|
Post by leedsbusman on Apr 19, 2024 11:23:27 GMT 1
The main point is that you can get better services for less cost with partnerships as in Oxford, Reading, Nottingham, Brighton and Leicester. Manchester has 9% growth with an expensive franchising system and Leicester has over 20% growth with a much cheaper partnership system WYCA, and supporters of franchising generally, do not understand the true costs of franchising as they think that the shareholder dividends can be diverted into bus support whereas they will still be paid but hidden in the leasing. Dividends have to be paid to borrow mony to buy buses. Is like the interest rates on a mortgage costs When WYCA find the true costs of what they are doing, compounded by the fact they don't know how to do anything, thye will simply do a Beeching on our buses Many other countries have farnchsing, but as their healthcare is in private ownership they have the spare cash which the UK doesn't. Would we want to porivatise the NHS to pay for buses? Some US cities pay for buses out of parking charges. The more people use the buses, the less parking charges they have to pay for them! Bare in mind there are far more services under Bee Network in Greater Manchester, so it balances out and if it were already 9% increased bus usage from 1 tranche being completed, then that really suggests how well franchising is doing. It’s worth also remembering that the Bolton and Wigan network had frequency increases when Bee Network started undoing some reductions put in due to driver shortages. Would be interesting to know the %mileage increase that has generated 9% extra custom.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Apr 19, 2024 11:36:07 GMT 1
There are laws & limits over cross-subsidising loss making routes & journies what is the one advantage franchising has over private operations. Whilst doing it for a few late evening trips would be allowed if Diamond decided to do it to introduce a full 24/7 service routes 36/7 like you suggested it would almost certainly raise questions when it's on a corridor that Stagecoach was competing on. The majority of the time running loss making evening journies has nothing to do with 'freeing up more public funding to run a fuller timetable' but mostly because the main operator doesn't want another operator getting a foot in the door & most of the time if a CA or Council saves money on funding bus services, it doesn't go to other bus services but rather other departments. Most of the cuts around Huddersfield & Halifax on the evening/night journies was due to WYCA/WYPTE (some happened whilst I was still working for First during the mid 00s). If a service carries so little passengers even the PTE or CA decide it's not worth it then sometimes it's for the best to be cut. Buses are not like trains where there is the belief if you add a new service or journey people will flock to it in their hundreds, if a bus journey is carrying little to no passengers then who exactly are you running it for? What is the law against cross subsidy please? It is practised extensively in the bus industry with many strong services supporting those weaker ones. I’ve never found any legislation explicitly preventing it. It's not permitted by competition legislation, *but* only where it could be shown to prevent competition by a competitor.
|
|
|
Post by leedsbusman on Apr 19, 2024 12:29:45 GMT 1
What is the law against cross subsidy please? It is practised extensively in the bus industry with many strong services supporting those weaker ones. I’ve never found any legislation explicitly preventing it. It's not permitted by competition legislation, *but* only where it could be shown to prevent competition by a competitor. A different scenario I think. It can be anti-competitive to deliberately run at a significant loss so as to remove competition.. Cross subsidy is more about taking a network or time of day view on things. Eg I suspect FWY make far more profit in % terms from the 2/3, 12/13 than things like the 86. They probably wouldn’t be able to sustain the 86 if it they didn’t have the strength of the better route.
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites 🛐
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 19, 2024 13:44:55 GMT 1
dwarfer1979It may be a good idea to explain my usage of buses and what a 'dream' network looks like for myself. I don't want a car. I will do anything to not be forced into a car. Including walking from town all the way to my old village after finishing work. A half hour walk up a steep road with poor lighting was my commute home on Sat/Sun. I think we have one major weakness, and it is evening and night service. I think an EP+ would be the worst system imaginable to combat that issue and it would result in improvements which wouldn't actually make services more usable and won't encourage a modal shift. A service should never drop below 50% of daytime frequency. A service running every 15 minutes, should have a 30 minute evening/night service. Manchester's changes are better or to that standard and it makes services incredibly usable and will allow people to easily make the modal switch, or better, not get a car in the first place prevention is better than cure. The 82, 59, 17/18, have more meaningful changes than any we have seen in any EP+. The farebox revenue is reinvested in a way which is more meaningful to someone who wants to live by public transport, not take occasional trips.
