I think this is a good idea. Personally, I think busway buses should stay on busways and not drive through the centre of town which basically defeats the whole point of the busway IMO.
-
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!
Cambridgeshire Bus Franchising?
- Thread starter higthomas
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The only issue being that Cambridge Station is still a good walk or bus ride from the City Centre so if you forced someone to change from the bus to the train at North Station it would reduce the attractiveness of the service.
In Cambridge the old City Centre is only important for retail, hospitality and tourism, and is well served by Park and Ride. The key employment and education destinations for commuter bus travel are not in the old centre. Three of the biggest employment hubs are the Biomedical Campus, the area around the main railway station, and the Science Park near Cambridge North. Students getting to and from the Regional College and the two big 6th form colleges are a big proportion of bus users. None of these are in the old centre, and all are located near the railway stations and the busways.
Yes but retail, hospitality and tourism also employ people.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
That is a pretty important traffic objective nonetheless. The Science Park, according to their figures, has about 7500 people who work there. A good number but considerably fewer than visitors to the city centre.
Improving bus access to the city centre is crucial; easier said than done though!
I think many people would rather a longer direct journey than having to change from bus to train and onto another bus. The key solution is reducing congestion in the city centre, how they do this is another question.
As mentioned about other large employment hubs eg addenbrookes, CBC and the science parks, the proposed orbital routes may support these if done right.
That's true, but the bus passengers to and from the old City are mostly consumers not employees. For employees the bus service when they want to travel is poor or non-existent, especially hospitality workers.
To that you can add 4000 full time and 6000 part time students at the Regional College nearby.
The Biomedical Campus is already more than 20000 employees, and still growing rapidly. Long Road 6th form college nearby has 2500 students.
Then there are another approximately 2500 students at Hills Road 6th form college near to the main station. It is difficult to estimate the number of employees in the station area but Cambridge University Press and Assessment, on its own, has more than 6000.
GusB
Established Member
The consultation mentioned in post #1 is due to end on 20th November 2024; once the results have been published, there will be rather more to discuss.
Until then, the thread will be locked to prevent further off-topic discussion. When there is further information, please alert us by reporting this post and we can re-open the thread.
Until then, the thread will be locked to prevent further off-topic discussion. When there is further information, please alert us by reporting this post and we can re-open the thread.
Thread reopened for @YorkRailFan to provide an update, please no off-topic discussion
YorkRailFan
Established Member
The consultation has been extended to 25 November 2024, due to an issue with the website:
www.route-one.net
Honestly not the reason I was expecting, but it sounds like a decent idea to get as many responses as possible.
Cambridgeshire bus franchising consultation extended
The consultation on bus franchising proposals in Cambridgeshire has been extended by five days due to a technical issue with the website.
www.route-one.net
Honestly not the reason I was expecting, but it sounds like a decent idea to get as many responses as possible.
YorkRailFan
Established Member
Franchising will go ahead:
www.route-one.net
Good to see that Stagecoach is onboard with the proposal!
Bus franchising in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to proceed - routeone
Bus franchising in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will go ahead after Mayor Dr Nik Johnson decided that it is to be the avenue of reform.
www.route-one.net
Good to see that Stagecoach is onboard with the proposal!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
They didn't have much choice TBH but they are right that issues like traffic congestion and parking enforcement will need to be addressed irrespective of the regulatory regime.
markymark2000
On Moderation
Such a shame given the current dismal results from the combined authority.
Anthony ross
Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 215
I have a feeling we will see a few of the smaller operators close down or sell up now before franchise starts
I would think that Whippet are pleased with the outcome as they have been pushing for franchising for a number of years - probably the only way to increase their market share. Let’s hope that the Dr, sorry Mayor doesn’t implement the Tiger brand as mooted and goes for a more geographical brand.
Is there any reason to expect the smaller operators won't lose out the same way they have in Manchester?
It depends on the approach. They could make the procurement system a lot easier e.g. if you are already on their framework you automatically qualify for a 'passport' to bid then put all the quality questions in the passport application. This would mean unlike Greater Manchester, the bid for franchises (or at least smaller packages) would be on price like a normal tender rather than expecting a small operator owner to specify how they would ensure all buses were the right shade of yellow.
Alternatively they could specify that x% of services or mileage has to be subcontracted to an SME.
buslad1988
Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 652
I’m intregued to see what effect this will have on Suffolk. As many of the profitable commuter corridors into Cambridge come from Newmarket, Haverhill and (what’s left) of the Bury St Edmunds connections.
How do cross border services work in other franchised areas? Or would these remain commercial - as Stephensons could potentially lose out.
