Franchising in Bristol

[YorkRailFan]

Bristol Live is reporting that a report regarding the viability of franchising bus services in the Bristol & Bath region will be read at the upcoming Combined Authority meeting in September:

It has long been seen as the answer to Bristol’s much-complained about public transport system - getting what London and the likes of Manchester have and taking back control of the buses.Earlier this year, Dan Norris ordered a ‘full public report’ into the idea, which would see some kind of Transport for the West of England transport authority set up, to run bus services from Thornbury to Bath and Withywood to Chipping Sodbury.That will be presented at September’s West of England Combined Authority meeting, but the Metro Mayor has warned campaigners that it won’t be a ‘silver bullet’.

In a letter to the campaign group Reclaim Our Buses, Mr Norris said: “I agree with you, that the bus system is currently not delivering for residents in the way that they both need and deserve. I am working hard on making improvements in the ways available to me as Mayor."“I can also advise that we are actively considering bus reform at the moment,” he added. “I have engaged with local leaders and I am hopeful that a full public report will be published as part of the September Committee. However, I should caution that franchising is not a silver bullet, and critically, it is also not ‘public ownership’ per se.

“We have a unique set of circumstances in the West of England that present particular challenges for shifting the model we use for delivering our public transport network.“For example, a key franchising problem is the lack of a passenger transport executive in our area, like Transport for London, that brings together powers in one body. There has not historically been a comparable organisation in the West, and this makes taking action more complex and challenging. It is something I would like to set up. As a result of this complex picture, I make no apology of taking the utmost care when considering the strengths and weaknesses of any new model for how we run buses,” he added.
Mr Norris didn’t mention one factor that he has talked about before, which makes bus franchising a trickier option for the West of England than it is in, say, Manchester - the lack of a mass transit system.

In Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester - and of course in London - there are trams or tube trains which, once set up, provide a hefty income for any publicly-owned and run transport authority. Effectively, in Manchester and in London, the trams and the tube pays for the bus services, or at least the bus routes and services that aren’t economical.

In the West of England, the largest public transport provider is First Bus, and while they do turn a profit, they do so by only running services that make them the money - hence why First have cut or re-organised so many services recently, as council subsidies are cut.
Mr Norris has always been lukewarm on the idea of bus franchising because he knows it won’t suddenly mean there’s the money to rapidly improve bus services in Bristol or Bath - it will still be the same bus companies running the same buses on largely the same routes.Reclaim Our Buses welcomed the Metro Mayor’s response - saying that setting up a transport authority for the region is an important first step, and that bus services and public transport generally can only improve if it is taken into public control. However, Mr Norris and the other council leaders in the region needed to be more decisive and urgent.

Bus franchising for Bristol and Bath moves tiny step closer

There's a report, and then a meeting about the report, but is 'taking back control' of the buses in the West of England the solution?

www.bristolpost.co.uk

As the article mentions, Bristol is an interesting case as it doesn't have a tram or metro system. However, the article didn't mention that West Yorkshire, which is looking at franchising, also doesn't have a tram or metro network, but does have an extensive rail commuter network.

The main hurdle for this proposal is funding, the Combined Authority lacks the money to radically improve bus services.

 

[markymark2000]

The main hurdle for this proposal is funding, the Combined Authority lacks the money to radically improve bus services.

West of England combined Authority has plenty of money to spend on buses, they just don't spend it wisely. @Citistar has spoken many times on other forum posts and on their website blog about the money being wasted by the combined authority and how hard they make it for smaller operators to get funding (less small operators bidding for tenders mean the contract prices go up as the big operators know there is less competition). Free travel on your birthday month, another waste of money. Dan Norris is the same as Steve Rotherham and Andy Burnham. Egotistical waste of taxpayers money, they only care for boosting their political careers.

 

[LUYMun]

Perhaps the sentiment for more public control of Bristol's buses is fuelled by Transpora's quickfire exit from the industry?

 

[Magdalia]

Bristol is an interesting case as it doesn't have a tram or metro system.

Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority are consulting on bus franchising.

They don't have any tram or metro system, though they do have the guided busway.

 

[Mollman]

Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority are consulting on bus franchising.

They don't have any tram or metro system, though they do have the guided busway.