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 19, 2024 13:53:29 GMT 1
It's not permitted by competition legislation, *but* only where it could be shown to prevent competition by a competitor. A different scenario I think. It can be anti-competitive to deliberately run at a significant loss so as to remove competition.. Cross subsidy is more about taking a network or time of day view on things. Eg I suspect FWY make far more profit in % terms from the 2/3, 12/13 than things like the 86. They probably wouldn’t be able to sustain the 86 if it they didn’t have the strength of the better route. In the example of Route 86, it would still be expected to at least meet it's operating costs for the majority of the time, probably why in recent years it's reduced to Hourly. For cross subsidy there probably will be a small amount on routes such like this to cover 'counter peak' journies, plus although it doesn't happen anymore one bus M-Fri used to run onto the 56 at afternoon peak, what is a form of cross subsidy also as it meant the busy peak times 56 would of paid towards the buses daily operational costs, in a similar way to some off peak services being interworked with school journies to spread the costs also or as seen in Huddersfield & Halifax in recent years with large scale interworkings, what alongside saving drivers means the hours the bus is on one of the more profitable journies such as a Golcer or Marsden route it helps cover more of the daily costs for when the bus then works the likes of 387 or 342. In the example regarding the 36/7 in Manchester, it has/had competition from Stagecoach on the 38 on over half the route, plus route 50 on the Manchester to Salford section, the previous nightbus on the route had proven to operate at a loss having been originally tendered so had Diamond decided to reintroduce it using cross subsidy then they could of potentially opened themselves upto questions, in a similar way Stagecoach themselves did during the early noughties cross subsidising extra nightbuses on the Wilmslow Road corridor (alongside many other issues on that corridor at the time). When it comes to turning a tendered route commercial, or at least attempting to then operators normally would build a business case for it, including how much of a loss the route currently makes & how much cross subsidy would be required for how long until they expect to grow the route to be profitable with the likes of First/Stagecoach normally going upto 2-3 years. So for example when First lost the Hebden Bridge & Todmorden network contract they wouldn't of be able to say 'oh we'll run it ourselves, it will never cover it's costs but it will stop another company entering our area' but if they was able to build a case showing if they made some changes they believed it could grow the route then they could of gone for it. When it comes to later evening journies, I cannot say for Transdev but pre-2008 First would of looked at cross subsidy as an option if the journey covered at least 60% of it's operational costs, or sometimes even as low as 50% if removing the journey would of had little affect on the drivers duty. After 2008 First did start to become stricter on cross subsidy & looking at recent changes that remains, although with various economic changes & general passenger number decline I'm not surprised it got to a point First decided it wasn't worth it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 19, 2024 14:16:01 GMT 1
dwarfer1979 It may be a good idea to explain my usage of buses and what a 'dream' network looks like for myself. I don't want a car. I will do anything to not be forced into a car. Including walking from town all the way to my old village after finishing work. A half hour walk up a steep road with poor lighting was my commute home on Sat/Sun. I think we have one major weakness, and it is evening and night service. I think an EP+ would be the worst system imaginable to combat that issue and it would result in improvements which wouldn't actually make services more usable and won't encourage a modal shift. A service should never drop below 50% of daytime frequency. A service running every 15 minutes, should have a 30 minute evening/night service. Manchester's changes are better or to that standard and it makes services incredibly usable and will allow people to easily make the modal switch, or better, not get a car in the first place prevention is better than cure. The 82, 59, 17/18, have more meaningful changes than any we have seen in any EP+. The farebox revenue is reinvested in a way which is more meaningful to someone who wants to live by public transport, not take occasional trips. Whilst I'm sure everyone would want the same for their local service, surely it should be a route by route basis regarding daytime V nightime frequencies. During the daytime people will be using buses for a mix of different reasons (e.g Education, Commuting, Leisure, Hospital appointments) but late evening the majority of things are shut reducing demand, so it doesn't always even out that because a bus requires X frequency during the day then it should have Y frequency on a evening/night. As i've asked before, if a journey is carrying next to no passengers then who are you operating it for? As someone who also lives in a village it comes with many advantages, but one disadvantage I've accepted is there will never be as good bus service compared to a large housing estate closer to a town/city like those Manchester examples you listed. Buses are never going to create the type of model shift you seemingly are after, that would require more proper mass transit (trams/trains) but again, they probably wouldn't touch most of the villages. Even in alot of Europe alot of the villages only have Half Hourly/Hourly services, alongside large park & rides at the nearest train station for people to drive to instead.
