This might get messy.
What is your understanding of franchising as it relates to proposals for bus services in the north east?
Does it mean that NECA would take ‘ownership’ of all routes in the area and then award franchises to operators?
Would operators have to bid to run routes?
How would this differ from current secured services paid for by local councils?
I have other questions, but will leave it at this for the moment so as not to confuse things.
(31 May 2023, 10:15 pm)Bazza wrote [ -> ]This might get messy.
What is your understanding of franchising as it relates to proposals for bus services in the north east?
Does it mean that NECA would take ‘ownership’ of all routes in the area and then award franchises to operators?
Would operators have to bid to run routes?
How would this differ from current secured services paid for by local councils?
I have other questions, but will leave it at this for the moment so as not to confuse things.
It'd give the elected mayor of the NEMCA (NECA will be dissolved when we elect a mayor) the power to bring in franchising of bus services across the whole LA7 area, and unlike areas without transport powers, there's no consultation process with the Government before doing that.
NEMCA would take over the managerial responsibilities of the bus network, including setting services, routes, hours of operation, branding, ticketing, payment methods and passenger information. Operators would need to bid for franchises (typically lots, as oppose to single services under current Nexus contracts) to run services in the LA7 area, as commercial registrations wouldn't be permitted - typically because NEMCA would take over the Traffic Commissioner's role on bus registrations for the area.
Secured services are currently cobbled together from dozens of places that commercial operators feel aren't worth serving at particular times of day or at all. They try and fill as many gaps as possible, whilst not really providing the best or most convenient route from A to B. With a full franchising scheme, these places would be served by services included by a lot, without the ability of an operator cherry picking say the X1 in Washington but abandoning the 82 as not viable. Of course, on the other hand, it's guaranteed money for an operator regardless of how a service performs, so I'd hope the contracts will include some significant performance-based objectives to them.
In my opinion, franchising is a great start and the most likely way we'll get an integrated transport network, but it's far from ideal. The sooner the ban on municipals is removed, the better.
There's a document the Govt released here, which you may find of use:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...nities.pdf
(01 Jun 2023, 10:22 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]It'd give the elected mayor of the NEMCA (NECA will be dissolved when we elect a mayor) the power to bring in franchising of bus services across the whole LA7 area, and unlike areas without transport powers, there's no consultation process with the Government before doing that.
NEMCA would take over the managerial responsibilities of the bus network, including setting services, routes, hours of operation, branding, ticketing, payment methods and passenger information. Operators would need to bid for franchises (typically lots, as oppose to single services under current Nexus contracts) to run services in the LA7 area, as commercial registrations wouldn't be permitted - typically because NEMCA would take over the Traffic Commissioner's role on bus registrations for the area.
Secured services are currently cobbled together from dozens of places that commercial operators feel aren't worth serving at particular times of day or at all. They try and fill as many gaps as possible, whilst not really providing the best or most convenient route from A to B. With a full franchising scheme, these places would be served by services included by a lot, without the ability of an operator cherry picking say the X1 in Washington but abandoning the 82 as not viable. Of course, on the other hand, it's guaranteed money for an operator regardless of how a service performs, so I'd hope the contracts will include some significant performance-based objectives to them.
In my opinion, franchising is a great start and the most likely way we'll get an integrated transport network, but it's far from ideal. The sooner the ban on municipals is removed, the better.
There's a document the Govt released here, which you may find of use: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...nities.pdf
Let’s see how Manchester get on with their franchising first, before we wish for it up here.
There is no guarantee that franchising will deliver better services - indeed I suspect we’ll see the return of forced interchange onto Metro which won’t prove popular with passengers and will be seen as a worsening of services.
Life and people’s expectations have changed a lot during the last 37 deregulated years.
Deregulation has lasted more than twice the length of the PTE era (and the NBC era) and as lot longer than the BTC/THC nationalised era (1948-1969).
(01 Jun 2023, 4:35 pm)busmanT wrote [ -> ]Let’s see how Manchester get on with their franchising first, before we wish for it up here.
There is no guarantee that franchising will deliver better services - indeed I suspect we’ll see the return of forced interchange onto Metro which won’t prove popular with passengers and will be seen as a worsening of services.
Life and people’s expectations have changed a lot during the last 37 deregulated years.
Deregulation has lasted more than twice the length of the PTE era (and the NBC era) and as lot longer than the BTC/THC nationalised era (1948-1969).
Bizarrely the network hasn't evolved with it though.
Issue with franchising, particularly nowadays, is who pays for it? Even the private operators 'high earners' are not offsetting the loss makers.
Bus operators are not making huge profits, even looking at recent accounts from most that are available, the government funding is basically bailing them out as an overall financial entity.
Like it or not, franchising is the likely option for the new LA7 Mayor, but if they want the network the same as it was in 2019, unfortunately, that will cost the local taxpayer tens of millions a year (either directly or cuts to other essential services). Most political stand points on this are clearly to win the votes (and they will given the current government performance), however they haven't been financially appraised and I suspect the promise may not be fulfilled completely.
Based on Ben Maxfield's comments recently when asked about this exact thing, is that most operators are actually warming to the idea of a guaranteed income and margin, so I don't think you will see the legal fight that was saw when Nexus tried to do it. A franchised bus operation is likely going to be the norm for most of the country, come 2030.
(01 Jun 2023, 5:51 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]Issue with franchising, particularly nowadays, is who pays for it? Even the private operators 'high earners' are not offsetting the loss makers.
Bus operators are not making huge profits, even looking at recent accounts from most that are available, the government funding is basically bailing them out as an overall financial entity.
Like it or not, franchising is the likely option for the new LA7 Mayor, but if they want the network the same as it was in 2019, unfortunately, that will cost the local taxpayer tens of millions a year (either directly or cuts to other essential services). Most political stand points on this are clearly to win the votes (and they will given the current government performance), however they haven't been financially appraised and I suspect the promise may not be fulfilled completely.
Based on Ben Maxfield's comments recently when asked about this exact thing, is that most operators are actually warming to the idea of a guaranteed income and margin, so I don't think you will see the legal fight that was saw when Nexus tried to do it. A franchised bus operation is likely going to be the norm for most of the country, come 2030.
Like other public services, we should be proud to pay for it. Public transport is vital infrastructure, much like energy or telecoms is, and its a price worth paying to have. I'd also say that the policy of nationalising public transport has gained wide-reaching public support over the past couple of years.
The NEMCA devolution deal has a significant ring-fenced transport budget. The figure I've been quoted is circa £1bn every 5 years for the duration of the deal. There's money there to deliver this, and more. It just needs the political will.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
imo before the North East does any form of nationalisating of public transport they need to change who's at the top at I'd have no hope at Nexus doing anything better. They've been absolutely useless for years and it'll just be the Tories, Stadler, Arriva, the wind, contractors, leaves and so on why things are going wrong.
Personally can't see anyone touching it with a barge pole until Manchester does theirs, as they have the biggest potential outside of London and if they can't make it work then no-one will.