I'm not sure about the claim that the trams in Sheffield and Manchester make such a profit they fund bus services. South Yorkshire are claiming that without external funding to renew the system and buy new trams they will have to close it down.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Bristol Live is reporting that a report regarding the viability of franchising bus services in the Bristol & Bath region will be read at the upcoming Combined Authority meeting in September:

Bus franchising for Bristol and Bath moves tiny step closer

There's a report, and then a meeting about the report, but is 'taking back control' of the buses in the West of England the solution?

www.bristolpost.co.uk

As the article mentions, Bristol is an interesting case as it doesn't have a tram or metro system. However, the article didn't mention that West Yorkshire, which is looking at franchising, also doesn't have a tram or metro network, but does have an extensive rail commuter network.

The main hurdle for this proposal is funding, the Combined Authority lacks the money to radically improve bus services.

West of England combined Authority has plenty of money to spend on buses, they just don't spend it wisely. @Citistar has spoken many times on other forum posts and on their website blog about the money being wasted by the combined authority and how hard they make it for smaller operators to get funding (less small operators bidding for tenders mean the contract prices go up as the big operators know there is less competition). Free travel on your birthday month, another waste of money. Dan Norris is the same as Steve Rotherham and Andy Burnham. Egotistical waste of taxpayers money, they only care for boosting their political careers.

@Citistar has indeed complained about WECA and the individual local authorities. Mind you, he's also complained about North Somerset who are equally painful to work with. One of the main issues is that whilst they (and they aren't alone) adopt a business approach that is so bureaucratic, it almost automatically favours the larger operators who have the time and resources to meet these onerous requirements.

The other problem is the contradictory nature of local politics. There is a lot of sympathy for green initiatives (Carla Denayer was indeed elected in what had been a Labour stronghold). Hence the fixation with stuff like cargo bikes etc. However, if you want to have bus priority and remove/reduce the ability to drive their car or park it outside their house, then suddenly that becomes a major issue. See the reaction to the Westbury on Trym or Saltford proposed changes. Or how South Gloucestershire unilaterally removed the bus lane at Hambrook when motorists began complaining about losing road capacity?

It's the old issue. People think that they should have better public services, and that taxes need to be increased, but they seldom think they themselves should be penalised.

Perhaps the sentiment for more public control of Bristol's buses is fuelled by Transpora's quickfire exit from the industry?

Er no... There have been the usual campaigns from people like We Own It and other more local agitators for the last ten years at least.

 

[Citistar]

Perhaps i expect too much from Local Transport Authorities, but Bristol City Council's takeover of the transport functions at Bath and South Gloucestershire under the guise of WECA has been a disaster. All of Bristol's cumbersome policies seem to have been adopted with none of the communicative nature of the other two where it was occasionally possible to actually talk to somebody about an issue, be it positive or negative. Strangely enough, as i'm doing a bit of cross-border working at the moment, it seems to be the case in at least one neighbouring authority that communication flows pretty effectively between council staff and operators to resolve issues to the level that those of us in WECAvon could only dream of. Imagine having the phone number of somebody who was authorised to actually make a decision about a matter (and would occasionally answer their phone).... Madness, isn't it?

The thought of the current staff and management at WECA having to deal with franchising is horrifying. They can't even produce meaningful and correct bus stop timetable displays, nor apparently respond to requests to discuss what is wrong with their existing ones.

WECA's policy documents are a mess of concepts, ideas and projects that do not appear to be joined together in order to promote public or active travel. There can be dozens of electric cargo bikes provided for Bristol, but the city lacks proper joined-up cycling infrastructure which needs to be a precursor. There is a huge problem in that as an organisation they (and this is also true of North Somerset) don't want to tackle any difficult projects, instead going for more locallised, low hanging fruit which doesn't deliver any meaningful results. Bristol as a city with it's perpetually transient councils of various shades is petrified of upsetting the residents at any cost, so that means that the stuff which actually might make a difference will never be done. The Gloucester Road corridor would be ideal for trams, but it will never happen because no council would ever have the balls to install it and become unpopular. Have a read through their policy documents to find out about "interchanges" solving everything (although one has yet to appear). Or a policy of establishing orbital urban bus routes (which have never been tendered, let alone come to fruition). Or how Demand Responsive services won't replace existing local bus services, but will run alongside them.

