TfGM Bus franchising

[johncrossley]

The bus franchise model in Greater Manchester goes further than that in London in that the bus companies' assets in Greater Manchester would be expropriated unilaterally by the Greater Manchester Authority without fair recompense; it is a Marxist approach to seizing private assets. Rotala are right to pursue a judicial review.

Since when was compulsory purchase illegal? Governments/authorities do it all the time in regard to transport schemes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why can't an essential public service be run by a private company? Don't you consider waste disposal (for example) an essential public service?

Though they do so in a regulated, not deregulated, context. The service is tendered out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

Since when was compulsory purchase illegal? Governments/authorities do it all the time in regard to transport schemes.

I must admit I find this part of the scheme a bit bizarre. There is no shortage of old industrial land in GM on which buses could be parked by a new operator.

 

[RT4038]

The bus franchise model in Greater Manchester goes further than that in London in that the bus companies' assets in Greater Manchester would be expropriated unilaterally by the Greater Manchester Authority without fair recompense; it is a Marxist approach to seizing private assets. Rotala are right to pursue a judicial review.

I don't think seizing assets is without recompense? How fair that recompense is will no doubt depend on what side of the fence you are sitting? Plenty of assets have been compulsorily purchased for HS2 for instance, and plenty of disagreements about the recompense. There are procedures in place for appeal etc.

I would think the contention is more on the arbitrary 'seizing' of the business rights, which is more a withdrawal of the right to trade freely and replacement by a bidding system to trade in a much more restricted fashion. Existing companies may not win any bids (possibly due to historic costs that a start-up bidder may not be encumbered with, or an incoming bidder with backing bidding low to win ) and thereby be put out of business. What the risk of that happening is unknown. Of course a similar scenario (similar, not the same) occurred after the 1930 Act established regulation, but this affected small businesses mainly, who either sold up to the big operators or developed their private hire & contract businesses instead. Caused quite a bit of anguish at the time, now largely forgotten. If you change the rules of engagement there will be some winners and losers.

 

[johncrossley]

Though they do so in a regulated, not deregulated, context. The service is tendered out.

Just to be clear, this was in response to @Xenophon PCDGS who suggested that if buses are so 'essential' then they ought to be run by a public owned and operated service. That is clearly not the case, as council waste disposal is usually operated by private firms these days.

I must admit I find this part of the scheme a bit bizarre. There is no shortage of old industrial land in GM on which buses could be parked by a new operator.

It helps the incumbent get rid of an asset they no longer require, is cheaper, quicker to get up and running and is better for the environment.

 

[Goldfish62]

I must admit I find this part of the scheme a bit bizarre. There is no shortage of old industrial land in GM on which buses could be parked by a new operator.

I think using existing brownfield sites is exactly what will happen. Compulsory purchase takes too long.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It helps the incumbent get rid of an asset they no longer require, is cheaper, quicker to get up and running and is better for the environment.

If they win tenders they will still require it. I don't see an issue with offering to purchase as a compensatory mechanism but compulsory is a bit odd.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A certain efficiency exists in public ownership, although it’s materialisation relies heavily on the competence of the public sector management.

I nearly fell off my chair when reading this. I work with local and central government. The idea that the public sector is efficient is simply not borne out by experience, now or historically.

I don't know your age (and I don't want to come across as "you don't man, you weren't there") but those of us who are older remember the inefficiency of public ownership of virtually everything. The time and expense it took to simply get a phone installed in your home are scarcely believable when compared to today. Nor the inefficiency of That's before you get onto the transport related - British Leyland... British Rail... And before anyone says that BR didn't get the investment, when it did (via the modernisation plan), much was squandered. When growing up, my father worked for as a bus driver for an NBC subsidiary (and so I can thank that for paying for me) but I look back on it and see how grossly inefficient things were. The depot had about 25 buses... with a depot manager, engineering manager, two inspectors, a clerk, two travel office clerks, four fitters, two cleaners - 13 support staff for 25 vehicles.

The private sector makes a turn on things and those profits are both used for reinvestment and as a dividend that often goes towards private pension schemes.

OK, private firms were introduced into the London bus market under Thatcher, privatisation of the original bus companies in London came later. Costs were slashed under the new system without losing passengers.

