|
Post by stevieinselby on Oct 25, 2023 14:52:23 GMT 1
Easdale is factually incorrect in stating that franchising in Manchester has not led to any extra services, when a significant number of routes are now running more frequently, and/or are running buses earlier in the morning and later in the evening. It's also ridiculous to suggest that the teething problems seen in the first few days of service are anything more than that. The full impact of the Bee Network won't be known for quite some time, and you can't assess it this early on. Franchising may or may not work in Scotland, either across the country as a whole or in a key urban area like Glasgow/Strathclyde, but to go on an unhinged rant like that because two politicians are talking about it is unlikely to do his company any favours.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2023 15:00:24 GMT 1
Who exactly is this 'anti bus party'? Even the Tories are slowly waking up to the fact privatising the buses has created an almighty mess. Right up until they think it may start to affect their vote where they suddenly start attacking the "war on motorists" and suggest reducing bus priority & reducing the cost of motoring (& it was Labour politicians who did something similar in Liverpool so it isn't so much a specific party as specific politicians & when I lived in Cardiff the local Liberal Democrats won the local elections in a specific part of the city by campaigning against bus priorities whilst the national party was campaigning for more and there was no mention of this plan in neighbouring areas). Even with what they have done it is a case of a lot of words, little action & even less money in practice. The Tories haven't had a sudden epiphany, they don't really care about & they definitely don't understand buses but they think it will provide a sop to the so called red wall to help hold their vote up whilst having the effect of dumping responsibility on largely Labour Mayors so if it goes wrong it isn't their fault anymore. Franchising is a reasonable path if their is plenty of long term funding and political will to develop the network, it is unreasonable to expect huge government investment without significant government influence on how it is spent (we haven't seen huge pots of money yet and what is spent is specifically targeted or comes with tight strings attached). They problem is that this doesn't exist, all schemes are based on an assumption of large profits that the bus industry doesn't make being transferred to the local authority (whilst still employing private businesses who need to make the same base profit margin regardless of industry structure, they just don't need the risk addition & vehicles are procured & funded in a different way that explains supposed differences in margin between London & the provinces) with no real plan of what happens if money doesn't appear, Tyne & Wear admitted when they tried to get in franchising they had no plan for anything beyond the first 6 years at all. The current privatised system may not be the best way to run a bus network but it is the best way to do it 'on the cheap' with minimal government money or responsibility. If you have long term financial, political & social (often expressed through the media) will to invest heavily in public transport then other ways like franchising are better but historically the UK has never shown that commitment and even now the media & politicians are not consistently supportive of pro-public transport initiatives if it involves sacrifice or cost to 'the general public' aka motorists. The 'War on Motorists' is mostly a slogan used against Bike infrastructure, I've not heard it once used as a reason to reduce/axe any buses? The Liverpool example you mentioned is actually starting to be overturned, with the confirmation last month that bus lanes will be returning to the city (& in the past few years extra bus gates have popped up in the city centre) so it seems the tide is starting to turn. I Agree with you the Tories have not had a sudden epiphany but it was under their government that a return to franchising/public ownership was deemed possible. Your correct also over the need for long term funding, but maybe it needs to be remembered even on 'commercial' routes they take alot of subsidy/funding (concessionary passes/BSOG/Bus Fare Cap/BSIP) so it does raise the question why shouldn't areas go fully into franchising as they are already fund the bus networks so much - It also raises the question if we really are 'doing it on the cheap' or just not getting decent value for money? Is the funding at the moment perfect? No & yes it does in alot of cases come with too many strings attached but surely it's better than just letting privatised companies continue to kill networks just because a different party might come in & might be 'anti bus' (to be honest it gives similar vibes to recent 7 Bins/Meat tax threats by some Tories). Baring in mind how the current devolution deals work I'm not surprised T&W Didn't have a plan for more than 6 Years as there is flaws in how our Devolution was set up (possibly done on purpose by central government, as it means they can get 'one up' on the Mayors if they want as seen with the TfL funding arguments during covid)