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Apr 19, 2024 19:54:13 GMT 1
Manchester Beeline. It seems that when a franchise was awarded many drivers choose not to TUPE but leave the industry instead. Not expected and not in franchising theory. Its hitting delivery
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 19, 2024 20:05:08 GMT 1
All these frequency increases people want, where are you going to get all of these drivers from to run these frequency increases? Who knows how many drivers will stick around once franchising begins.
I don't think every route that is 15 mins in the day justifies a 30 mins evening service, you have to judge it by passenger numbers, and route by route. If a bus carries empty air around all the time, especially in the evenings, it shouldn't be running. How long can you justify to carry fresh air in franchising?
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites 🛐
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 19, 2024 20:29:32 GMT 1
All these frequency increases people want, where are you going to get all of these drivers from to run these frequency increases? Who knows how many drivers will stick around once franchising begins. I don't think every route that is 15 mins in the day justifies a 30 mins evening service, you have to judge it by passenger numbers, and route by route. If a bus carries empty air around all the time, especially in the evenings, it shouldn't be running. How long can you justify to carry fresh air in franchising? It's totally achievable. The 521? It literally only needs three extra journeys to have a half hourly frequency. The farebox revenue from the service alone could likely pay for it with profits left over, especially now that we know Halifax isn't far behind the profitability of Leeds.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 19, 2024 20:35:51 GMT 1
I think the problem I have is not the actual franchising itself, but the people who are running it. You see, I don't trust either WYCA or the bus companies to do it properly, I can't see WYCA or bus companies working together either, as the impression I get is both sides are as bad as each other, and are trying to score points with each other.
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on Apr 19, 2024 21:29:04 GMT 1
All these frequency increases people want, where are you going to get all of these drivers from to run these frequency increases? Who knows how many drivers will stick around once franchising begins. I don't think every route that is 15 mins in the day justifies a 30 mins evening service, you have to judge it by passenger numbers, and route by route. If a bus carries empty air around all the time, especially in the evenings, it shouldn't be running. How long can you justify to carry fresh air in franchising? It's totally achievable. The 521? It literally only needs three extra journeys to have a half hourly frequency. The farebox revenue from the service alone could likely pay for it with profits left over, especially now that we know Halifax isn't far behind the profitability of Leeds. But does it warrant a half hourly service, Is there over crowding on the current hourly evening 521s or late night congestion showing potential for model shift? Why a half hourly 521 instead of introducing a evening service to 522 giving more areas an evening service? These are the types of questions that should be asked & answered rather than just simply using the logic of 521 running Every 15 Mins & is busy at 9am so should be Half Hourly at 9pm.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Apr 19, 2024 21:44:54 GMT 1
Manchester Beeline. It seems that when a franchise was awarded many drivers choose not to TUPE but leave the industry instead. Not expected and not in franchising theory. Its hitting delivery Does it seem that? Where's this data from? They certainly seem to have more drivers now than before the franchises started to be awarded.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 20, 2024 8:41:04 GMT 1
Municipal ownership is a much cheaper model than franchising especially if you can bring in local loyalty as they have at Lothian Buses. They lease the bus usually so dividends still have to be paid Nottingham and Reading are stil deregulated and Nottingham gets competiton form Trent and Stagecoach, so its a good recommendation tha they do so well. The council have no say of how they are run, although they could sack the management if they wished But many municipals ahve gone by the wayside because if they are politically accountable its hard to make necessary cuts or fares increases. So Investment goes by the wayside. Blackburn and Rossendale buses were all sheds by the time they sold up. There is a letter in Buses saying that ridership is up 9% but costs going up faster than revenue . Burnham has admitted it is much more expensive than he envisaged and he didn't relaise that he would need bus lanes to make it work! So we will see if WYCA can do a better job. Start putting money by for your council taxes in a few years time. I think Burnham, has just used franchising as a political game/pawn, than rather a genuine need, to try and help people, and try and improve transport across the area and I think Brabin has the same intentions It's more Steve Rotheram of Liverpool City Region who has jumped on the re-regulation/franchising bandwagon. By comparison, Tracy Brabin had spent a few years studying and criticising the shortcomings in West Yorkshire bus services.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Apr 21, 2024 9:50:53 GMT 1