Why couldn’t costs have equally been slashed while retaining public ownership. Perhaps destroying the industry structure entirely and replacing it with a new one is easier than ripping the existing one open and trying to make changes from the inside. That’s not to say that any benefit actually came from privatisation itself, or that unexplained costs would rapidly increase if the service were to be renationalised.

Because quite simply, you had the GLC who were, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, dominated by left wingers - Ken Livingstone, Illtyd Harrington, John McDonnell. Do you really think that they were to pursue a programme of measures that would involve the erosion of staff terms and conditions, and the closure of depots?

Do you recall the London Forest strike where those cost cuts involved new contracts with a 20% increased allied to a 9.5% cut in wages? Those reductions in operating costs were the result of that and it wouldn't have come from within the GLC. Notably, an early day motion was proposed on this calling for "this dispute to be swiftly sorted out, without any reduction in the bus men and women's pay and conditions, so that the buses can run again" and was proposed and supported by people like Dianne Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn, Ronnie Campbell, Dave Nellist and Dennis Skinner, among others.

So the idea that costs could or would be slashed is somewhat fanciful.

he bus franchise model in Greater Manchester goes further than that in London in that the bus companies' assets in Greater Manchester would be expropriated unilaterally by the Greater Manchester Authority without fair recompense; it is a Marxist approach to seizing private assets. Rotala are right to pursue a judicial review.

Since when was compulsory purchase illegal? Governments/authorities do it all the time in regard to transport schemes.

Compulsory purchase is not illegal. However, they are taking the physical assets (and at a rock bottom valuation) and it does not reflect the actual worth of the business. They are taking the revenue-generating potential of a business without compensation. It's that intangible thing that is regarded as "goodwill" in the purchase of the business.

 

[RT4038]

The depot had about 25 buses... with a depot manager, engineering manager, two inspectors, a clerk, two travel office clerks, four fitters, two cleaners - 13 support staff for 25 vehicles.

In contrast, in 1978 Windsor Garage of London Country had a PVR of 39 vehicles, with 77 drivers and 70 (yes 70!) support staff [Traffic Supt, Deputy Traffic Supt, Depot Engineer, Engineering Foreman, Inspectors x7, Clerk/Typists x8, Driving Instructors x2, Canteen Staff x7, Loading Reporter, Fitters/Mechanics x16, Craftsmen x 10, Advert Fixer, Cleaners x14. Some may have been part time, such as the Canteen Staff & cleaners]

Source: 'The Motorbus in London Country' by Kenneth Warren.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

If they win tenders they will still require it. I don't see an issue with offering to purchase as a compensatory mechanism but compulsory is a bit odd.

Presumably to put all the prospective tenderers on the same footing?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In contrast, in 1978 Windsor Garage of London Country had a PVR of 39 vehicles, with 77 drivers and 70 (yes 70!) support staff [Traffic Supt, Deputy Traffic Supt, Depot Engineer, Engineering Foreman, Inspectors x7, Clerk/Typists x8, Driving Instructors x2, Canteen Staff x7, Loading Reporter, Fitters/Mechanics x16, Craftsmen x 10, Advert Fixer, Cleaners x14. Some may have been part time, such as the Canteen Staff & cleaners]

Source: 'The Motorbus in London Country' by Kenneth Warren.

Indeed - the inefficiency was endemic in the nationalised operators of the time.

And let's not forget that there were also periods of extreme service rationalisation. There were huge cuts in areas like Sussex, West Wales and Cornwall in 1971, plus similar programmes of service cuts with Market Analysis Projects/SCOTMAP that all came under nationalised control.

Presumably to put all the prospective tenderers on the same footing?

Indeed, it removes the inherent advantage of the incumbents. It's for procurement reasons rather than anything else.

 

[Wolfie]

Just what is the point? When the decision was “You are no longer welcome to control or profit from our essential public services and admit that Mrs Thatcher had no right to sell the operation to your shareholders in the first place” why can we not simply pass legislation to reregulate the bus network, requiring all services to be directly operated, without having to put up with the delays from these companies who’s involvement is questionable enough as it is, that we already have to put up with on every visit to a bus stop?

Probably because we have a government that certainly would not accept the premise in your second sentence, let alone propose any such legislation.