|
|
|
Post by steve440 on Oct 25, 2023 18:59:02 GMT 1
Stagecoach and Rotala tried talking Andy Burnham to court but that didn't work.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Oct 26, 2023 9:20:07 GMT 1
The 'War on Motorists' is mostly a slogan used against Bike infrastructure, I've not heard it once used as a reason to reduce/axe any buses? The Liverpool example you mentioned is actually starting to be overturned, with the confirmation last month that bus lanes will be returning to the city (& in the past few years extra bus gates have popped up in the city centre) so it seems the tide is starting to turn. I Agree with you the Tories have not had a sudden epiphany but it was under their government that a return to franchising/public ownership was deemed possible. Your correct also over the need for long term funding, but maybe it needs to be remembered even on 'commercial' routes they take alot of subsidy/funding (concessionary passes/BSOG/Bus Fare Cap/BSIP) so it does raise the question why shouldn't areas go fully into franchising as they are already fund the bus networks so much - It also raises the question if we really are 'doing it on the cheap' or just not getting decent value for money? Is the funding at the moment perfect? No & yes it does in alot of cases come with too many strings attached but surely it's better than just letting privatised companies continue to kill networks just because a different party might come in & might be 'anti bus' (to be honest it gives similar vibes to recent 7 Bins/Meat tax threats by some Tories). Baring in mind how the current devolution deals work I'm not surprised T&W Didn't have a plan for more than 6 Years as there is flaws in how our Devolution was set up (possibly done on purpose by central government, as it means they can get 'one up' on the Mayors if they want as seen with the TfL funding arguments during covid) It was used this month as part of an announcement of an intention to force a review of bus lanes with the assumption of a reduction to peak hours only amongst many other schemes intended to help cars and so undermine public transport - probably will never happen in the end but it is all part of the rhetoric and environment. You have just made my point, one politician introduces something then their replacement removes it as it is politically expedient at the time and then another puts it back in because it is now politically expedient the other way (even London has seen this with artics & Borismasters etc). It does not offer any sort of stability and highlights the short term thinking inherent in British politics (in comparison that may be found elsewhere in places that are being used as proof of how a specific system is inherently better but ignoring those differences) which is rarely a good way to operate - I'm sure the same could be targeted at some private bus operators but those are often the ones who find themselves struggling. There are bad operators and bad councils, I have dealt with enough councils who can't make a decision or don't give a hoot about buses to be comfortable assuming all councils are in any way the best solution to give blanket support for something like franchising. The quality of the operator is probably more important in that a good operator can compensate for a poor council but a good council will always be a little hamstrung if their local operator is poor (though in my experience there are a higher proportion of poor councils - either through lack of funds, skill or will - than poor operators though if funding is improved more generally that proportion will change significantly. As I said if there is now decent long term funding being made available, something that hasn't been the case in the past, then a different structure may be reasonable. In terms of the funding the Concessionary Fares Scheme is not properly funded (reimbursement is half what it should be for operators to be break even on the scheme so in effect operators are subsidising concessionary travel not the other way round) neither is the £2 fare cap in that sense (though in this case operators may just about be at break even but it is very marginal that operators are actually benefitting from the scheme in that sense) whilst BSOG is tax reimbursement for a specific use and has been cut and may more complicated to claim for years so that funding has actually be cut over recent years so isn't a sign of improving funding. BSIP is just ring-fenced money for improvements, it originally couldn't even be used to support existing services so you had existing services being withdrawn due to council funding shortages at the same time as new speculative services were being introduced but at least that ridiculousness has been addressed. If you believe that BSIP is an indication of the start of a more positive attitude then it is not unreasonable to look at this as justification for franchising as sign of more long term funding, I am more of a cynic and see it as a short term high profile political sop that isn't as good as the claims ascribed to it (in terms of amounts or affects) but