentioned, outside of York there are few commercial services that the Combined Authority would gain control over to potentially improve. Skaith has a point that buses aren't working in North Yorkshire, but a lot of that is down to the Council cutting the funding for more buses! The Council can improve many existing services without franchising if they could provide more funding. The same goes for providing bus services for communities and areas that have been cut off by the removal of funding.

This seems like typical politics to be proposing what looks like a flashy solution for a very real problem that will likely do little to fix said problem. Aside from providing a Unified brand for services in the County and the possibility of improvements to the few commercial services, little is likely to change should this go ahead.

When looking at comments under Skaith's post, a common concern seems to be Lonsdale Buses' 580 service between Skipton & Settle. It was recently reduced from 1bph to 1bp2h and is a commercial service. However, North Yorkshire Council could decide to fund an hourly service on the route. This would address people's concerns and be a whole lot cheaper than franchising for minimal benefit!

 

[stevieinselby]

About half of all routes running with Y&NY (which is obviously not the same as half of all journeys) are full subsidised, with about half of the remainder being part-subsidised.
And about a quarter of all routes run cross-border, reaching into East Riding, West Yorkshire, Tees Valley, County Durham, Lancashire and Cumbria.

Even within York, franchising would get messy. Would you be looking at just taking over the routes operating only within the city boundary? Would the routes that run cross-border (10/10A/10L, 18, 21, 30/30X, 31X, 36/X36, 37, 40, 42, X45, X46/X47, 80, 81, 82/83/84, 412, 415, 747, 840, 843) be included, left to be completely commercial, or on a permit basis like in West Yorkshire? It gets complicated very quickly!

As @YorkRailFan says, when NYCC cut their funding for subsidised bus routes right back, and when those services run by NYC themselves are operated as a skeleton service, mostly only running between school journeys (and for a long time most were weekdays only, although some of them have had Saturdays added now), it's hard to take comments that they want to improve buses seriously until they get their own house in order first.

 

[bluenoxid]

Has the Combined Authority taken control of its transport responsibilities or are they still delegated to the two councils? My concern is they need to learn to walk before they run because my worry is a lot of effort is spent to get to a point where someone goes ‘you haven’t run the existing model and proven that it doesn’t work yet’

 

[John HG1]

There is now a draft Local Transport Plan out for (ahem) consultation:
https://yorknorthyorks-ca.gov.uk/local-transport-plan-consultation/

The Mayor's draft Local Transport Plan sets out a long-term vision for improving transport across York and North Yorkshire, helping people travel more easily, safely and sustainably.

It will guide future transport investment and priorities across the county and will be supported by a delivery plan setting out how improvements will be made across all modes of transport, including walking, wheeling, cycling, buses, rail and roads.

Read the full draft Local Transport Plan. ..

It covers not just buses, but all modes of transport within the Combined Authority area.

I recognise I tend towards the cynical in these matters, but it reads as 128 pages of ambition and aspiration but with little detail, including such matters as funding. Indeed, the paragraph on funding on page 122 has no reference to any actual hard cash. (As an aside, I note that the report doesn't even know how many people live in the area: 840,000 on page 16 and 834,000 on page 32!)

I went to a presentation about this a couple of days ago; they acknowledged that there was very little detail but that would come through further consultation and reviews of the various strands and priorities that have been identified.

As an observation, I think rural transport in remote areas such as upper Swaledale and Wensleydale is not worth putting much effort into; people have got used to living with the current dearth of provision, and any substantial improvements will be too costly.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Has the Combined Authority taken control of its transport responsibilities or are they still delegated to the two councils? My concern is they need to learn to walk before they run because my worry is a lot of effort is spent to get to a point where someone goes ‘you haven’t run the existing model and proven that it doesn’t work yet’

Responsibility is with the Combined Authority but day-to-day delivery is the responsibility of the two Councils.

Even within York, franchising would get messy. Would you be looking at just taking over the routes operating only within the city boundary? Would the routes that run cross-border (10/10A/10L, 18, 21, 30/30X, 31X, 36/X36, 37, 40, 42, X45, X46/X47, 80, 81, 82/83/84, 412, 415, 747, 840, 843) be included, left to be completely commercial, or on a permit basis like in West Yorkshire? It gets complicated very quickly!

*If* you were to only do franchising within York, I think the 10/10A/10L would come under the franchised network as the vast majority of the route is within the City of York Council area. Routes like the 18, 21, 36/X36, 37, 42, X45, X46/X47, 80, 81, 82/83/84, 412, 415 & 747 are operated from outside of the council boundary, the 840 & 843 are also jointly operated by Malton & Rawcliffe. Trouble really arises with the 30/30X, 31X & 40 as they are operated from Rawcliffe but the majority of the journey is outside the Council boundary. The 21 also provides the only service to some areas of York (like Middlethorpe Grove). As you say, all incredibly complicated but obviously hypothetical.