 

[Rod Harrison]

People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe the claptrap of the Mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire with their ‘ bus every ten minutes’ and ‘£2 per journey’ etc. etc. Their proposals rely on constant funding from Government and poor bloody Council Tax pares subsidising buses and trams to the hilt for years to come. The Government can’t even afford to cut the price of energy in the short term so will buses really get the money? Also the shareholders in the bus companies should insist that they move ALL their newest buses elsewhere and put the old bangers into Manchester and Leeds. Would be nostalgic as anyone old enough like me to remember the state of Manchester Corporation, in particular, will dread the thought of a Council running anything properly. Manchester Airport is a clear case in point. Not rocket science to organise queues by departure time surely? Anyway back to buses, it’s all political hogwash and the cheap fares and increased service won’t happen and they’ll blame the government for not providing the money!

 

[Wolfie]

People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe the claptrap of the Mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire with their ‘ bus every ten minutes’ and ‘£2 per journey’ etc. etc. Their proposals rely on constant funding from Government and poor bloody Council Tax pares subsidising buses and trams to the hilt for years to come. The Government can’t even afford to cut the price of energy in the short term so will buses really get the money? Also the shareholders in the bus companies should insist that they move ALL their newest buses elsewhere and put the old bangers into Manchester and Leeds. Would be nostalgic as anyone old enough like me to remember the state of Manchester Corporation, in particular, will dread the thought of a Council running anything properly. Manchester Airport is a clear case in point. Not rocket science to organise queues by departure time surely? Anyway back to buses, it’s all political hogwash and the cheap fares and increased service won’t happen and they’ll blame the government for not providing the money!

Does London have knackered old buses or the most modern fleet in the country?

 

[johncrossley]

Would be nostalgic as anyone old enough like me to remember the state of Manchester Corporation, in particular, will dread the thought of a Council running anything properly.

So that's why we are being right-wing and paying private bus companies to run our buses. There are still a lot of lefties in places like Dublin that are scared of privatisation of their buses, hence why only baby steps have been taken so far. The government have managed to get Go-Ahead to run some routes, but as I understand it, Dublin Bus is still going to be directly contracted by the government to run most buses in the city for the foreseeable future. In Belfast, privatisation is not even on the cards.

Buses are now far less profitable than they were before Covid, so the alternative options are (aside from franchising), continuing to pay the current bus companies to run the existing network without tendering, or have a severely reduced commercial network. Assuming the latter is unpalatable, how is the former good value for money?

 

[507020]

The time and expense it took to simply get a phone installed in your home are scarcely believable when compared to today.

My mother continues to remind me the process by which she got a phone socket installed, but I currently require one since I have moved into a property which was inexplicably missing it no doubt thanks to the previous occupant and I am yet to resolve this matter. Not being a current customer of any of the phone companies and especially BT clearly isn’t helping. I also spent several months on the phone to British Gas last year because they simply refused to allow me to open a gas or electricity account (and you do not have a choice of supplier until you have an active account with the property’s previous supplier) on the basis that I couldn’t be living there because “Someone else’s name is on the account” and that they would “phone the police” if I contacted them again. They eventually changed their tune and insisted they would send an engineer to fix the problem I had, at gone midnight, before I had moved in, when I didn’t need it sorting urgently and I didn’t even have light bulbs installed to use the energy I was to start paying for. I am certain this could have been resolved in under an hour at the walk in high street shop of the single public supplier, something seen as an operating inefficiency by private companies but the pinnacle of customer service for essential services.

In contrast, in 1978 Windsor Garage of London Country had a PVR of 39 vehicles, with 77 drivers and 70 (yes 70!) support staff [Traffic Supt, Deputy Traffic Supt, Depot Engineer, Engineering Foreman, Inspectors x7, Clerk/Typists x8, Driving Instructors x2, Canteen Staff x7, Loading Reporter, Fitters/Mechanics x16, Craftsmen x 10, Advert Fixer, Cleaners x14. Some may have been part time, such as the Canteen Staff & cleaners]

Source: 'The Motorbus in London Country' by Kenneth Warren.

I can’t even begin to break down this. It may be slightly dated e.g. typists may be obsolete, but what is certainly known today is that neither buses nor the railway have enough drivers to run even a reduced service and are also struggling with staff retention, so employing reduced numbers of staff over the BR era has become a false economy and has started to hurt passengers. If this depot setup could have coped with a pandemic then it is unfortunate that it is no longer what we have.