I hope I am wrong. My complaint about the general criticisms of privatisation are more that it is criticised for not achieving something it was never actually intended to achieve and that couldn't & wasn't being achieved under government control with the same financial inputs (anyone remember what bus services were like in most of the country in the early 80's under a nationalised & regulated system - it wasn't good). Is it the best way to run a bus service in a perfect world, clearly not but we aren't in a perfect world we are in a Britain with incompetent politicians and short-term financial thinking and I remain to be convinced that we (as a society) actually have the long term commitment to do this properly. Bus services have never been under direct control of politicians in this way before, even before privatisation decisions were largely made by professional managers not civil servants not directly responsible for day to day operations or elected officials as we are now moving into (in trains, and we have seen how well that is going, as well as buses). We are always criticising politicians for not being able to run anything competently but seem to be happy to give them more control over transport and assume they will perform better. My issue with the T&W one was not that they had no detailed plans, it was that they didn't appear to have even thought about it or made any contingencies for it not performing to their optimistic assumpptions. Their response to the question of what happens if the money runs out was effectively 'we give up and stop' (I assume they meant just hand over the operations to their contractors and it returns to the commercial market rather than ceasing services, but then what you have is the seizure of private business and just giving it to someone else for no compensation slightly later which is questionable) rather than indicating any intention to take any political hit of having to cut their cloth to their income (& their plans assumed no growth in passenger numbers largely) or claiming their plans were robust. If you know that funding is not long term guaranteed and such a political football then that should be factored into the assessment and plans - too many pro-franchisers assume the best and hope or just ignore the issue entirely. Manchester at least has a plan long term for how this will work after the initial phases which shows they have thought about this more even if it may not pan out. In terms of the McGills statement, it is clearly intemperate (in keeping for the Easdales who are combative businessmen) & partisan but they have some specific points. TfGM have hardly covered themselves in glory with this roll out in terms of planning so putting yourself forward as some sort of expert is opening them up on criticisms. It has been stated that there are at least 85 drivers on loan from elsewhere in Go-Ahead to cover Phase 1 as they have not managed to ensure there are enough staff and clearly given the number of vehicles on loan from elsewhere they haven't secured enough buses either (did any vehicles transfer from Arriva or Stagecoach, I have seen reports they aren't, or enough new vehicles obtained to replace them?). Having actually had some insight into the roll out it is clear that much of the planning was either very last minute or poorly communicated outside the organisation, operators only found out how the registration system works for cross boundary service little more than a week before Tranches 1 came in (so well after any registrations would have been submitted) when such things should have been sorted before they began their process. I have no doubt TfGM will sort this and if they don't improve Tranche 2 in the light of the failings in the early periods of Tranche 1 they deserve to be roasted but holding themselves up as some sort of experienced and successful example simply doesn't stack up to the issues they have so far shown. You can probably say I am a bit of a cynic and being pessimistic (even I would accept that is a fair assessment) and a more optimistic person may see this in a different manner but at the end of the day the only way to know for sure is to do it and see it happen. I will always have a different view to others as someone who works in the industry in a technical office role so these things do actually directly affect both my current job and any prospects for the future. Any major change like this will have a period of disruption & flux, it will always happen, so we need to allow it to bed in before making final assessments on whether it works. A lot of hyperbolic rubbish has been said on both sides and there is a lot of guesswork in between and somewhere there in the middle is the truth of whether this works and whether it is a better way in the end.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Oct 26, 2023 9:58:19 GMT 1
Some very good points there Dwarfer, but a couple to come back on...
First, it's unlikely that any councils would be franchising authorities – more likely that it would be a regional executive, where there tends to be more stability and long-term thinking, although I agree that there is still no guarantee of it.