dwarfer1979It may be a good idea to explain my usage of buses and what a 'dream' network looks like for myself. I don't want a car. I will do anything to not be forced into a car. Including walking from town all the way to my old village after finishing work. A half hour walk up a steep road with poor lighting was my commute home on Sat/Sun. I think we have one major weakness, and it is evening and night service. I think an EP+ would be the worst system imaginable to combat that issue and it would result in improvements which wouldn't actually make services more usable and won't encourage a modal shift. A service should never drop below 50% of daytime frequency. A service running every 15 minutes, should have a 30 minute evening/night service. Manchester's changes are better or to that standard and it makes services incredibly usable and will allow people to easily make the modal switch, or better, not get a car in the first place prevention is better than cure. The 82, 59, 17/18, have more meaningful changes than any we have seen in any EP+. The farebox revenue is reinvested in a way which is more meaningful to someone who wants to live by public transport, not take occasional trips. I don't have that much of an issue with your dream network but unfortunately we do have to live in a real world and someone needs to pay for it and the best model will depend on whether there is money. If there is plenty of money to pay for the improvements and extra admin to run a franchise (the operators save little management resource under a franchise but the Local Authority needs to duplicate many of the roles like planning & monitoring) but if money is limited, as it is for most of the country still, then an EP gives the council more levers but leaves the risk and investment burden on private operators. It is a 'horses for courses' matter and cannot be seen as one solution for all as a blanket idea. You also have to trust politicians & council officers of being capable of running such schemes and my experience means I don't hold that position, most council officers are good at doing what they currently do (building consensus and negotiating between parties to get & retain funding and make things happen) but when you get to commercial matters which they will have to deal with if running a franchise things generally go awry with often poorly designed timetables that are inefficient or costly & slow or bureaucratic decision making that takes ages to get to any result plus a difficulty in coping with the idea of customer choice (you have a bus to Town A why do you need one to Town B as well? - answer, because I prefer going there personally) which leaves me slightly cynical about where we will end up. LAs already have the powers to fund bus services that aren't currently provided, that they don't is either down to lack of funds or lack of interest in providing it (either because they don't think it is important or a political decision that you aren't happy with the structure so will limit funding to private operators) Evening and night services are very dependent on what the areas nightlife is, not just volume but type and location. There needs to be a range of types so people are travelling throughout the evening otherwise you have several hours of dead time with few passengers and so costs become difficult to cover (a nightlife focussed on clubs & bars will have peaks around 7 of people heading in and then very little activity until very late in the evening when people head home whereas restaurants & cinemas, and/or city centre employment, will see people going in earlier & heading home in that gap) & also it tempers the more over-excited users in the evenings that can make trips unattractive to the casual user (after a couple of unpleasant evening trips with groups of inebriated passengers on less used journeys largely people returning from bars/clubs - nothing illegal just loud and obnoxious - I tended to avoid such trips but more recent trips in a different place with a more rounded nightlife was much calmer and more pleasant leaving me more willing to consider it again). Also where the night time activity is, if people need to walk through quiet & dark streets to get to where the buses can get to, and then wait in less pleasant surrounds, then people are more likely to favour taxis than if the buses can get close to the nightlife or there are attractive & safe walking routes to where the buses are waiting in attractive & safe locales (like bus stations) then again usage will be higher and support demand. None of this is within the controls of the operators or many transport authorities (as opposed to their colleagues in other LA departments or organisations - City Council vs Combined Authority for instance) so some places may never be able to justify such high levels of evening service as the demand simply doesn't exist. Even once you get to a point where it may be