As an observation, I think rural transport in remote areas such as upper Swaledale and Wensleydale is not worth putting much effort into. People have got used to living with the current dearth of provision and any substantial improvements will be too costly.

You can say that, but Little White Bus is an unsung hero in providing a vital service in both areas. Disregarding them disadvantages their users who will then end up losing out on any of the potential benefits from franchising. It's not just for the people in the area either, having a proper bus service would help tourism, just look at the wonders the DalesBus network does. The two routes through Swaledale receive financial support from Muker Tearooms as it's a popular destination for users. Likewise, Little White Bus helps get tourists into Swaledale & Wensleydale, not just locals to do their shopping etc.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I'm getting a little tired of these mayoral soundbites!

In York First have invested in a fully electric fleet. Many years ago the Park and Ride services were amalgamated into the local network to enable a largely commercial operation to be sustained. It's hard to see what more they could have done.

York's bus problems stem from the appalling traffic congestion in the city which is within the council's purview to sort out.

As for the rest of the county, NYCC has famously been lukewarm towards public transport to the point of hostility, as stated in various posts above.

If the top problem is that operators are cherry-picking profitable core daytime routes and then bilking the authority for subsidies for journeys/services that they could have covered from their profits, I'm sceptical.

Under the deregulation model operators are not allowed to cover unremunerative journeys from their profits.

Some have done it to stop other operators getting a foothold by falsely claiming that the journeys involved could be operated commercially, but it is only possible for a relatively small proportion of departures on a route; too many and you drain the entire profits.

But, I need my Cabinet to approve the funding to get this work done. They’ll make that decision next Friday, 2 October, at our meeting.

Or put the funding directly into subsidising bus services... just a thought

 

[mattb7tl]

Under the deregulation model operators are not allowed to cover unremunerative journeys from their profits.
Some have done it to stop other operators getting a foothold by falsely claiming that the journeys involved could be operated commercially, but it is only possible for a relatively small proportion of departures on a route; too many and you drain the entire profits.

They are allowed just not under competition.

Hornby did it with Transdev. As he continuously mentioned on his socials during his time at the company.

 

[Simon75]

I'm getting a little tired of these mayoral soundbites!

In York First have invested in a fully electric fleet. Many years ago the Park and Ride services were amalgamated into the local network to enable a largely commercial operation to be sustained. It's hard to see what more they could have done.
York's bus problems stem from the appalling traffic congestion in the city which is within the council's purview to sort out.

As for the rest of the county, NYCC has famously been lukewarm towards public transport to the point of hostility, as stated in various posts above.

Under the deregulation model operators are not allowed to cover unremunerative journeys from their profits.
Some have done it to stop other operators getting a foothold by falsely claiming that the journeys involved could be operated commercially, but it is only possible for a relatively small proportion of departures on a route; too many and you drain the entire profits.

Or put the funding directly into subsidising bus services... just a thought

With York aswell, no bus station, but stops spread around the city centre

 

[YorkRailFan]

York's bus problems stem from the appalling traffic congestion in the city which is within the council's purview to sort out.

Completely agree. In fairness to City of York Council, they are trialling a busgate on Rougier Street in 2027.

Or put the funding directly into subsidising bus services... just a thought

The Mayor evidently wants a flashy alternative to the current system. I doubt it will make much of an improvement, especially in terms of value for money. Even if his Cabinet do pass it, the logistics of sorting out the actual franchising will be very challenging. But that's politics for you...

 

[Ballyheigue]

I can just imagine services such as the 113 from Hawes to Garsdale Station (also known as an area in the middle of nowhere with less than 15 houses) being increased to every half hour under franchising lol.

 

[Megafuss]

I can just imagine services such as the 113 from Hawes to Garsdale Station (also known as an area in the middle of nowhere with less than 15 houses) being increased to every half hour under franchising lol.

I'd certainly have more faith in the planners at DalesBus and MoorsBus to coordinate rural services than those at the combined authority!

 

[YorkRailFan]

I'd certainly have more faith in the planners and DalesBus and MoorsBus to coordinate rural services than those at the combined authority!

Absolutely, what DalesBus & Moorsbus have done is amazing. A really well thought out network. I hope that if this goes ahead, the Combined Authority takes onboard what they have done.

I can just imagine services such as the 113 from Hawes to Garsdale Station (also known as an area in the middle of nowhere with less than 15 houses) being increased to every half hour under franchising lol.