Second, perhaps part of what Burnham is talking to Yousaf about is all the pitfalls and problems he has experienced! Who better to have a full and frank discussion about the matter with than the mayor who has overseen a rollout that has not gone smoothly ... who knows, it might be enough to deter him from going any further. Unless we know what comes out of the meeting, we'll never be sure where the discussions went.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2023 13:41:24 GMT 1
The 'War on Motorists' is mostly a slogan used against Bike infrastructure, I've not heard it once used as a reason to reduce/axe any buses? The Liverpool example you mentioned is actually starting to be overturned, with the confirmation last month that bus lanes will be returning to the city (& in the past few years extra bus gates have popped up in the city centre) so it seems the tide is starting to turn. I Agree with you the Tories have not had a sudden epiphany but it was under their government that a return to franchising/public ownership was deemed possible. Your correct also over the need for long term funding, but maybe it needs to be remembered even on 'commercial' routes they take alot of subsidy/funding (concessionary passes/BSOG/Bus Fare Cap/BSIP) so it does raise the question why shouldn't areas go fully into franchising as they are already fund the bus networks so much - It also raises the question if we really are 'doing it on the cheap' or just not getting decent value for money? Is the funding at the moment perfect? No & yes it does in alot of cases come with too many strings attached but surely it's better than just letting privatised companies continue to kill networks just because a different party might come in & might be 'anti bus' (to be honest it gives similar vibes to recent 7 Bins/Meat tax threats by some Tories). Baring in mind how the current devolution deals work I'm not surprised T&W Didn't have a plan for more than 6 Years as there is flaws in how our Devolution was set up (possibly done on purpose by central government, as it means they can get 'one up' on the Mayors if they want as seen with the TfL funding arguments during covid) It was used this month as part of an announcement of an intention to force a review of bus lanes with the assumption of a reduction to peak hours only amongst many other schemes intended to help cars and so undermine public transport - probably will never happen in the end but it is all part of the rhetoric and environment. You have just made my point, one politician introduces something then their replacement removes it as it is politically expedient at the time and then another puts it back in because it is now politically expedient the other way (even London has seen this with artics & Borismasters etc). It does not offer any sort of stability and highlights the short term thinking inherent in British politics (in comparison that may be found elsewhere in places that are being used as proof of how a specific system is inherently better but ignoring those differences) which is rarely a good way to operate - I'm sure the same could be targeted at some private bus operators but those are often the ones who find themselves struggling. There are bad operators and bad councils, I have dealt with enough councils who can't make a decision or don't give a hoot about buses to be comfortable assuming all councils are in any way the best solution to give blanket support for something like franchising. The quality of the operator is probably more important in that a good operator can compensate for a poor council but a good council will always be a little hamstrung if their local operator is poor (though in my experience there are a higher proportion of poor councils - either through lack of funds, skill or will - than poor operators though if funding is improved more generally that proportion will change significantly. As I said if there is now decent long term funding being made available, something that hasn't been the case in the past, then a different structure may be reasonable. In terms of the funding the Concessionary Fares Scheme is not properly funded (reimbursement is half what it should be for operators to be break even on the scheme so in effect operators are subsidising concessionary travel not the other way round) neither is the £2 fare cap in that sense (though in this case operators may just about be at break even but it is very marginal that operators are actually benefitting from the scheme in that sense) whilst BSOG is tax reimbursement for a specific use and has been cut and may more complicated to claim for years so that funding has actually be cut over recent years so isn't a sign of improving funding. BSIP is just ring-fenced money for improvements, it originally couldn't even be used to support existing services so you had existing services being withdrawn due to council funding shortages at the same time as new speculative services were being introduced but at least that ridiculousness has been addressed. If you believe that BSIP is an indication of the start of a more positive attitude then it is not unreasonable to look at this as justification for franchising as sign of more long term funding, I am more of a cynic and see it as a short term high profile political sop that isn't as good as the claims ascribed to it (in terms of amounts or affects) but I hope I am wrong. My complaint about the general criticisms of privatisation are more that it is criticised for not achieving something it was never actually intended to achieve