People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe the claptrap of the Mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire with their ‘ bus every ten minutes’ and ‘£2 per journey’ etc. etc. Their proposals rely on constant funding from Government and poor bloody Council Tax pares subsidising buses and trams to the hilt for years to come. The Government can’t even afford to cut the price of energy in the short term so will buses really get the money? Also the shareholders in the bus companies should insist that they move ALL their newest buses elsewhere and put the old bangers into Manchester and Leeds. Would be nostalgic as anyone old enough like me to remember the state of Manchester Corporation, in particular, will dread the thought of a Council running anything properly. Manchester Airport is a clear case in point. Not rocket science to organise queues by departure time surely? Anyway back to buses, it’s all political hogwash and the cheap fares and increased service won’t happen and they’ll blame the government for not providing the money!

Council tax payers subsiding buses and trams would not be “poor” the idea is for these people to actually use the buses and trams they are already paying for. The government has no stake in private energy companies so it has no interest in controlling their pricing to benefit consumers. If it still owned them, it could either add more domestically produced coal, which it could control the price of, back into the energy mix to stabilise the price in the short term, or simply absorb wholesale gas price increases out of general taxation. If bus companies are running newer buses in Manchester and Leeds city centres than elsewhere, then perhaps it should be asked why the present arrangement favours these cities over the surrounding towns. As a worst case scenario TfGM could simply order its own new bus fleet to be publicly owned from new under the new system, although it is would require additional subsidy and is worse for the environment than taking on pre-existing buses from private operators, who would no longer require them if they do not win any services.

 

[johncrossley]

A state owned monopoly is bad, but so is a private one. You should have competitive tendering to ensure that you are getting good value. If tendering is not possible then you need strict regulators to ensure that market dominance is not exploited.

 

[507020]

A state owned monopoly is bad, but so is a private one. You should have competitive tendering to ensure that you are getting good value. If tendering is not possible then you need strict regulators to ensure that market dominance is not exploited.

What would be wrong with for example an NBC company competing with a local municipal one?

 

[Deerfold]

What would be wrong with for example an NBC company competing with a local municipal one?

Does the NBC service have an evening service when the competitor doesn't?
They might want to keep that service but find it difficult if they only have competition at their busiest times.

UK councils and their bus companies had the worst of both worlds - unregulated competition at their busiest times, but they still had to pay companies to run buses at quieter times.

The London system works better as companies tender to run at all times.

I see no reason why a nationalised company shouldn't bid. It seemed odd that BR were banned from bidding to run parts of the UK railway in the 90s when they had a lot of knowledge on how to do it.

You'd want to also include ways to measure effectiveness and customer service do contracts would be removed if companies or public sector couldn't meet their obligations.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

It's nostalgic to see the old Thatcherites alive and well and still peddling their old nonsense and prejudices. The 1983 Conservative manifesto promised lower fares, increased ridership and improved services - remind me how it has gone? I particularly liked the swipe at Manchester Corporation - how dare it offer a comprehensive network, evening / night services and bequeath the innovative 'Mancunian' to SELNEC. We live in a democracy - every ward in Greater Manchester voted for Andy Burham (including leafy Hale and Bramhall) with bus re-regulation featuring prominently in his manifesto - its happening so get over it. The level of private car use for commuting in the conurbation is totally ridiculous - there is an urgent need for viable alternatives be it bus, tram, tram-train or train. As a keen cyclist the pollution, grime and communities wrecked by traffic is all too apparent to me. I would hope all new buses are electric, so frankly Rotala and others can keep their rolling stock.

 

[markymark2000]

People seem to have short memories.

Halton Transport ceased trading in Jan 2020 as they ran out of money. The council didn't care and Halton Transport was overbussing corridors by a huge amount. The only thing that kept them going this long was Riverside & Cronton college contracts which provided about 16 buses worth of work each day. (A contract which if it was competative, probably wouldn't have been won by Halton Transport, likely only won due to contacts through the council). Even at their demise, a good chunk of their fleet was very old as investment had dried up. Who jumped up and saved the day? Private firm Arriva and local independant Ashcroft. (The only route which was taken over by Warringtons Own Buses has been ran down to become basically useless and is now not used because they have faffed and killed it off)

Warringtons Own Buses, another council owned firm, spent tens of thousands flooding some corridors to push out a local independant (as well as some odd goings on that I can't discuss). 86% of people surveyed for Warringtons Bus Service Improvement Plan said that bus fares were 'expensive of very expensive' and 66% said that bus fares were 'poor value for money'.

