Bill-by-bill summary: Queen's Speech at-a-glance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36320412



...and just a coincidence that we'll be electing a mayor next May.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

(18 May 2016, 12:04 pm)Adrian wrote Bill-by-bill summary: Queen's Speech at-a-glance
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36320412



...and just a coincidence that we'll be electing a mayor next May.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I wonder what eezypeazy is thinking about bus franchising right now?

(18 May 2016, 12:23 pm)Andreos1 wrote I wonder what eezypeazy is thinking about bus franchising right now?

I'm a bit skeptical about the whole thing. Still of the opinion that major change needed, and I think that the Tories (of all people) putting a bill like this forward, speaks volumes on that.

My skepticism comes down to NECA's ability to run with something like this, as their QCS bid was highly embarrassing. I've still not seen a lessons learned from that, but the arrogance still appears to exist over at Nexus house.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

North East Mayor to get Transport Powers

And herein lies the real reason NECA and NEXUS decided not to appeal against the QCS decision. This was always on the cards and has now been confirmed. Sans Gateshead of course, but they can go...

(18 May 2016, 3:39 pm)Adrian wrote I'm a bit skeptical about the whole thing. Still of the opinion that major change needed, and I think that the Tories (of all people) putting a bill like this forward, speaks volumes on that.

My skepticism comes down to NECA's ability to run with something like this, as their QCS bid was highly embarrassing. I've still not seen a lessons learned from that, but the arrogance still appears to exist over at Nexus house.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I think we both said the same somewhere else on the forum, when the devolution deal was first mooted. 

In principle, I am in favour - as long as it isn't another talking shop and an ineffective layer of politics.
However, I don't like the fact it has been decided for us and I am suspicious of any tory deal.

Similar to the PCC deal in place, I can see one person becoming a very rich individual out of this.

It would maybe make sense having the PCC and Mayor as one role. However the thought of Vera Baird having more power and influence, fills me with dread.

Oops! Reads to me like the Chronicle report has jumped the gun somewhat... bus franchising isn't a done deal, and elected Mayors will have the option to choose enhanced partnerships, too...

Here we go again...

Posts from yesterday moved into this thread.

Could we rename this thread 'Bus Services Bill', please - just for accuracy?

(19 May 2016, 12:34 pm)eezypeazy wrote Could we rename this thread 'Bus Services Bill', please - just for accuracy?

Agreed & done.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-buses-bill

Andrew Jones (Bus Minister) and his speech from earlier this year, with regard to the Buses Bill.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-b...the-public
Official press release

http://tools.euroland.com/tools/Pressrel...ID=3210106&lang=en-GB&companycode=uk-gog&v=

Go Ahead response to Bus Bill

Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.

(24 May 2016, 2:26 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.

There should of done this 20+ years ago, should be at least 2 bus operators per route and let passengers decide which company there wish to travel on and not vice versa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(24 May 2016, 2:39 pm)cbma06 wrote There should of done this 20+ years ago, should be at least 2 bus operators per route and let passengers decide which company there wish to travel on and not vice versa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what if a service struggles to sustain one (commercial) Operator, never mind 2? You can't force Operators to run where they don't want.

(24 May 2016, 2:26 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.

I must admit, I didn't know "Enhanced" Partnerships were an option, rather than Franchising. The problem is that local circumstances vary so much (hence Devolution), so Deregulation has worked better in some areas than others (mainly medium sized, middle income towns down South), and Enhanced Partnerships might work better in some conurbations than others. Mind you, Partnerships are also subject to changes in policy of both Operators and Authorities/Mayor. For instance, if this Bill had been published a year after the 2010 Election, TFGM/C and the then Management of the "Big Three" would probably have said "Yes, we could make this work". But now..........!

For instance, you mention Operators setting their own fares. Should that include higher fares(per miile) in the poorer, low car ownership suburbs, than in regenerated, "trendy" city areas?

https://twitter.com/passtrans/status/735775831616692225

Manchester to be the first to take up offer?

(26 May 2016, 11:16 am)Andreos1 wrote https://twitter.com/passtrans/status/735775831616692225

Manchester to be the first to take up offer?