The Garsdale Shuttle does a great job meeting trains at Garsdale Station. The only real changes I could see happening under franchising would be a Sunday service running year-round (there is the 857 during the Summer as part of the summer DalesBus network) and perhaps a bigger bus but I doubt the latter.

P.S I know you're joking

 

[py_megapixel]

Under the deregulation model operators are not allowed to cover unremunerative journeys from their profits.

They are allowed just not under competition.

This is often claimed, but what is the legal basis for it?

 

[Newbiedriver]

I understand that in some situations franchising may be the right solution if the CA wants to set fares, improve services and have control of buses, but I do have to question whether this is the right solution in the rural context.

Not forgetting that Leicester is a great example of an Enhanced Partnership that works really well without the need for franchising.

The other point is that Mayors often talk about “profit” and that it should be reinvested to improve services. If you go back to pre 1986 you could probably understand that to an extent but the bus operators providing the franchised services will still be required to make their profit as they are still in effect private companies. Is there actually that much profit in running the majority of bus services these days with increased operational costs?

So whats left for the more rural areas? The obvious answer is probably more demand led services with DRT and the CT sector filling the gaps.

Whatever the future is in rural areas, it is likely to cost a lot more money probably for little to no real benefits.

I do wonder if this is everyone who can, jumping on the bandwagon to get control of buses? Manchester is a great example of a bus network, but how much has this network cost to implement and maintain.

Where I live, the local bus operator generally brands the buses according to the route. For an infrequent user, or someone new to the area this is a benefit as you have an idea which bus to catch. I recently had to visit someone at hospital in Nottingham. I didn’t know which bus I needed but on arrival I worked out that any ‘Orange line’ bus would take me to the QMC. In Manchester, I don’t have any idea as to which bus to catch as they’re all yellow.

 

[Leedsbusman]

This is often claimed, but what is the legal basis for it?

There is no legislation that prevents cross subsidy. Think of it logically - busy journeys into a city centre at 8am will run back virtually empty and do the next busy trip. The inbound trip cross subsidises the outbound one. Most business have strong profitable work mixed with low profitable and even loss making work which contributes to a network.

There is competition legislation which can lead to penalties if a dominant operator abuses its position by running excessively loss making services to exclude other operators.

 

[Goldfish62]

There is no legislation that prevents cross subsidy. Think of it logically - busy journeys into a city centre at 8am will run back virtually empty and do the next busy trip. The inbound trip cross subsidises the outbound one. Most business have strong profitable work mixed with low profitable and even loss making work which contributes to a network.

There is competition legislation which can lead to penalties if a dominant operator abuses its position by running excessively loss making services to exclude other operators.

Yes, I've never got this "cross - subsidy is banned" contention. Even if it was it would be nigh-on impossible to prove it was happening short of analysing the profitability of each individual journey.

 

[Megafuss]

Yes, I've never got this "cross - subsidy is banned" contention. Even if it was it would be nigh-on impossible to prove it was happening short of analysing the profitability of each individual journey.

Its hard to prove as operators only tend to share revenue and passenger data with local authorities for the parts of the route they wish to withdraw/change. You can usually tell from your own intuition or in the data if the operator is taking the P.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is often claimed, but what is the legal basis for it?

Yes, I've never got this "cross - subsidy is banned" contention. Even if it was it would be nigh-on impossible to prove it was happening short of analysing the profitability of each individual journey.

There's the legal argument that if you're running below cost in competition with someone else, then that is uncompetitive and predatory. However, I think people have misinterpreted it as saying that cross-subsidy is banned when it clearly isn't. There are individual journeys that are loss making but are retained because operators, contrary to public opinion, recognise the need to maintain service provision and/or the services cover their direct costs (bus, driver, fuel) and so any additional helps to pay for the fixed overhead.


In any case, the idea that there's some huge base of commercial work that can sustain a hinterland of massively unremunerative and lightly populated countryside is fanciful in the extreme.

You can say that, but Little White Bus is an unsung hero in providing a vital service in both areas. Disregarding them disadvantages their users who will then end up losing out on any of the potential benefits from franchising. It's not just for the people in the area either, having a proper bus service would help tourism, just look at the wonders the DalesBus network does. The two routes through Swaledale receive financial support from Muker Tearooms as it's a popular destination for users. Likewise, Little White Bus helps get tourists into Swaledale & Wensleydale, not just locals to do their shopping etc.