Blackpool, pretty much only has these nice fancy buses because of the Rail Replacement contract with Northern during the big Blackpool electrification blockade.

That is the story of 3 municipal firms in the North West. Council ran, doesn't mean cheaper fares or better service. Infact, in the case of Warrington, Arriva has cheaper fares than Warringtons Own Buses.




People need to compare apples with apples and need to move into reality and see that publically owned/ran doesn't mean a better service or cheaper service. Infact, private firms can do it better and can help to grow patronage. Rosso proved that when they became part of Transdev!

 

[johncrossley]

What would be wrong with for example an NBC company competing with a local municipal one?

I presume you mean for tenders, rather than on road competition? That's fine. We already have council owned firms bidding for work in a variety of industries, including waste disposal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

People need to compare apples with apples and need to move into reality and see that publically owned/ran doesn't mean a better service or cheaper service. Infact, private firms can do it better and can help to grow patronage. Rosso proved that when they became part of Transdev!

You are talking about municipals operating under deregulation. That's completely different to private companies being paid to run a bus service.

 

[GusB]

The topic of the thread is franchising of buses in Greater Manchester.

Arguments about whether the privatisation agenda was a good thing or not have their place, but they're a distraction from the main subject.

Please stay on topic.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Does London have knackered old buses or the most modern fleet in the country?

Well it doesn't have the most modern fleet in the country. Were you to look at Nottingham (incl Trent Barton) or Oxford (both Stagecoach and Go Ahead), those are more moderm fleet. It does happen to have a fleet of overly complex bespoke double deckers created at the whim of an egotist mayor!

I am certain this could have been resolved in under an hour at the walk in high street shop of the single public supplier, something seen as an operating inefficiency by private companies but the pinnacle of customer service for essential services.

Well, it couldn't be done in 1980 so not certain why it would now. That and the fact that many public bodies have indeed been quick to close offices/retail outlets, not least London Underground. Notwithstanding your personal experience, the responsiveness and efficiency of our public services is much higher than in the sepia-tinted years. I might add, in order to maintain relevance to Manchester, that GMPTE was able to close in readiness of deregulation, three depots (Leigh, Weaste and Hindley) in early 1986. Yes, they had three depots that had been open for years but hadn't closed even though it was perfectly practicable.

what is certainly known today is that neither buses nor the railway have enough drivers to run even a reduced service and are also struggling with staff retention, so employing reduced numbers of staff over the BR era has become a false economy and has started to hurt passengers.

I'm not certain I know what the point is there. If it's that you'd have more drivers if there were more managers?

Council tax payers subsiding buses and trams would not be “poor” the idea is for these people to actually use the buses and trams they are already paying for. The government has no stake in private energy companies so it has no interest in controlling their pricing to benefit consumers. If it still owned them, it could either add more domestically produced coal, which it could control the price of, back into the energy mix to stabilise the price in the short term, or simply absorb wholesale gas price increases out of general taxation. If bus companies are running newer buses in Manchester and Leeds city centres than elsewhere, then perhaps it should be asked why the present arrangement favours these cities over the surrounding towns. As a worst case scenario TfGM could simply order its own new bus fleet to be publicly owned from new under the new system, although it is would require additional subsidy and is worse for the environment than taking on pre-existing buses from private operators, who would no longer require them if they do not win any services.

The fact is that all this boils down to money and, for the avoidance of doubt, this is my main issue. On this board, we are generally pro-public transport and left leaning. However, that's atypical. The average man or woman on the street is neither of those two things. The success of London was/is built on a huge amount of public subsidy. Figures that are massive when extrapolated across the UK. This is where I get slightly peeved:

I would love to see a public transport network that works to a better model, and provides a robust and attractive alternative to the private car. There is a wealth of good practice from around the World, Europe or the UK to take forward.