possible to support such services you need to staff them and very late turns into the late evening are probably the most unpopular shifts in the depot (unless you are lucky enough to have a few of that small group of drivers who prefer it and tend to solely work late turns but there is a limited number of these) so you need to be careful you don't have too many which will cause existing drivers to leave if they are asked to work so late too often and make recruitment hard - it is one of the reasons why smaller operators often have less trouble recruiting drivers, they have fewer or none of the most unpopular shifts of lates & Sundays so drivers are willing to accept lower pay for better shifts. To get the drivers to cover you need to pay more for these shifts which make them even harder to justify as you have higher costs to cover (Supervisory & engineering as well as driving) so need a higher income per trip. There is no reason why council control will lead to better evening services, late buses have historically been the first things cut when money gets tight and many LAs don't see them as important - TfGM have always seemed quite pro late buses and have always tendered a services with long days & evening service top ups to commercial daytimes but I'm not sure WY are quite so pro so you can't necessarily read from what GM do to WY (according to some reports WY have said that they consider it reasonable to withdraw lightly used services to provide resources to enhance core routes, exactly what private operators are criticised for and the opposite of what many franchising proponents claim will happen so indicates a different approach, though the accuracy of such reports will only be proven in time). I picked up on your comment because I live and work in Leicester, for a bus company, so have a good knowledge about the reality of how the EP has gone which didn't match your characterisation. It isn't perfect but it is going pretty well and there is a productive and positive partnership showing good signs and we do have decent evening service on most key corridors (though it may not hit your 50% service level but I'm not convinced many could actually support or need such). It also shows that both First & Arriva are willing and able to fully participate in a EP+ if the authority wishes to do so in a fair manner. It also needs to be remembered that Leicester City Council is not flush with money and without sign of more central government funding turning up currently, the Mayor has said that he will not let the city go bankrupt but the fact he has had to say such publicly indicates how possible it is currently. This means there is little money to fund service improvements currently, most of what has happened recently has been off central government grants (Transforming Cities Fund & ZEBRA for instance but they bizarrely didn't get BSIP despite being very pro-bus with a very good plan) for capital projects but there is little for service subsidy so the high implementation costs & ongoing revenue risk of franchising is not a reasonable risk at this time in my opinion (& it appears the mayors as well as he has previously been vocal about supporting the concept of franchising or other forms of LA control but hasn't made such statements recently, I don't think he has changed his political views that much but has to be practical than utopian as mayor) & means that some aspects of EP+ can't been demonstrated as funding is limited for the service enhancement side
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites 🛐
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 21, 2024 23:53:33 GMT 1
dwarfer1979 I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the change in ownership will do to the way we and they see demand. A privately controlled network is designed to react to demand where as a publicly controlled one would attempt to stimulate demand. If you have ever been on a general transport forum, or social media, with enthusiasts up and down the country. You likely would have come across Londoners... It is very easy to see that difference in mindset when they join conversations about our private world and offer suggestions to our problems which usually appear oversimplified or stupid since we know a system which has a different concept of demand which has also rubbed off on us and we struggle to imagine it differently. It means the point of a service not having enough demand on an evening and night simply does not apply when we switch system, same with the lack of nightlife. It doesn't mean we don't have limitations, we are limited by money. I think that reason alone will lead to a massive amount of interest from the authority and council to coordinate roadworks, implement bus priority, and make existing priority more strict to increase profits. They have a motive where they didn't beforehand. Luckily for us, we have more fare box profits at our disposal compared to the bees, not by much, but they managed substantial improvements with slightly less. I think that is proof alone that we have enough revenue available for comfortably covering the new on going costs of franchising. I can't say the same for poorly performing authorities also considering the same system, like South Yorkshire.