And by saying "Manchester" rather than *Greater* Manchester, you have stumbled on one of the main reasons why TFGM/C are pushing for it. Both First and more recently, Stagecoach have become more Manchester-centric, not only with their services, but their bleating to the media about congestion. And now Arriva have started cutting again, only for TFGMC to step in straight away with tax-payers' money to maintain a link to the fast growing Airport. the subsidised services budget is being cut by 12% year on year, so the last thing GM's non motorists need is further cuts in commercial services, whilst millions are being thrown at a futile bus war across the city centre. The catalyst for all this was the sale of Finglands to First.

I recieved this via email from Bridget Phillipson the other day.
She touches on QCS in the content.I re

(29 May 2016, 6:35 pm)Andreos1 wrote I recieved this via email from Bridget Phillipson the other day.
She touches on QCS in the content.I re

Moved to the Bus Service Bill thread, as I'd meant to close the QCS thread off the other day! 

I'm new to this thread.
I've read (quickly) through.
I couldn't see this:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...erview.pdf

Apologies if it is already available elsewhere.

Be careful who you choose as Mayor:-

The Mayor will have responsibility for determining which bus services should be provided.

More here:- 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...ummary.pdf

(03 Jun 2016, 9:41 pm)G-CPTN wrote Be careful who you choose as Mayor:-

Given that all bar two seats in the North East are held by Labour MPs, I think the contest is going to be more about which candidate Labour select. Hennig and Forbes are dead certs in my opinion, but I think the two PCCs and possibly Bridget Phillipson, will put their names such forward.

The less we say about Hexham and Berwick electing a Tory, the better...

(03 Jun 2016, 10:04 pm)Adrian wrote Given that all bar two seats in the North East are held by Labour MPs, I think the contest is going to be more about which candidate Labour select. Hennig and Forbes are dead certs in my opinion, but I think the two PCCs and possibly Bridget Phillipson, will put their names such forward.

The less we say about Hexham and Berwick electing a Tory, the better...

That name appears every where on this fourm.. Haha

I haven't really took notice of this bus bill, so can't say what i think...

(03 Jun 2016, 9:41 pm)G-CPTN wrote Be careful who you choose as Mayor:-

I don't know why the Quote has disappeared, but in the Summaries I've read and presentation I've seen, I don't think its strictly true.

The Elected Mayor will have the ultimate decision as to whether to go ahead with Franchising (or another option) and may very well have ultimate responsibility. However, the services themselves will be drawn up by the Local Transport Authority, and be subject to some level of "public" consultation.

You are perfectly right in saying "Be careful" though, as I'm sure the North East has its share of Bus hating (and therefore Bus *user* hating) politicians, just as Greater Manchester has.

(04 Jun 2016, 7:37 pm)Tamesider wrote I don't know why the Quote has disappeared, but in the Summaries I've read and presentation I've seen, I don't think its strictly true.

The Elected Mayor will have the ultimate decision as to whether to go ahead with Franchising (or another option) and may very well have ultimate responsibility. However, the services themselves will be drawn up by the Local Transport Authority, and be subject to some level of "public" consultation.

You are perfectly right in saying "Be careful" though, as I'm sure the North East has its share of Bus hating (and therefore Bus *user* hating) politicians, just as Greater Manchester has.

The issue is though, there is no longer a 'local transport authority' as such, as far as Tyne and Wear or even the North East goes. Transport is a devolved matter to NECA, and the lead for Transport (Nick Forbes at present) would report directly to the mayor. It's always going to remain party political, unless an independent gets in.

Had a look through and i kind of like this, most buses these days already have WIFI etc so its no different, it'll be interesting to see who gets elected.

North East Mayor: Who are the likely candidates to run for the title?

(05 Jun 2016, 11:01 am)G-CPTN wrote North East Mayor: Who are the likely candidates to run for the title?

For gods sake not Paul Watson, look at that smug face, known he is part of the problem, Sunderland has attracting decent businesses etc, wonder how much has gone in his back pockets over the years instead of the city....

Destroyed the city, waste land everywhere, complete dump....

(05 Jun 2016, 10:11 am)Michael wrote Had a look through and i kind of like this, most buses these days already have WIFI etc so its no different, it'll be interesting to see who gets elected.

Hmm! Not sure wi-fi is the most important issue! Whether a service exists; how frequent, reliable, affordable and accessible are surely far more important.