(12 Aug 2018, 8:32 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/bus-opera...-1-9024145
The Sheffield Partnership has been a disaster according to some.
Interesting figures and comments in that article and I know not all changes have gone down well.
Further changes planned for next month are less than popular too.
I haven't looked at the Manchester deal for a while, so can't comment on who or what will be included or whether there have been changes to previous plans.
(12 Aug 2018, 9:08 pm)Tamesider wrote AFAIK there are no specific plans made available to the public so far. And sorry to press the point, but the Reform is for *Greater* Manchester. This is relevant on many levels including one of the criticisms of current First and Stagecoach policy being to cut services in the districts where services such as Health are becoming less accessible.
Just to clarify, there are three options on the table:
Do nothing ie. continue with Deregulation
Franchising. This would eventually cover the whole county ie all locally registered services running wholly or substantially in GM, and is reported in the trade press to be made up of a serious of large and small franchises - possibly as many as 35 in total.
"Enhanced" Quality Partnerships. A voluntary agreement, but with no publish details of how it would work or what/where it would cover.
There was supposed to be a public consultation this Summer, but everything has gone quiet......
(12 Aug 2018, 10:04 pm)Andreos1 wrote The consultation is due to start later in the year from memory. October-November time.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/2500/item_7_bus_services_in_greater_manchester&ved=2ahUKEwjsiNTcvujcAhUMM8AKHZdND1kQFjADegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0DVie94WTarCO4T6gDzk-Y
Hopefully this link works.
(13 Aug 2018, 8:29 pm)Tamesider wrote Yes, it has worked. Thanks for this. It looks like a slightly more detailed version of what I have seen. Anyway, as it states EQPs don't allow LAs (or anyone other than the commercial operators) to specify fares, that's all I need to know if/when the Consultation finally happens. TBH, I don't think it will ever happen. I suspect Grayling/Stagecoach - with a little help from Terrorists, Spice dealers and (ironically) the utterly incompetent Rail industry- will fillibuster the whole thing out of time.
But just in case I;m being over-cynical, can you recall the source for your Oct/Nov consultation date? My source of a "Summer 2018" was from inside TFGM - albeit it was many months ago.
(13 Aug 2018, 8:53 pm)Andreos1 wrote I'm pleased the link worked. The powerpoint had some detail in which I hoped answered some of your questions.
Thought I was the cynical one here?
I'm never one to name drop unfortunately. Whether it be personal contacts nor organisations I have professional dealings with. Often because my signature has had to go on a piece of paper telling me not to share.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...iving-seat
There is a quote in this article which hints at the consultation happening late in 2018.
Appreciate it is from earlier in the year and stuff changes, but it is looking less likely to happen this summer.
(10 Sep 2018, 11:37 am)Andreos1 wrote https://www.citymetric.com/transport/her...lives-4184
Study highlights impact of poor local transport.
(15 Aug 2018, 6:33 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.parliament.uk/business/commi...nch-17-19/
Ahead of inquiry in to falling passenger numbers, passengers are invited to share their thoughts.
(01 Oct 2018, 3:35 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/tra...ard-future
Words fail me
(01 Oct 2018, 8:06 pm)Tamesider wrote I assume it is the "messenger" rather than the message that shocks you. The only thing I would disagree with is the suggestion that Britain has a Walking Strategy, unless it is to outlaw walking in urban and suburban areas to legitimately give pavements over to cyclists.
I wonder when Go-Ahead sent their submission as I note (via the link on post #126) that the most recent submission is still dated 10th Sept
(01 Oct 2018, 8:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote Quite a bit of the message shocks me.
I tend not to post the long rambling rants about public vs private or multi-national operators holding out their bowl and doing their best impression of Oliver Twist, begging the government for 'more sir'.
However, that shout for unity and the little nudge and wink to the begging bowl riled me slightly.
Yes, I agree that LA's have reduced funding and subsidies.
Operators have ways and means to counter that.
Raising fares and cutting services seems to be the flavour of the day.
As is holding out the begging bowl.
The new demand based service he mentions in Oxford benefits those in the city centre and suburbs.
It is designed to attract young folks using apps and technology.
It doesn't help those people living out in the rural hinterlands of Oxfordshire - often unable to take advantage of technology or too far out to benefit from the service.
The same passengers who lost out after Oxfordshire Council withdrew funding and operators turned down the chance to do anything commercial.
Rather than supplement the existing offer and demand improvements to roads (that are often clogged up with 3/4 buses queuing up at a time including their new services), why don't they look at kickstarting improvements to outlying areas? Why don't they adapt what they have?
Botley Road by the station in Oxford, is jam-packed with services heading to P&R sites or offering interurban, express type routes.
The same routes that grew over the years after seeing operators investment.
The ideal model to inspire growth on services in other areas.
(01 Oct 2018, 9:08 pm)Tamesider wrote Fair enough! I can empathise with you now as I see similarities here in Gtr. Manchester with First and more recently Stagecoach. Except, here it isn't rural hinterlands seeing the cuts its the low car ownership "overspill" estates and suburbs that have been loyal to the bus industry for best part of a century. Again, being abandoned for the young twitterati in trendy, media friendly south Manchester and Trafford and the political "brave new world" of Salford. Compare Stagecoach's fare differentials with the details of their e-bus "blackmail"* and you will see what I mean.
* I use that word partly because even a pro-Deregulation former colleague sees their bid for 105 e-buses in exchange for GMCA dropping any plans for Franchising before the public have a say, as blatent blackmail.