How do cross border services work in other franchised areas? Or would these remain commercial - as Stephensons could potentially lose out.
greenline712
Member
I believe that the franchising of bus routes in the Combined Authority area will (initially) at least comprise only those routes wholly within the CA area. In Peterborough, Delaine have been told that their services won't be affected; neither will the X4 from Corby and Kettering. Quite how this will work for the Newmarket routes is yet to be determined . . . effectively, a cross-boundary route won't be included (unless it is!). I suspect it'll be decided on a route by route basis . . . if a non-commercial route crosses a boundary, and both authorities agree to franchise the route, then so be it.
This did happen in the early days of deregulation . . . one County agreed to "own" the route, and the other county agreed to contribute. Examples were the London routes running into Hertfordshire . . . London Buses owned the routes, and Herts CC agreed to contribute financially. All well and good, until London imposed minimum service levels way above those that Herts deemed appropriate, and demanded a larger and larger contribution.
I believe, at one point, half of Herts CC's budget would have been spent on Routes 142, 258 to Watford and Routes 107, 292 in Borehamwood . . . and this was when Tfl were applying very cheap fares and free travel for under 16s. Herts CC simply couldn't afford it, and withdrew funding, leaving TfL to pay the full cost.
That's why Arriva's Route 306 through Bushey was closed . . . with the competition charging cheap fares and free for kids, no passengers caught the 306, other than those between Watford and Borehamwood . . . and the numbers went through the floor. The Sullivan route carefully avoids Bushey . . .
This franchising lark is all very new . . . we don't yet really know how Manchester will pan out. Come back in 2027 . . .
This did happen in the early days of deregulation . . . one County agreed to "own" the route, and the other county agreed to contribute. Examples were the London routes running into Hertfordshire . . . London Buses owned the routes, and Herts CC agreed to contribute financially. All well and good, until London imposed minimum service levels way above those that Herts deemed appropriate, and demanded a larger and larger contribution.
I believe, at one point, half of Herts CC's budget would have been spent on Routes 142, 258 to Watford and Routes 107, 292 in Borehamwood . . . and this was when Tfl were applying very cheap fares and free travel for under 16s. Herts CC simply couldn't afford it, and withdrew funding, leaving TfL to pay the full cost.
That's why Arriva's Route 306 through Bushey was closed . . . with the competition charging cheap fares and free for kids, no passengers caught the 306, other than those between Watford and Borehamwood . . . and the numbers went through the floor. The Sullivan route carefully avoids Bushey . . .
This franchising lark is all very new . . . we don't yet really know how Manchester will pan out. Come back in 2027 . . .
higthomas
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 1,227
https://cpca-yourvoice.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Appendix_5_Draft-Franchising-Scheme.pdf gives details of the routes they propose to include. It includes the 12 and 13 for example.
greenline712
Member
Ah ... thanks for sight of that document. As far as the Newmarket routes are concerned .... my point above stands. These routes are very much mainly in Cambridgeshire, only creeping over the border to Suffolk.
It would make sense for them to be franchised. The Delaine routes are mainly in Lincolnshire, so should be outwith the franchising proposals.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Do we know if the plan is area franchising or individual route tendering? The latter would probably favour the small guy.
johncrossley
Established Member
Cross-boundary routes can be franchised. See routes 81, 405 and 465 amongst others crossing the Greater London boundary. Also 100, 632 and 184 crossing the Greater Manchester boundary.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I suggest @johnw is questioning why that service is included given the listing of routes that are included/excepted plus the comments above
Whilst the 905 does extend for a large proportion of its length into Beds, most of it and the main intermediate settlement (St Neots) is in Cambs.
I'm not convinced that this is the right decision for Cambridgeshire. Existing adopters of the franchising model are all big cities with extensive networks, and capacity for managing the process. This is going to be much more of a challenge for a much smaller authority, and the consultation documentation did not inspire confidence that the Combined Authority understands the risks. I preferred the enhanced partnership which could have got a lot of the benefits with much less risk.
The Mayor has had significant health issues and there have been some controversies about governance in the Combined Authority too. I'm not surprised by this announcement.
Tiger is a geographical brand. It is a reference to the Fen Tigers: the original Fen Tigers were people resisting Fenland drainage, and for a long time it was the nickname of the Cambridgeshire Regiment.
This will stand or fall based on the LA's ability to understand how people use buses. If they can't do that, they're unlikely to be able to use buses, drivers and information/technology any more efficiently than Stagecoach or an independent who have operated commercially in this area for nearly 40 years.
So the only financial benefit will be what little is saved by not having to meet Stagecoach's profit margin and not running duplicate services. I'd guesstimate the LA is probably already going to be spending more money designing, tendering and monitoring a franchised network than is saved.
So that only leaves benefits like cheaper integrated ticketing with rail, better accountability to bus passengers and the single network brand/point of use. I suspect none of that is going to drastically change the lives of bus users in Cambridge, whose primary concerns are reliability, affordability and convenience. Just like every single other bus user in Britian. But for some reason we're spending millions on consultants to keep finding that out, area by area.