and that couldn't & wasn't being achieved under government control with the same financial inputs (anyone remember what bus services were like in most of the country in the early 80's under a nationalised & regulated system - it wasn't good). Is it the best way to run a bus service in a perfect world, clearly not but we aren't in a perfect world we are in a Britain with incompetent politicians and short-term financial thinking and I remain to be convinced that we (as a society) actually have the long term commitment to do this properly. Bus services have never been under direct control of politicians in this way before, even before privatisation decisions were largely made by professional managers not civil servants not directly responsible for day to day operations or elected officials as we are now moving into (in trains, and we have seen how well that is going, as well as buses). We are always criticising politicians for not being able to run anything competently but seem to be happy to give them more control over transport and assume they will perform better. My issue with the T&W one was not that they had no detailed plans, it was that they didn't appear to have even thought about it or made any contingencies for it not performing to their optimistic assumpptions. Their response to the question of what happens if the money runs out was effectively 'we give up and stop' (I assume they meant just hand over the operations to their contractors and it returns to the commercial market rather than ceasing services, but then what you have is the seizure of private business and just giving it to someone else for no compensation slightly later which is questionable) rather than indicating any intention to take any political hit of having to cut their cloth to their income (& their plans assumed no growth in passenger numbers largely) or claiming their plans were robust. If you know that funding is not long term guaranteed and such a political football then that should be factored into the assessment and plans - too many pro-franchisers assume the best and hope or just ignore the issue entirely. Manchester at least has a plan long term for how this will work after the initial phases which shows they have thought about this more even if it may not pan out. In terms of the McGills statement, it is clearly intemperate (in keeping for the Easdales who are combative businessmen) & partisan but they have some specific points. TfGM have hardly covered themselves in glory with this roll out in terms of planning so putting yourself forward as some sort of expert is opening them up on criticisms. It has been stated that there are at least 85 drivers on loan from elsewhere in Go-Ahead to cover Phase 1 as they have not managed to ensure there are enough staff and clearly given the number of vehicles on loan from elsewhere they haven't secured enough buses either (did any vehicles transfer from Arriva or Stagecoach, I have seen reports they aren't, or enough new vehicles obtained to replace them?). Having actually had some insight into the roll out it is clear that much of the planning was either very last minute or poorly communicated outside the organisation, operators only found out how the registration system works for cross boundary service little more than a week before Tranches 1 came in (so well after any registrations would have been submitted) when such things should have been sorted before they began their process. I have no doubt TfGM will sort this and if they don't improve Tranche 2 in the light of the failings in the early periods of Tranche 1 they deserve to be roasted but holding themselves up as some sort of experienced and successful example simply doesn't stack up to the issues they have so far shown. You can probably say I am a bit of a cynic and being pessimistic (even I would accept that is a fair assessment) and a more optimistic person may see this in a different manner but at the end of the day the only way to know for sure is to do it and see it happen. I will always have a different view to others as someone who works in the industry in a technical office role so these things do actually directly affect both my current job and any prospects for the future. Any major change like this will have a period of disruption & flux, it will always happen, so we need to allow it to bed in before making final assessments on whether it works. A lot of hyperbolic rubbish has been said on both sides and there is a lot of guesswork in between and somewhere there in the middle is the truth of whether this works and whether it is a better way in the end. Thanks for that over answering my 'war on motorists' question, to be honest I had no seen that one although in general I Do question how many day to day people really see the 'war' as an actual thing rather than some cooked up by the Tories. BIB1: Your making out like similar things doesnt happen with private bus operators with other parts of running services. There are many examples of where changes happened then got reversed (normally with a few cuts added) what also offeres 0 stability. As already pointed out in PTE areas the council has little to no say anymore. BIB2: You've just made my point over funding & it just being a poor use of cash. The BSIP is at least a sign of an attempt of a more positive attitude (well at least when it was first announced under Boris), As i said previously in the case of Concessionary funding & BSOG it might be time to look at restucturing it with it being a fair amount that gets spent on both but not covering it