|
|
Post by rwilkes on Jun 29, 2012 19:48:09 GMT 1
Metro decided to go for unfundable QCs. There is a lot about this on bussing blog. omnibuses.blogspot.co.uk/ with 26 lively comments so far  |
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Jun 29, 2012 22:37:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by timelesstable on Jun 30, 2012 7:26:13 GMT 1
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Jun 30, 2012 18:03:23 GMT 1
'Bus operators Arriva and First are opposing the plans.'
No surprise that the big two operators in WY aren't in favour of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jun 30, 2012 21:29:37 GMT 1
'Bus operators Arriva and First are opposing the plans.' No surprise that the big two operators in WY aren't in favour of this. I saw their opposition highlighted in the BBC Text Local News Yorks & Lincs pages. Gicen that First are the dominant operator in many urban areas and Arriva have the southern side of West Yorkshire largely sewn up, their opposition is unsurprising. |
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jul 1, 2012 22:06:53 GMT 1
Metro really need to re-evaluate the situation and take a step back from their blinkered determination to push through quality contracts. In my opinion they should accept the very good proposals put forward by ABOWY (with appropriate strict controls that the promises made are kept). The only sticking point is that Metro are insistent on operator only tickets being eradicated so that only a (more expensive) Metrocard is available. The operators do not want this and quite rightly so as many passengers would lose out financially.
Quality contracts will only lead to higher subsidies and more service reductions.
|
|
Matty
Forum Member
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by Matty on Jul 1, 2012 22:43:57 GMT 1
They have said they will lower the prices of the tickets and passes.
|
|
mjn
Forum Member
Posts: 109
|
Post by mjn on Jul 2, 2012 0:16:07 GMT 1
Metro really need to re-evaluate the situation and take a step back from their blinkered determination to push through quality contracts. In my opinion they should accept the very good proposals put forward by ABOWY (with appropriate strict controls that the promises made are kept). The only sticking point is that Metro are insistent on operator only tickets being eradicated so that only a (more expensive) Metrocard is available. The operators do not want this and quite rightly so as many passengers would lose out financially. Quality contracts will only lead to higher subsidies and more service reductions. They are more expensive because the operators make them so. |
|
|
|
Post by timelesstable on Jul 2, 2012 7:22:51 GMT 1
The only sticking point is that Metro are insistent on operator only tickets being eradicated so that only a (more expensive) Metrocard is available. The operators do not want this and quite rightly so as many passengers would lose out financially. That is all well and good for those who residents of WY who live and travel within one operators area. What about those WY residents who through no fault of their own find the main service or in some cases their only service is for historic reasons provided by one operator which is not the major operator in that town or city any multiple journeys require a Metro-card. Quality Contracts should if Metro manage it correctly result in a common fares policy irrespective of operator and where you want to travel in West Yorkshire. A flat and fair common system for all residents irrespective of where you live in WY, looks a fairer option to me! After all we all pay the same precept for the Metro service, so let us all have the same fares policy |
|
|
|
Post by the110 on Jul 3, 2012 19:52:50 GMT 1
Whatever Metro say these QC's are just like the London system and while in theory sounds a good a idea, it costs a fortune to run. The tax payer will have to pay more in the end through council tax or services will be reduced and fares increased.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Jul 4, 2012 8:16:01 GMT 1
Metro have been very reticent on giving any details on their plans thus far (they must have them otherwise how can they be so sure that they will save money) and until they do that it is difficult to say whether there will be improvements. The only indication of service plans indicated a frightening lack of understanding that services outside Leeds exist, they only had plans for very high frequency services (every 10-mins or better) and low-frequency locals and no plans for the majority of strategic medium frequency services that predominate in areas like Kirlees, Calderdale, Wakefield & Keighley (such as Huddersfield - Wakefield, Halifax - Ripponden & Keighley - Skipton) that don't have, can't justify and never have had higher frequencies.
They also haven't indicated how they intend to pay for this at start up, routes are an asset of commercial operators (money has changed hands to buy routes without any vehicles being involved) and so have a value (for goodwill etc) and if Metro don't intend to pay anything then they will have to find a lot of vehicles and property very quickly as can anyone see the groups leaving their best vehicles to be taken over for less than value or leave them in a dwindling operation where they can be effectively used to grow business that has a future.
|
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Jul 4, 2012 9:56:15 GMT 1
Part of Metros plans to save money to pay for QCs is to cut high frequency services, some will be cut to every 15 which will drive away passengers back to their cars!
They also do not see the point of route branding despite it being a proven way of raising ridership.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollman on Jul 4, 2012 16:46:07 GMT 1
The London model is based on individual routes or a set of routes being tendered and awarded to an operator thus there is some competition for routes plus a verity of operators. The PTEs seem to want to tender all the routes in one go which means that after it is awarded then everyone is stuck with one operator for then next 5 or so years. This makes the latter option more expensive as the first option can be phased in a lot more easily.