I personally think given Cambridge's history, the only reason they want franchising is so they can force buses to use expensively procured infrastructure like a busway, bus lanes or park and rides. And unlike enhanced partnerships, which offer that same benefit and some of the others, with franchising it's easier to hide the fact buses are being run inefficiently or even ineffectively.
In places like Cambridgeshire specifically, franchising merely allows the LA to better illustrate with hard data that the main obstacles to better bus services, ones that keep to time, don't cost too much and go where people want to go and in a reasonable time to get there, is traffic congestion and the allocation of road space.
So I'd say the only long term goal of bus franchising in Cambridgeshire is to build local political support and pressure on the DfT/DoE for this area to emulate it's friend and rival Oxford and become one of if not the most hostile place for car owners. Severe restrictions on where you can drive, and severe financial penalties on not just where you can park, but the provision of parking itself.
Not necessarily restrictions on car driving, since you can foresee a future where the LA runs a whole gamut of services, from bus rapid transport, urban and suburban conventional bus services, rural and hyperlocal demand responsive minubus transport, and autonomous car share schemes.
As always, the benefits of such things stand or fall on the competency and capability of local politicians and civil servants. And to be honest, when the busway was being mooted, I doubt even the most ardent supporters could have foreseen just how badly it went. Similarly the Edinburgh Tram. Poor risk/project management. Poor design. Poor construction. Massive cost and embarrassment on the backend.
So perhaps rather than consulting on what, they should be consulting on who and why. Notice should be taken of all the research that has already been done into how and why such things never seem to go to plan. But the plans are always fantastic, stuff nobody in their right mind would ever say no to when they're asked if they think it's a good idea.
So the only financial benefit will be what little is saved by not having to meet Stagecoach's profit margin and not running duplicate services. I'd guesstimate the LA is probably already going to be spending more money designing, tendering and monitoring a franchised network than is saved.
So that only leaves benefits like cheaper integrated ticketing with rail, better accountability to bus passengers and the single network brand/point of use. I suspect none of that is going to drastically change the lives of bus users in Cambridge, whose primary concerns are reliability, affordability and convenience. Just like every single other bus user in Britian. But for some reason we're spending millions on consultants to keep finding that out, area by area.
I personally think given Cambridge's history, the only reason they want franchising is so they can force buses to use expensively procured infrastructure like a busway, bus lanes or park and rides. And unlike enhanced partnerships, which offer that same benefit and some of the others, with franchising it's easier to hide the fact buses are being run inefficiently or even ineffectively.
In places like Cambridgeshire specifically, franchising merely allows the LA to better illustrate with hard data that the main obstacles to better bus services, ones that keep to time, don't cost too much and go where people want to go and in a reasonable time to get there, is traffic congestion and the allocation of road space.
So I'd say the only long term goal of bus franchising in Cambridgeshire is to build local political support and pressure on the DfT/DoE for this area to emulate it's friend and rival Oxford and become one of if not the most hostile place for car owners. Severe restrictions on where you can drive, and severe financial penalties on not just where you can park, but the provision of parking itself.
Not necessarily restrictions on car driving, since you can foresee a future where the LA runs a whole gamut of services, from bus rapid transport, urban and suburban conventional bus services, rural and hyperlocal demand responsive minubus transport, and autonomous car share schemes.
As always, the benefits of such things stand or fall on the competency and capability of local politicians and civil servants. And to be honest, when the busway was being mooted, I doubt even the most ardent supporters could have foreseen just how badly it went. Similarly the Edinburgh Tram. Poor risk/project management. Poor design. Poor construction. Massive cost and embarrassment on the backend.
So perhaps rather than consulting on what, they should be consulting on who and why. Notice should be taken of all the research that has already been done into how and why such things never seem to go to plan. But the plans are always fantastic, stuff nobody in their right mind would ever say no to when they're asked if they think it's a good idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it's new, though the specifics might be the concepts aren't. London has done route tendering since the 1980s and some sort of regulated operation is the norm throughout Europe.
buslad1988
Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 652
When the franchising takes hold it’ll be interesting to see if they simply replace the current operators services like for like or try to create brand new networks from the off.
A phased hybrid approach would probably be the best option so as to not be changing too much at once.
If people complain at the moment buses don’t take them where they want, when they want simply bringing in franchising but keeping the routes exactly the same isn’t really going to make a difference.
Not to mention Cambridge’s chronic congestion - if reliability stats are going to be an important target it’ll cost a fortune adding in additional buses to PVR’s… money that would be better spent on bus priority schemes and getting them in place now.
A phased hybrid approach would probably be the best option so as to not be changing too much at once.
If people complain at the moment buses don’t take them where they want, when they want simply bringing in franchising but keeping the routes exactly the same isn’t really going to make a difference.
Not to mention Cambridge’s chronic congestion - if reliability stats are going to be an important target it’ll cost a fortune adding in additional buses to PVR’s… money that would be better spent on bus priority schemes and getting them in place now.
- Status