Finally, in response to @TheGrandWazoo's comment, there have been so many agitators and disruptors involved in trying to "seize control" of Bristol's transport that they seem to lose impact with each new one that comes along. I think my first real experience of them was with the Freebus movement, but now the almost routine nature of the socialist mouth frothing that happens every few months in the local press is about as far as it ever seems to go. Usually there is no interest in practicalities, but only in the dogma of ownership being the most important issue possible. Much like those making bids for the awfully flawed WestLocal scheme (about which i will have to do some new writing next month), the leaders of these quasi-political movements never seem to have any grasp of reality.

 

[markymark2000]

The other problem is the contradictory nature of local politics. There is a lot of sympathy for green initiatives (Carla Denayer was indeed elected in what had been a Labour stronghold). Hence the fixation with stuff like cargo bikes etc. However, if you want to have bus priority and remove/reduce the ability to drive their car or park it outside their house, then suddenly that becomes a major issue. See the reaction to the Westbury on Trym or Saltford proposed changes. Or how South Gloucestershire unilaterally removed the bus lane at Hambrook when motorists began complaining about losing road capacity?

However the same uproar doesn't reverse the decisions when installing cycle lanes which remove road capacity. Dare to remove a general traffic lane to install a bus lane (a bus lane can also provide a wider area for bikes to cycle as bus lanes are 2-3m which, when there are no buses, they can cycle in freely), they are extremely weak. It doesn't make sense that they are so weak when it comes to bus infrastructure but so happy to stand their ground on cycle schemes. Very few cycle schemes are reversed, plenty of bus priority schemes are.

Seeming refusal from councils and the combined authority to push for sustainable new developments too and they are happy to keep building in car dependency. M3 for example, for ages the M3 only stopped at Lyde Green Park and Ride and the Science Park, it was driving through the new houses but not stopping. Now thankfully someone saw sense and the bus stops outside the primary school

Wasting money on the 'guided busway' M2 when it could and should have just been a basic busway. Given the whole busway, only around 1/2 of it is guided, the additional costs for the vehicles, driver training and possibly maintenance of the busway, just aren't worth the reward on this this route.

The thought of the current staff and management at WECA having to deal with franchising is horrifying.

Agreed in full.

 

[Stan Drews]

Perhaps i expect too much from Local Transport Authorities, but Bristol City Council's takeover of the transport functions at Bath and South Gloucestershire under the guise of WECA has been a disaster. All of Bristol's cumbersome policies seem to have been adopted with none of the communicative nature of the other two where it was occasionally possible to actually talk to somebody about an issue, be it positive or negative. Strangely enough, as i'm doing a bit of cross-border working at the moment, it seems to be the case in at least one neighbouring authority that communication flows pretty effectively between council staff and operators to resolve issues to the level that those of us in WECAvon could only dream of. Imagine having the phone number of somebody who was authorised to actually make a decision about a matter (and would occasionally answer their phone).... Madness, isn't it?

The thought of the current staff and management at WECA having to deal with franchising is horrifying. They can't even produce meaningful and correct bus stop timetable displays, nor apparently respond to requests to discuss what is wrong with their existing ones.

WECA's policy documents are a mess of concepts, ideas and projects that do not appear to be joined together in order to promote public or active travel. There can be dozens of electric cargo bikes provided for Bristol, but the city lacks proper joined-up cycling infrastructure which needs to be a precursor. There is a huge problem in that as an organisation they (and this is also true of North Somerset) don't want to tackle any difficult projects, instead going for more locallised, low hanging fruit which doesn't deliver any meaningful results. Bristol as a city with it's perpetually transient councils of various shades is petrified of upsetting the residents at any cost, so that means that the stuff which actually might make a difference will never be done. The Gloucester Road corridor would be ideal for trams, but it will never happen because no council would ever have the balls to install it and become unpopular. Have a read through their policy documents to find out about "interchanges" solving everything (although one has yet to appear). Or a policy of establishing orbital urban bus routes (which have never been tendered, let alone come to fruition). Or how Demand Responsive services won't replace existing local bus services, but will run alongside them.

Finally, in response to @TheGrandWazoo's comment, there have been so many agitators and disruptors involved in trying to "seize control" of Bristol's transport that they seem to lose impact with each new one that comes along. I think my first real experience of them was with the Freebus movement, but now the almost routine nature of the socialist mouth frothing that happens every few months in the local press is about as far as it ever seems to go. Usually there is no interest in practicalities, but only in the dogma of ownership being the most important issue possible. Much like those making bids for the awfully flawed WestLocal scheme (about which i will have to do some new writing next month), the leaders of these quasi-political movements never seem to have any grasp of reality.