all (well according to private companies anyway) plus franchised/public networks allows other forms of funding to become avalible if Mayors decide to go ahead with it (the Nottingham Car Park Levy,the Manchester £1 'tourist tax'). In fact in this regard you could say franchising helps the private bus companies as issues surrounding BSOG/Concessionaries will surely be factored into their bid prices meaning they no longer take the hit. BIB3/4: The T&W Bid wasn't the best I admit hence why it failed, but it does need to be remembered it pre-dated the rules relaxing in 2019 hence why they wasn't as able to get everything fully in order. In fact the T&W example was one of the reasons there was such a push to relax the rules/laws on publicly run buses (all under tory governments surprisingly). Did the Manchester transition go 100% smoothly? No - but maybe them bashing Burnham need to remember the mess Diamond was in during the first few weeks after the First sale. In Terms of Fleet, none of the Arriva/Stagecoach stock moved to GNE/Diamond but some of the Stagecoach stock remain in the area for the Schools franchise they operate (think the new depot is Little Hulton to run them) Whilst with Arriva the newest Pulsar 2s went to Runcorn as Gasbus replacements,whilst Pulsar 1s have moved to Wythenshawe. The irony is Ralph & Mcgills is guilty of most the stuff they was pointing at the 'Bee Network' about. Maybe it needs to be remembered McGills axed it's full Sunday service in West Lothian whilst also having drivers on loan from other parts of Scotland & as for the 'repainting buses that should be due to be withdrawn' comment I Recall they repainted a few Pulsar 2s into the first Midland Bluebird livery what lasted around a month before being withdrawn. One extra issue that happened (well still currently happening) is the delivery of 52 new E200MMCs was delayed due to ADL having both parts & delivery driver shortages that was outside of Burnham/GNWs control, as you can see with the Trent E200MMC & Stagecoach E400MMC orders it's affecting more than just Manchester. BIB5: I Don't blame for you being cynical & you do raise some good points, I Think in general we do agree on some aspects (better funding for public transport). Of course the easiest solution to that is to stop electing idiots into power!
|
|
pricel
Forum Member
Posts: 467
|
Post by pricel on Nov 3, 2023 21:53:07 GMT 1
One thing I noticed is the Calderdale routes will all be run under the same operator. It only mentions one depot being acquired but if that's all Skircoat Road and Elmwood Garage that would literally be impossible. First of all, I doubt that space is enough for all the services and secondly, that would mean several services requiring massive dead runs such as the Hebden Bridge locals and Todmorden Locals. I would at least keep the Elland depot open and maybe redevelop Millwood to become a proper depot locating all the Hebden Bridge Locals, Todmorden locals and some 590/1/2 vehicles at that depot. Then Elland can run the 343, 501, 503, 536, 537, 538, 541, 542, 561, 562, 563 and Elland Locals. You can find this info. on page 820 in the link below. ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/b65d8b40405fde65115bb9e7b8e1d02b0b5f1fa7/original/1696860151/8f67e312381a5d928967553b5e4476b6_The_Assessment_-_full_PDF_copy.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20231103%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231103T194730Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=cda62ab26cb5d5ed63fbf9883aa500e6303f876e5919508481488b99ddbf0f3c
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on Nov 3, 2023 22:32:20 GMT 1
One thing I noticed is the Calderdale routes will all be run under the same operator. It only mentions one depot being acquired but if that's all Skircoat Road and Elmwood Garage that would literally be impossible. First of all, I doubt that space is enough for all the services and secondly, that would mean several services requiring massive dead runs such as the Hebden Bridge locals and Todmorden Locals. I would at least keep the Elland depot open and maybe redevelop Millwood to become a proper depot locating all the Hebden Bridge Locals, Todmorden locals and some 590/1/2 vehicles at that depot. Then Elland can run the 343, 501, 503, 536, 537, 538, 541, 542, 561, 562, 563 and Elland Locals. You can find this info. on page 820 in the link below. ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/b65d8b40405fde65115bb9e7b8e1d02b0b5f1fa7/original/1696860151/8f67e312381a5d928967553b5e4476b6_The_Assessment_-_full_PDF_copy.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20231103%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231103T194730Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=cda62ab26cb5d5ed63fbf9883aa500e6303f876e5919508481488b99ddbf0f3cI would imagine Todmorden will (similarly to now) be classed as an outstation of Halifax and wouldn't be classed as a "depot". Even though drivers pay slips etc all say First Todmorden along with separate duty allocation systems it's still part of Halifax or "First Halifax & Calder Valley" if you will. With regards to space, there is more than enough space at Millwood to house the minibuses. When we had the 588 Stansfield services we had 17 service fleet (including spares) and then 4 yellows. Also remember that the parking plan is still only plan "B" and plan "A" originally intended 24 buses with the buses parked perpendicularly to how they are now
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Nov 3, 2023 22:51:54 GMT 1
|
|