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites 🛐
Posts: 748
|
Post by mattb7tl on Apr 22, 2024 0:18:26 GMT 1
It is also worth noting that the authority has already set standards for what they want services to be over a year ago. I think they will have to scale back their standard for 2025, but the existing standard is completely in reach. It very much aligns my vision. I think it gives an insight into where the service reinvestment will be spent once we enter franchising. I'm aware it won't be every route that qualifies as core but plenty will certainly take a step towards meeting those standards. Document (Page 78): www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/media/9474/bus-service-improvement-plan-v2-2022.pdf
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Apr 22, 2024 9:16:37 GMT 1
dwarfer1979 I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the change in ownership will do to the way we and they see demand. A privately controlled network is designed to react to demand where as a publicly controlled one would attempt to stimulate demand. If you have ever been on a general transport forum, or social media, with enthusiasts up and down the country. You likely would have come across Londoners... It is very easy to see that difference in mindset when they join conversations about our private world and offer suggestions to our problems which usually appear oversimplified or stupid since we know a system which has a different concept of demand which has also rubbed off on us and we struggle to imagine it differently. It means the point of a service not having enough demand on an evening and night simply does not apply when we switch system, same with the lack of nightlife. It doesn't mean we don't have limitations, we are limited by money. I think that reason alone will lead to a massive amount of interest from the authority and council to coordinate roadworks, implement bus priority, and make existing priority more strict to increase profits. They have a motive where they didn't beforehand. Luckily for us, we have more fare box profits at our disposal compared to the bees, not by much, but they managed substantial improvements with slightly less. I think that is proof alone that we have enough revenue available for comfortably covering the new on going costs of franchising. I can't say the same for poorly performing authorities also considering the same system, like South Yorkshire. Unfortunately I think you have a very utopian view of the processes & capabilities of Local Authorities and a somewhat negative view of how private bus operators work whereas I am on the other side. You cannot simply wait and react to demand otherwise there won't be any, you have to stimulate the demand in some way to create it otherwise it won't happen (whether through marketing or just putting on the buses and seeing what happens) - you may think some operators do it badly, and there are some operators with terrible strategies to do this, but they aren't sitting there waiting for demand to arise. I work in the bus industry in a role and at a level where I deal with Local Authority Officers who will end up in charge of these projects and have even worked in one early in my career so I well know both (I have dealt with Metro, though nearly a decade ago now, and TfGM) and have formed an informed view on them based on experience. I'm not convinced that Metro currently hold similar priorities to yourself on how the network should be developed, TfGM are closer to you, so there is no reason to assume that just because they have taken control they will suddenly change their whole thought processes. Also how much control does the Combined Authority have over roads, even in London most of the road network is under the control of the lower level Local Authorities (Borough & City Councils) rather than the Combined Authority & Mayor so there are limits to what they may be able to do and you have to ask why they haven't done anything now just because they don't control the buses if they could. I'm from the South-East, my parents are still there and my dad is a Londoner, so I am well aware of the performance of London myself which is somewhat overblown in many ways but has entirely been built on the sort of money that everyone else can merely dream of and a city that is so anti-car in its geography (even before you get to recent politics like congestion charges & ULEZ) that public transport starts off on the front foot. Even with that it needed massive subsidy, at its heights London received more subsidy than the rest of England combined and before that it was running on zero subsidy and was rubbish (contracts often being run with provincial cast offs, unreliably and not giving a great impression) and with subsidy being reduced you are seeing a steady decline in the performance of London recently. TfL has never been customer focussed in any real sense, you may get a good bus service but it may not go where you want but got over that by low subsidised fares and a clever set-up with Oyster that disconnected the passenger from the fare they paid in their minds so people tap-on without thinking how much they are actually paying. London also learned in the late 80's that area tendering, as TfGM has done & Metro are proposing, was a recipe for disaster (Harrow, Kingston & Bexleyheath) the moment anything changes and have avoided it in the 30 subsequent years. I'm not sure we will agree on this, it all depends on what view you hold the capabilities of the LAs & how much belief you have that they can raise funds and you clearly view that positively whilst I have a more cynical view of that dynamic. Manchester has been using outside funds (Central government grants that have been floating around in recent years) to help fund much of what they have done which is why they have been able to do what they do, I'm not sure West Yorkshire will have such funds available by the time they get to theirs though a likely Labour government may be able & willing to make similar sums available so it isn't outwith the realm of possibilities that they may have the set up funds but you then have to wonder how they can sustain that funding level long term because I don't think central government can commit to that as they will have to treat other areas similarly and that is a lot of ongoing support. The risk is high, both of failure of LA to deliver what people expect and even of financially so if things don't go as hoped, and there are alternatives where there may not be the likelihood of the absolute perfection some franchising proponents promise but the risks to the LA's are practically non-existent (financially so certainly), improvements can be rolled out quickly and going for it doesn't preclude moving on to franchising if the operators aren't able to deliver their promises. Again it is all about how you view the calculation, comparisons and capabilities as to which side you fall but you have to acknowledge the huge risk to the LA (both financial & reputational) and if they screw it up it is going to do irreparable harm to the local bus network as they will have destabilised the local network so there is a lot riding on this.
|
|
|
Post by sharksmith on Apr 22, 2024 9:17:46 GMT 1
I think I've said it before, this debate is basically optimists vs pragmatists. Glass half full people vs glass half empty people. Only time will tell, my experience tells me that plans, especially government/council published plans are very rarely fully implemented and become diluted to a point where they are unrecognisable.
