Pricing
Pricing
(24 Aug 2023, 6:23 pm)Adrian I'd say there also seems to be a misguided idea within the bus industry, that the public sector just can't deliver a publicly ran transport network. Please don't get me wrong, as I'm not referring to your post, but quite often I read industry managers or commentators, spending more time talking down the ability of the public sector, than they've ever spent trying to work in partnership with them.
Every business has operating costs, and I'm sure the people who understand them and can do the numbers on them, aren't unique to working for bus operators. Public money comes under a lot more scrutiny than any private company will ever have, and it's why the numbers have to be right.
I don't think people see franchising or public ownership of transport as a return to 1985. Maybe that is reserved to some enthusiast groups, but when speaking to the public about this, it's always extremely popular because they feel that the private sector has failed them. This is important, because it's not a case of someone waving money at the public in hope of a bit, it's people who are utterly desperate for a solution. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this is going to be an instant and easy fix, with a return to the masses of routes we had back in the 1980s, but the network by large needs a complete overhaul. Having one transport network of Buses, Metro and Heavy Rail will be key to that; a network of modes that compliment each other.
I completely agree on cross-subsidy, and I think that'll be difficult in the short term at least, but at least we'd be in a position where we are cross-subsidising services, rather than openly admitting that one village can't have a bus, as it impacts the profit margin on another service. That attitude has been one of the biggest issues since deregulation.
Like other public services, there's no denying that the delivery of this will require a lot of public funding, but as with rail, the policy is extremely popular with the electorate nationally. We shouldn't shy away from infrastructure funding, just because it's going to cost public money. The devolution deal opens up close to £1bn in ringfenced Transport funding in the first 5 years, with settlements beyond that for the life of the deal. In terms of contributions though, Tyne and Wear of course already pay into a transport levy, but I understand Durham and Northumberland will follow suit with that.
In an ideal world, we'd have the same powers as London has on retaining business rate receipts, but that's something not in our deal. The Metro Mayor will however have power to introduce a business rate supplement, which is supposed to cover expenditure on a project or projects that will promote economic development in the area. I guess it remains to be seen how that'll be used, but a good example of it would be applying it to businesses at the IAMP and Follingsby, in order to bring the Metro in.
I'm a bit confused by your final paragraph, as what you suggest with everyone entering bids with 'massive double digit % margins', would surely amount to price fixing? I'd envisage (and hope!) that we'd have a competitive process, whereby we end up with operators that genuinely want to deliver a good service on their routes. If not, then I think it furthers the argument to get the ban on municipal bus operators removed from law.
Of course the big difference by the time that becomes a problem, is that the North East (LA7) region is electing it's first directly elected Metro Mayor. With that devolution settlement, comes the biggest shift of power back to public control for decades. It also opens up close to £1bn in ringfenced Transport funding in the first 5 years, with settlements beyond that for the life of the deal. It also, and separately, includes funding for the Metro.
The Metro Mayor will not only have the powers to franchise buses, but they've also got the power to devolve BSOG funding to be under the authority's control, along with the powers and Government-committed assistance to getting the likes of Network Rail & TOCs to buy in.
It of course remains a scenario that 'come March 25', but it sounds like an unlikely one at that.
Kim will do whatever her Keir Starver and Party HQ tell her to do. She of course pledges to bring buses back under public control, but Jamie Driscoll (Independent) pledges to go a step further with a Total Transport Network.
Unless something goes completely wrong, it'll be either Kim or Jamie that win the post next May, so I think it's a case of when - not if.
Different sources of funding. The £2/£2.50 fare cap is a scheme that the UK Government are funding directly. RobinHood, I believe, is referring to the BSIP funding pot for TNE. Of which the multi-modal day tickets are being funded from. The BSIP covering a three-year period which ends in March 2025.
(24 Aug 2023, 6:23 pm)Adrian I'd say there also seems to be a misguided idea within the bus industry, that the public sector just can't deliver a publicly ran transport network. Please don't get me wrong, as I'm not referring to your post, but quite often I read industry managers or commentators, spending more time talking down the ability of the public sector, than they've ever spent trying to work in partnership with them.
Every business has operating costs, and I'm sure the people who understand them and can do the numbers on them, aren't unique to working for bus operators. Public money comes under a lot more scrutiny than any private company will ever have, and it's why the numbers have to be right.
I don't think people see franchising or public ownership of transport as a return to 1985. Maybe that is reserved to some enthusiast groups, but when speaking to the public about this, it's always extremely popular because they feel that the private sector has failed them. This is important, because it's not a case of someone waving money at the public in hope of a bit, it's people who are utterly desperate for a solution. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this is going to be an instant and easy fix, with a return to the masses of routes we had back in the 1980s, but the network by large needs a complete overhaul. Having one transport network of Buses, Metro and Heavy Rail will be key to that; a network of modes that compliment each other.
I completely agree on cross-subsidy, and I think that'll be difficult in the short term at least, but at least we'd be in a position where we are cross-subsidising services, rather than openly admitting that one village can't have a bus, as it impacts the profit margin on another service. That attitude has been one of the biggest issues since deregulation.
Like other public services, there's no denying that the delivery of this will require a lot of public funding, but as with rail, the policy is extremely popular with the electorate nationally. We shouldn't shy away from infrastructure funding, just because it's going to cost public money. The devolution deal opens up close to £1bn in ringfenced Transport funding in the first 5 years, with settlements beyond that for the life of the deal. In terms of contributions though, Tyne and Wear of course already pay into a transport levy, but I understand Durham and Northumberland will follow suit with that.
In an ideal world, we'd have the same powers as London has on retaining business rate receipts, but that's something not in our deal. The Metro Mayor will however have power to introduce a business rate supplement, which is supposed to cover expenditure on a project or projects that will promote economic development in the area. I guess it remains to be seen how that'll be used, but a good example of it would be applying it to businesses at the IAMP and Follingsby, in order to bring the Metro in.
I'm a bit confused by your final paragraph, as what you suggest with everyone entering bids with 'massive double digit % margins', would surely amount to price fixing? I'd envisage (and hope!) that we'd have a competitive process, whereby we end up with operators that genuinely want to deliver a good service on their routes. If not, then I think it furthers the argument to get the ban on municipal bus operators removed from law.
Of course the big difference by the time that becomes a problem, is that the North East (LA7) region is electing it's first directly elected Metro Mayor. With that devolution settlement, comes the biggest shift of power back to public control for decades. It also opens up close to £1bn in ringfenced Transport funding in the first 5 years, with settlements beyond that for the life of the deal. It also, and separately, includes funding for the Metro.
The Metro Mayor will not only have the powers to franchise buses, but they've also got the power to devolve BSOG funding to be under the authority's control, along with the powers and Government-committed assistance to getting the likes of Network Rail & TOCs to buy in.
It of course remains a scenario that 'come March 25', but it sounds like an unlikely one at that.
Kim will do whatever her Keir Starver and Party HQ tell her to do. She of course pledges to bring buses back under public control, but Jamie Driscoll (Independent) pledges to go a step further with a Total Transport Network.
Unless something goes completely wrong, it'll be either Kim or Jamie that win the post next May, so I think it's a case of when - not if.
Different sources of funding. The £2/£2.50 fare cap is a scheme that the UK Government are funding directly. RobinHood, I believe, is referring to the BSIP funding pot for TNE. Of which the multi-modal day tickets are being funded from. The BSIP covering a three-year period which ends in March 2025.