However, those who believe that Mr Burnham's Utopian vision can be achieved by restoring public ownership and control, whilst not reining in private car use in any meaningful way, are mistaken. Equally, the belief that all the benefits of "London style" this and that can be achieved by simply screwing down bus company margins from the mid teens to high single figures, or cutting some perceived "wasteful duplication" is equally misplaced. Andy Burnham's highlighting of the decline in bus patronage in GM (without acknowledging the impact of Metrolink) is as manifestly disingenuous as putting £350m savings on the side of the Brexit bus.

It's nostalgic to see the old Thatcherites alive and well and still pedalling their old nonsense and prejudices. The 1983 Conservative manifesto promised lower fares, increased ridership and improved services - remind me how it has gone? I particularly liked the swipe at Manchester Corporation - how dare it offer a comprehensive network, evening / night services and bequeath the innovative 'Mancunian' to SELNEC. We live in a democracy - every ward in Greater Manchester voted for Andy Burham (including leafy Hale and Bramhall) with bus re-regulation featuring prominently in his manifesto - its happening so get over it. The level of private car use for commuting in the conurbation is totally ridiculous - there is an urgent need for viable alternatives be it bus, tram, tram-train or train. As a keen cyclist the pollution, grime and communities wrecked by traffic is all too apparent to me. I would hope all new buses are electric, so frankly Rotala and others can keep their rolling stock.

I am no Thatcherite. Hated the woman and especially her vindictiveness towards the mining communities.

However, the idea that pre-1986 was a halcyon era simply isn't true. Bus patronage across the UK had fallen consistently from the mid-1950s; much of that was from wider social issues but that is equally true in the last 30 plus years too. Also, in terms of democracy, there was a referendum where the additional expenditure was to come from a proposed congestion charge and those self same boroughs voted it down. That people are voting for something (things can be better with no downsides, sticking it to the man, getting back control) does seem to mirror the Brexit referendum where an imperfect reality was discarded for the sunlit uplands where you can have your cake and eat it!

More damning is that I lived in Stretford in the late 1990s. Here we are some 25 years later and you can still travel, 6 miles up the A56, and there is still not one bit of bus priority between Altrincham and Old Trafford.

I don't doubt Rotala will fail in their latest manoeuvres. Franchising will come in and it will be trumpeted as a huge success, come what may. However, to really move the needle will require a lot more revenue (not capital) funding than is being cited here (carrot), and it will need to have some curbing of car use (stick).

 

[Robertj21a]

Andy Burnham's version of franchising is certainly going to be interesting to watch (from the sidelines!). Personally, I'm not sure he's fully thought it through, and he is probably just hoping to get more grants, fares and general income than will actually prove to be the case.

 

[RT4038]

Andy Burnham's version of franchising is certainly going to be interesting to watch (from the sidelines!). Personally, I'm not sure he's fully thought it through, and he is probably just hoping to get more grants, fares and general income than will actually prove to be the case.

The deregulated system is cheap (as far as subsidies are concerned) but has a number of flaws which means it doesn't deliver very good public transport to a lot of people, but delivers well for car using taxpayers. The franchised system only has London (in this country) as an example, the profligacy of which has plenty of critics and costs a huge amount of subsidy, but delivers pretty good public transport.

This Government has at least given some proper attention and some funding to buses, and is piloting various schemes ranging from DRT to Manchester franchising. Hopefully somewhere more people will get pretty good public transport for an affordable amount of subsidy (more than the provinces but less than London). If Andy Burnham can deliver this and it acts as baseline for improvements across the country then it can only be good for public transport users? Rather than knocking the initiatives, how about cautiously supporting them until shown to be unsustainable, rather than merely scoffing and hoping they fail , somehow 'proving' the glorious success of the deregulated minimalist provision we have now.

 

[markymark2000]

The deregulated system is cheap (as far as subsidies are concerned) but has a number of flaws which means it doesn't deliver very good public transport to a lot of people, but delivers well for car using taxpayers. The franchised system only has London (in this country) as an example, the profligacy of which has plenty of critics and costs a huge amount of subsidy, but delivers pretty good public transport.