You must be aware of political party manifesto's which set out everything a party wants to do when they take power. You must also be aware that these, lets give them the benefit of doubt and call them aspirations rather than outright lies, very rarely all come to pass.
I don't think the bus company farebox profits are as much as you think they are. Some of these profits go to shareholders sure, but the majority of revenue is used on running costs and vehicle replacements. If the bus companies thought for a minute that they could increase ridership and therefore profits by operating more services they would have done it by now, supermarkets didn't move to 24 hour operation for the good of the customers, it was no doubt because their stores were mostly open in the background for other reasons and they thought they could squeeze a little more profit from the existing infrastructure.
Incidentally, the bus operator shareholders will still take money out of the system as franchise bids will include an element of profit, no company is going to bid just for the prestige of running the routes, there will have to be a profit element. The only way to avoid that would be full privatisation but even then, unless ringfenced, I could see the council licking their lips at any big profits thinking they can be used for other council departments.
I may be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but everything about public services these days is very much about money, and wringing as much as possible out of an ever decreasing pot of money as government after government, Tory and Labour, try to bribe the general public with tax cuts and empty promises in a desperate bid to stay in power.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 22, 2024 11:40:39 GMT 1
Good luck trying to get drivers to work night services, certainly in a lot of parts of West Yorkshire, where it isn't safe at night, I certainly wouldn't want to do it. Personally what happens if Franchising becomes a utter fail, it's definitely possible for it to fail especially with Bradford Council almost going bankrupt and possibly Kirkless could have gone bankrupt as well. What will happen then? Will all routes get cut apart from the main core routes, will public transport die in WY if franchising fails? Will taxpayers be picking up the bill if franchising fails, will money be taken away from other or more important services, to try and keep franchising alive if it fails.
Because franchising for a start, will probably mean the end of well respected local operators who have been operating longer than most people living in West Yorkshire have been alive, and if they go back to coachwork only or they shut up completely because of franchising and if franchising fails, I can't see them coming back. If franchising fails, and we go back to the current system, there won't be any money to fund non core routes, so basically any tendered route won't be able to operate. As no operator will take a route on commercially that doesn't make money
|
|
|
Post by sharksmith on Apr 22, 2024 12:00:22 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure that the combined authority is funded through other sources, even if part of this is collected via our Council Tax. I don't think it will matter if the councils do go bankrupt as the combined authority will still be solvent. Also if a contract is in place this will be a legal contact so I'm sure the combined authority will have to have funds set aside for the length of the contract to make sure any necessary payments which become due over that period can be paid.
What happens after the first round of franchises become due for renewal is then anyone's guess as this is the bit that I've never seen any pro-franchiser answer. If government funding has been reduced or even ceased completely, what happens if the combined authority does not have sufficient funds to pay for even the cheapist bid received for a particular franchise. I'm not saying that will happen as I don't have a crystal ball, I'd just like someone to explain to me what the contingency plans for that would be, there surely has to be a plan B? I know Andy Burnham has been asked this a few times and not answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 22, 2024 12:05:32 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure that the combined authority is funded through other sources, even if part of this is collected via our Council Tax. I don't think it will matter if the councils do go bankrupt as the combined authority will still be solvent. Also if a contract is in place this will be a legal contact so I'm sure the combined authority will have to have funds set aside for the length of the contract to make sure any necessary payments which become due over that period can be paid. What happens after the first round of franchises become due for renewal is then anyone's guess as this is the bit that I've never seen any pro-franchiser answer. If government funding has been reduced or even ceased completely, what happens if the combined authority does not have sufficient funds to pay for even the cheapist bid received for a particular franchise. I'm not saying that will happen as I don't have a crystal ball, I'd just like someone to explain to me what the contingency plans for that would be, there surely has to be a plan B? I know Andy Burnham has been asked this a few times and not answered the question. Isn't it required for them to produce a contingency plan in case things go wrong, surely it should have been part of the business case to introduce franchising