|
|
deerfold
Forum Member
Posts: 2,373
Member is Online
|
Post by deerfold on Jul 4, 2012 19:43:53 GMT 1
Part of Metros plans to save money to pay for QCs is to cut high frequency services, some will be cut to every 15 which will drive away passengers back to their cars! Have they said this anywhere? I doubt anyone would want to do this where high frequency services aer currently paying for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Jul 4, 2012 23:27:33 GMT 1
'Have they said this anywhere? '
Yes in their official documents
|
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Jul 5, 2012 8:06:51 GMT 1
Part of Metros plans to save money to pay for QCs is to cut high frequency services, some will be cut to every 15 which will drive away passengers back to their cars! Have they said this anywhere? I doubt anyone would want to do this where high frequency services aer currently paying for themselves. In fact this was very common and the standard practice back before privatisation the last time bus services were government owned. Basically, the operation needed to save money but couldn't cut the marginal services as these were politically difficult (often serving marginal wards or areas of senior politicians) so they just took a few buses off the core routes by reducing the frequency on these on the premise that no one would notice the reduction, so money saved but more and more passengers driven off to cars as the service became less attractive. On a seperate note this does raise the question of what happens to cross border or out of county services. Selby & Skipton (plus York but as a bigger more profitable operation it may stand on its own) are served by operations based in West Yorkshire. Selby may have it's own depot but that isn't strong enough to stand on it's own so if Arriva don't win work in West yorkshire Selby would be in trouble and of course Transdev's local work to Skipton runs from Keighley so would be an issue if they didn't win (Pennine could take it on but they have never been the strongest operation financially - it was/has been subsidised by the owning families property portfolio for years - so there may be issues). |
|
deerfold
Forum Member
Posts: 2,373
Member is Online
|
Post by deerfold on Jul 5, 2012 10:42:50 GMT 1
'Have they said this anywhere? ' Yes in their official documents That's useful! Got a link at all? I've not seen it in anything I've read. |
|
deerfold
Forum Member
Posts: 2,373
Member is Online
|
Post by deerfold on Jul 5, 2012 10:44:21 GMT 1
On a seperate note this does raise the question of what happens to cross border or out of county services. Selby & Skipton (plus York but as a bigger more profitable operation it may stand on its own) are served by operations based in West Yorkshire. Selby may have it's own depot but that isn't strong enough to stand on it's own so if Arriva don't win work in West yorkshire Selby would be in trouble and of course Transdev's local work to Skipton runs from Keighley so would be an issue if they didn't win (Pennine could take it on but they have never been the strongest operation financially - it was/has been subsidised by the owning families property portfolio for years - so there may be issues). That's what's worried me most about the idea - I have 6 buses an hour, but 4 are cross-boundary. If they were to only run to the boundary they'd be very short routes and not very useful. If they run over them it gets complicated. |
|
mjn
Forum Member
Posts: 109
|
Post by mjn on Jul 5, 2012 13:22:02 GMT 1
The scaremongering going on in this thread is absurd, but totally expected.
Presumably rwilkes is referring to the possibility of adjusting fares or frequencies in line with funds as is mentioned in the document, which doesn't happen at all now of course. I must have imagined all the frequency reductions to core services and fare increases that First and Arriva have brought in over the last few years!
|
|
|
|
Post by mollman on Jul 5, 2012 15:48:45 GMT 1
I guess the best way to sort out cross boundary services is to restrict the operator on where they can serve so that it minimises revenue extraction on key corridors run by QC services. For example pick up only in county bound and set down only WY bound. Yes complicated to enforce!
|
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Jul 5, 2012 17:14:17 GMT 1
Not scaremongering at all, it is Metro policy.
Many w yorks routes have had frequency increases over the last 5 years, and they would have had a lot more if there were more bus lanes.
I am old enough to remember when Metro did run the buses. The Tories got in for a while and quadrupled fares in a 6 month period.
It would happen again !
|
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Jul 5, 2012 17:20:55 GMT 1
Not scaremongering at all, it is Metro policy. Many w yorks routes have had frequency increases over the last 5 years, and they would have had a lot more if there were more bus lanes. I am old enough to remember when Metro did run the buses. The Tories got in for a while and quadrupled fares in a 6 month period. It would happen again ! First have been known to reduce frequencies on services that operate via the guided busways so there isn't anything to say that if there were more bus lanes bus services would be increased. London has cross boundary services so I don't see any problems, I doubt they will be terminating at the county boundary! |
|
mjn
Forum Member
Posts: 109
|
Post by mjn on Jul 5, 2012 17:48:40 GMT 1
Of course it's scaremongering. You are portraying the possibility of adjustments to service levels and fares if funding levels demanded it as a commitment to reducing the frequency of core routes. You are also suggesting that such a scenario would be markedly worse than the current situation, even though these things have already happened. There have been far more reductions than increases over the last few years.
The maniacal mantra of 'more bus lanes' is starting to wear a bit thin now. Not only because of what westyorkshirebus said above, but also because there are a lot of bus lanes (certainly around Leeds anyway) and more have been installed over the years. Look at the A65 upgrade, in a de-regulated environment! A far cry from your past utterances, which have at times hinted towards a conspiracy to destroy the industry by starving it of infrastructure.
Whimiscal alterations of the type you describe are hardly possible under a contract regime. Also, whilst politicians will control the funding and no doubt be consulted about issues on their patch, I can't see them sitting behind a desk planning the routes somehow. Perhaps this quadrupling of fares was the end of a low fares policy like SYPTE?
|
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Jul 5, 2012 18:01:36 GMT 1
Yes the quadrupling was the end of a low fares policy, but there was huge resentment from bus uses who switched away to cars or walking.
QCs would be OK if there was lots of money but there isn't.
Peter Hendy, who runs the London franchised system for TfL, has been warning for years that QCs are no good without lots of extra funding.
|
|
mjn
Forum Member
Posts: 109
|
Post by mjn on Jul 5, 2012 21:01:16 GMT 1
Yes the quadrupling was the end of a low fares policy, but there was huge resentment from bus uses who switched away to cars or walking. I think I've witnessed a similar process myself, but more recently. |
|