I read this and substituted SPT and the various councils in the Greater Glasgow area for the WECA and the local authorities around the ‘Greater Bristol’ area, and it all still fitted almost word for word. Seemingly a national trend!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

However the same uproar doesn't reverse the decisions when installing cycle lanes which remove road capacity. Dare to remove a general traffic lane to install a bus lane (a bus lane can also provide a wider area for bikes to cycle as bus lanes are 2-3m which, when there are no buses, they can cycle in freely), they are extremely weak. It doesn't make sense that they are so weak when it comes to bus infrastructure but so happy to stand their ground on cycle schemes. Very few cycle schemes are reversed, plenty of bus priority schemes are.

Well, yes. Then again, with the exception of London, most cycle lanes are a poorly designed mismash of road markings confined to the margin of the road. There isn't usually the same amount of space take. The problems of Bristol's roads (and Bath is little better) is summarised by this example on the A4:


There's no red routes so you have people parking on double yellows with little enforcement. Cycle lanes are relatively minimal except those that are built on former rail lines (Bristol to Bath, Malago etc). In this instance, you have a raft of cars parked outside what were townhouses but are now converted to flats. This is a main traffic artery with the services from Bath, Keynsham and Broomhill as well as the Brislington P&R but do you think they'd remove the parking here and create a bus lane? The uproar would be too great.

In fact, they have put a bus gate on Cumberland Road and that has generated a lot of comment. The usual reddit threads, some bloke complaining about the signage (there's no shortage of signs) and the local rag getting involved who love nothing more than stirring things up.

Same with the Saltford and Keynsham element of having bus priority between Bristol and Bath. Rees-Mogg seized on that to gain political capital and it is a local cause celebre.

Seeming refusal from councils and the combined authority to push for sustainable new developments too and they are happy to keep building in car dependency. M3 for example, for ages the M3 only stopped at Lyde Green Park and Ride and the Science Park, it was driving through the new houses but not stopping. Now thankfully someone saw sense and the bus stops outside the primary school

That wasn't a question of building in car dependency though. That was based on the m3 having few stops on a European model. There were stops through Lyde Green that the regular bus (I forget the number but one of the 80 series) stopped at.

Where I live in BaNES, you can see what developers do. They build incrementally on plots (no single large scheme) and they leverage the requirement to build homes.

Wasting money on the 'guided busway' M2 when it could and should have just been a basic busway. Given the whole busway, only around 1/2 of it is guided, the additional costs for the vehicles, driver training and possibly maintenance of the busway, just aren't worth the reward on this this route.

I said that at the time. The rationale for guided bus (in general) simply didn't hold true with what they've done there with the possible exception of Ashton Avenue Bridge and even that only needed to be a single carriageway road etc. In fact, it seemed that some of metrobus was a means of getting funding for road schemes to unlock development areas (e.g. Harry Stoke, Brookgate) though I guess that they would state that they have put in some provision for buses when development comes. As it is, the South Bristol Relief Road has bus lanes but very few buses other than the U2 or Falcon (and many First vehicles on placement runs from Hengrove depot).

 

[YorkRailFan]

Any potential reforms have been postponed until 2025:

Plans to fix under-fire bus services in Bristol have been pushed back until next year.

The delay has been branded “unacceptable” by campaigners, who say passengers are losing patience with unreliable services and axed routes in the city and wider region.

Local authorities are set to be given greater powers under the government's Better Buses bill, due to be tabled in early 2025.

The West of England Combined Authority committee (WECA) has decided to wait for details of the law change before pushing ahead with potential reforms.

Bus improvements remain a “key priority” for residents, according to Bristol City Council leader Tony Dyer.

The Green councillor said: “We need to look at providing a timeline of actions that will actually happen.

"We are starting to exhaust the patience of residents of Bristol and the rest of the West of England.”

Bristol bus service reforms delayed until 2025

Bus passengers in Bristol must wait until next year for planned reforms to services.

www.bbc.com

Disappointing but also understandable that the Combined Authority wants to see details of the new law first.