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Apr 23, 2024 8:18:25 GMT 1
I'm pretty sure that the combined authority is funded through other sources, even if part of this is collected via our Council Tax. I don't think it will matter if the councils do go bankrupt as the combined authority will still be solvent. Also if a contract is in place this will be a legal contact so I'm sure the combined authority will have to have funds set aside for the length of the contract to make sure any necessary payments which become due over that period can be paid. What happens after the first round of franchises become due for renewal is then anyone's guess as this is the bit that I've never seen any pro-franchiser answer. If government funding has been reduced or even ceased completely, what happens if the combined authority does not have sufficient funds to pay for even the cheapist bid received for a particular franchise. I'm not saying that will happen as I don't have a crystal ball, I'd just like someone to explain to me what the contingency plans for that would be, there surely has to be a plan B? I know Andy Burnham has been asked this a few times and not answered the question. Isn't it required for them to produce a contingency plan in case things go wrong, surely it should have been part of the business case to introduce franchising I'm not sure it is, it was and was one of the primary reasons why Tyne & Wears proposal under the old rules died (their response to the question of what happens if you run out of money effectively amounted to "dunno, give it to the operators to run commercially") but I think the requirements under which current proposals are going forward are less strict and even so how long a contingency plan needs to cover would be a question (I think Tyne & Wear weren't even certain they would be funded to complete the first term of contracts). I think the primary source of funding for the Combined Authority is through a precept on the constituent Local Authorities, effectively the CA tell the LA how much they need from each, so does ultimately come from Council Tax (those of you who live in such an area will know whether it is shown as a separate payment, like the police & fire service contribution, or hidden in the general council tax) and I'm not sure if the LA has any power to refuse to pay the CA demand. One of the CA's pushing for franchising, I think WY, have stated they are expecting to increase their precept year on year to cover costs which may be impacted by financial issues at the LA's. Their will be other funding streams, farebox revenue from relevant contracts & property portfolios plus other government grants but the prime base operating funding is through this precept. I'm not sure it is realistic to expect a CA to hold sufficient funds to cover the full term of these contracts, we are talking 10's of millions of pounds being put aside upfront and isn't the case with other contracts currently issued by councils. There have been many instances where contracts are terminated early due to LA's needing to make funding savings, the issue will depend on the terms of contract and whether there are release clauses (though operators may be quite happy to release LA's from contracts early if they end up receiving depots & vehicles free or cheap to continue operation commercially as this would be the only way to ensure continuation of services without interruption) though I know TfGM have form for not having release clauses in their own contracts even pre-franchising tying them in to contracts when circumstances change and a commercial alternative is offered.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on Apr 30, 2024 23:57:11 GMT 1
Pro-franchising people, do you honestly, think Brabin and co at WYCA, are actually capable, and competent enough to manage to franchise?
Halifax Bus Station, Bradford Interchange, and White Rose Stations are examples of how things have badly been managed by the WYCA.
Don't you think people deserve better than this incompetence?
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,142
|
Post by joseph on May 1, 2024 17:59:57 GMT 1
Slightly off track but worth noting, I've been told that the very first journeys in West Yorkshire post deregulation on Sunday 26th October 1986 were service 21A from Middleton to Leeds at 05.33am and service 2 from Roundhay Park (of all places lol) to Leeds at 05.35am! I wonder where the very first franchised journeys will be from? I'd hazard a guess it'll be something like Middleton or even Bradford, who knows you may see a 24 hour Leeds to Bradford service by then! The last privatised journey and the first franchised public service journey will make for a good photo opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on May 1, 2024 18:24:34 GMT 1
Slightly off track but worth noting, I've been told that the very first journeys in West Yorkshire post deregulation on Sunday 26th October 1986 were service 21A from Middleton to Leeds at 05.33am and service 2 from Roundhay Park (of all places lol) to Leeds at 05.35am! I wonder where the very first franchised journeys will be from? I'd hazard a guess it'll be something like Middleton or even Bradford, who knows you may see a 24 hour Leeds to Bradford service by then! The last privatised journey and the first franchised public service journey will make for a good photo opportunity. As the plan is for franchising to come in in stages, the last privatised journey would be some months after the first public one (and some cross-border services are likely to remain private).
|
|