This Government has at least given some proper attention and some funding to buses, and is piloting various schemes ranging from DRT to Manchester franchising. Hopefully somewhere more people will get pretty good public transport for an affordable amount of subsidy (more than the provinces but less than London). If Andy Burnham can deliver this and it acts as baseline for improvements across the country then it can only be good for public transport users? Rather than knocking the initiatives, how about cautiously supporting them until shown to be unsustainable, rather than merely scoffing and hoping they fail , somehow 'proving' the glorious success of the deregulated minimalist provision we have now.

If private firms were given the same level of subsidy as franchising gets, you'd see an extremely different bus network. Low subsidy for tenders plus dismal concessionary reimbursement is why the deregulated market is flawed.

 

[RT4038]

If private firms were given the same level of subsidy as franchising gets, you'd see an extremely different bus network. Low subsidy for tenders plus dismal concessionary reimbursement is why the deregulated market is flawed.

Yes, but it is quite difficult to give private firms those kinds of levels of subsidy in order to keep fares low, and to promote multi operator fares, and connecting buses/headway spacing between different firms etc. without such prescription that you might as well have franchising. We may have seen a different bus network as in more frequency, coverage and competing with each other, but as a network - I doubt it. This is no denigration of private firms; it is just that their agenda is inherently different and doesn't serve the public transport user particularly well.

Low subsidy for tenders is because private firms bid low, and I don't recall cheap fares, particularly to those passengers using multiple operators for their journey, prior to ENCTS. Dismal concessionary reimbursement is partly due to the high level of profits bus companies used to make, exploiting natural monopolies, whilst not delivering a particularly good, joined up, public transport network.

 

[Andyh82]

The deregulated system is cheap (as far as subsidies are concerned) but has a number of flaws which means it doesn't deliver very good public transport to a lot of people, but delivers well for car using taxpayers. The franchised system only has London (in this country) as an example, the profligacy of which has plenty of critics and costs a huge amount of subsidy, but delivers pretty good public transport.

This Government has at least given some proper attention and some funding to buses, and is piloting various schemes ranging from DRT to Manchester franchising. Hopefully somewhere more people will get pretty good public transport for an affordable amount of subsidy (more than the provinces but less than London). If Andy Burnham can deliver this and it acts as baseline for improvements across the country then it can only be good for public transport users? Rather than knocking the initiatives, how about cautiously supporting them until shown to be unsustainable, rather than merely scoffing and hoping they fail , somehow 'proving' the glorious success of the deregulated minimalist provision we have now.

I would agree with the previous poster that it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out in Manchester

It was the same last week with the election for the South Yorkshire mayor, who has promised to ‘sort out the buses’ and from the vox pops on the street I think the public will be disappointed

I expect many are expecting more frequent buses and new routes, running for longer hours, all buses being brand new, always on time with no driver shortage or traffic congestion, and fares for about £1

 

[johncrossley]

and costs a huge amount of subsidy,

Only compared to the rest of GB. In international terms London transport is probably the among least subsidised there is.

 

[Goldfish62]

Andy Burnham's version of franchising is certainly going to be interesting to watch (from the sidelines!). Personally, I'm not sure he's fully thought it through, and he is probably just hoping to get more grants, fares and general income than will actually prove to be the case.

"His" version of franchising was conceived before he was elected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

Only compared to the rest of GB. In international terms London transport is probably the among least subsidised there is.

Indeed.

It's little wonder that public transport is generally an uncoordinated, expensive mess in this country. People want improved, cheaper public transport but are never prepared to pay for it through the public purse. People cite how good it is elsewhere but don't want to apply the same principles in this country.

 

[RT4038]

Only compared to the rest of GB. In international terms London transport is probably the among least subsidised there is.

You may well be right, but we are in the GB, it is not the norm here and I think it unlikely that it will be in the near future. However, there is an opportunity now to get a higher level in the provinces than hitherto and this is to be supported surely. Let us hope that AB and other local politicians don't blow it, as the industry won't get a second chance soon!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

Indeed.

It's little wonder that public transport is generally an uncoordinated, expensive mess in this country. People want improved, cheaper public transport but are never prepared to pay for it through the public purse. People cite how good it is elsewhere but don't want to apply the same principles in this country.

Yes, but that is part of our national psyche and we have to live with that! There is not going to be a huge step change in funding level - it will have to be in fairly small steps and be visibly better. Perhaps Manchester, with its fairly developed tram system and one of the better bus systems, has a better chance of pulling this off than some other places?