Remember that the 156/157 did have a full service operated by Proctors and it was always sparsely used. Richmondshire has about 50,000 inhabitants of which more than half live in Richmond, Catterick and Catterick Garrison. The rest is very thin territory, even with the odd tourist.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Remember that the 156/157 did have a full service operated by Proctors and it was always sparsely used. Richmondshire has about 50,000 inhabitants of which more than half live in Richmond, Catterick and Catterick Garrison. The rest is very thin territory, even with the odd tourist.

Doesn't mean these areas should be left behind if franchising is the chosen path. Little White Bus provides an essential service, a service that is often quite well used (especially in summer) in my experience and also when talking to drivers.

 

[John HG1]

Doesn't mean these areas should be left behind if franchising is the chosen path. Little White Bus provides an essential service, a service that is often quite well used (especially in summer) in my experience and also when talking to drivers.

While operators such as LWB do provide an essential service year round for some, as well as visitors in the summer (question: how many?), and needs to be protected, the scope for developing the service into, say, a commuter route must be limited. I hope a sense of realism will prevail as the plans begin to take shape.

 

[YorkRailFan]

While operators such as LWB do provide an essential service year round for some, as well as visitors in the summer (question: how many?), and needs to be protected, the scope for developing the service into, say, a commuter route must be limited. I hope a sense of realism will prevail as the plans begin to take shape.

Of course the scope for increasing frequency is limited. Realistically, franchising would only take the service from a Community, volunteer dependent service into a more conventional bus service likely still using minibuses. That would still be an improvement, especially in a joined up network with connections In Richmond. In North Yorkshire, that would be one of the few benefits that franchising could bring, a joined up network with connections. Of course, that doesn't need franchising to happen as Leicester's Enhanced Bus Partnership has shown.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course the scope for increasing frequency is limited. Realistically, franchising would only take the service from a Community, volunteer dependent service into a more conventional bus service likely still using minibuses. That would still be an improvement, especially in a joined up network with connections In Richmond. In North Yorkshire, that would be one of the few benefits that franchising could bring, a joined up network with connections. Of course, that doesn't need franchising to happen as Leicester's Enhanced Bus Partnership has shown.

Depending on how franchising was enacted, there could still be the potential for a community service under a permit.

My point was, as echoed by @John HG1, is that there is very little scope, nor a huge amount of money, to do much. Of the RBC inspired initiatives from c.1999, I think the upgrading of the 159 is the only one that really remains (and only partially in that case).

Given how the York Station Gateway cost has ballooned, I'd be wary of giving them control of much else!

 

[YorkRailFan]

Depending on how franchising was enacted, there could still be the potential for a community service under a permit.

My point was, as echoed by @John HG1, is that there is very little scope, nor a huge amount of money, to do much. Of the RBC inspired initiatives from c.1999, I think the upgrading of the 159 is the only one that really remains (and only partially in that case).

Given how the York Station Gateway cost has ballooned, I'd be wary of giving them control of much else!

The money used on franchising would be much better used on funding rural services. There are some improvements that could be made in the area. The 856 on a Sunday provides some direct connections that should be possible during the week, such as Leyburn-Northallerton. That could also incorporate the 156 as the 856 does on a Sunday. Small wins (in the grand scheme) that don't need franchising...

If franchising goes ahead, I'd expect some of the Ryedale Community Transport services to continue under a permit. With Little White Bus, the 30 and 156 could be franchised In a package operated out of Leeming Bar. Harder to say regarding the 113 as its quite "out there".

 

[mattb7tl]

This is often claimed, but what is the legal basis for it?

It is probably just until another operator or authority raises it as anti competitive. I think even then it does not really have any legal consequences based on the rise of Stagecoach, bankrupt a million independents, with tickets that will not even cover the diesel, and face zero consequences.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The money used on franchising would be much better used on funding rural services. There are some improvements that could be made in the area. The 856 on a Sunday provides some direct connections that should be possible during the week, such as Leyburn-Northallerton. That could also incorporate the 156 as the 856 does on a Sunday. Small wins (in the grand scheme) that don't need franchising...

If franchising goes ahead, I'd expect some of the Ryedale Community Transport services to continue under a permit. With Little White Bus, the 30 and 156 could be franchised In a package operated out of Leeming Bar. Harder to say regarding the 113 as its quite "out there".

You can run more buses but as I said, they had a year round Northallerton to Hawes service (that dovetailed with the 73 between Northallerton and Bedale) but that was split to create the 155, and the 156/7 (now 156). If you franchised any of the community services, that would be an additional cost.

Another great irony is that from 1981 to the mid 1990s, buses in Wensleydale were basically Mon to Fri peak buses (for schools and the odd worker) and anything off peak was around market days. Nowadays, the only daily journeys are off peak with closed school journeys.