(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
![[Image: 7814ced5a990e10236ea127ed214e2ed.jpg]](http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160518/7814ced5a990e10236ea127ed214e2ed.jpg)
...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?
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?
(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!