(01 Oct 2018, 9:40 pm)Andreos1 wrote It is all fine and well opening up the markets you mention and the ones in Oxford, but not at the expense of others.
(03 Oct 2018, 10:54 am)Tamesider wrote This is a relevant point because whilst new markets have always been few and far between, fighting off low quality competition has always been a way of life for Stagecoach Manchester (and GMB/GMSB before them) . However, up until 2014/5, they managed to do this without much of an impact on routes/areas not involved - Easter 2006 farce with UK North 192 notwithstanding. However, now competition and new markets are resourced by slashing services and hiking fares in captive markets to redeploy.
Ironically, and three and a half months behind their BBC counterparts, Granada Reports broadcast an item on pollution last night using the wildly inaccurate IPPR North figures to join in the Media's ignorant demonising of bus users. As this item supported the call for "older" polluting buses (but NO other polluting diesels) to be fined under an LEZ, it reminds us that if Stagecoach do get their way in scrapping Franchising plans, they will not only dump more unupholstered Euro3* buses in captive market suburbs, but the fare gaps will widen even further to pay for the fines.
*To be fair to IPPR North, the figures they produced were wildly out of date at the time of the BBC rant (14/6/18), but since then Stagecoach have INCREASED the number of Euro3s from an all time low of 14 buses to 24 (all E400s) through cascading redundant examples from Merseyside.
(03 Oct 2018, 2:18 pm)Andreos1 wrote It is obviously the way their strategic planning is now working.
Same overheads (wages and vehicle costs aren't changing too much, if at all), but they feel it will improve margins.
We've seen it up here on key corridors.
Whilst it may lead to numbers increasing on those corridors, there is the potential to see the captive audience decreasing.
I've mentioned the 'Fencehouses situation' many times in the past, particularly in the QCS thread. So won't go there again in too much detail.
Needless to say, those passengers on the key corridor benefited from the 2006 changes.
Those in the outlying areas haven't. I would argue annecdotaly, the services in the outlying areas have suffered with fewer bums on seats too.
The problem with operators operating this way and focusing on those routes, in my opinion will see markets fall in the ignored areas and markets eventually become stagnant in the areas seeing attention.
Where do the operators go then? What do they do to grow the ignored market, maintain the focused markets and increase margins?
It appears they go cap in hand to the Government, asking them to come up with a strategy to fix the legacy of their previous operational decisions.
Bizarre.
(03 Oct 2018, 3:21 pm)Tamesider wrote So much for the "evils of cross-subsidy"!
In the short-term, this strategy didn't cost the Operator too much. The whole point being that those without cars are "Captive". Therefore, they have to use the increasingly expensive, reduced services run by older buses, so the profits will probably grow to start with. However, there has to be a breaking point where younger passengers in particular say enough is enough and there are now signs it is happening. They will re-double efforts to raise the cost of driving lessons and a car - or simply "obtain" cars and drive without following shall we say "legal niceties". Meanwhile, uber, gett, wambamm are waiting to pounce. After all, there must be a reason why taxi fare comparison websites quote journeys from BUS STOPS, rather than the exact location you want to take a cab from. Of course, once these multi billion gig economy companies have wiped out the commercial bus industry in poor areas, taxi fares will rocket.
It is also risky in Stagecoach's case because they are prioritising trendy, politically correct areas (Chorlton, Didsbury, Withington, Trafford etc) populated by "sheeple" environmentalists who don't want buses per se. Unlike the canny people of Leigh and Tyldesley who thought "Yes, we would prefer Light Rail, but now we've got a luxurious Euro6 Guided Bus charging the same for a 25 mile round trip as Stagecoach charge for a 3 mile round trip on a threadbare Euro4 in the eastern quadrant of GM, we'll at least give it a try".
OTOH, could the fact that Go-Ahead are emphasising a "national" strategy, just be code to bypass local authorities, especially those considering Franchising? We know in GM that Grayling wants to overrule the Devolution deal set up by George Osborne so maybe GA want to do the same in the North East and anywhere else considering Devolution via an Elected Mayor.
(07 Oct 2018, 9:20 am)Andreos1 wrote A well known 'celibate' train operator on the WC and formerly EC, had a marketing strategy which focused on growing the younger demographic. TV adverts and on/offline marketing used phrases, images and terminology which appealed to that younger market.
Feedback was recieved, that it was alienating the established business market, typically made up of passengers 35+.
Operational decisions also alienated regular travellers on the EC, with the new rewards programme poorer than the previous one, staffing levels dropping and the food/drink offering not being as reliable or refined as previously.
I don't have figures to hand to compare and contrast, but it would be interesting to see if those operational decisions and that marketing strategy had any impact on the business not succeeding as planned and Grayling taking it back 'in-house'.
Your own comments regarding Grayling is an interesting one.
Could be something in it and I wouldn't be surprised if there was.
(07 Oct 2018, 1:42 pm)Tamesider wrote There is of course, a distinct difference between local bus and rail (esp. long distance) and that is the reasons for travelling and the external choices (or lack of).
Captive market bus users either pay the ever increasing fares for reducing services, or they pay more (for now) in taxi fares, or they obtain a car. The vast majority of bus journeys are necessary journeys to work, shops or medical facilities. Whilst many would argue that local rail is largely used for necessary journeys to work, most rail users will have private transport to turn to - or indeed in some cases, buses. As for longer distance rail (up to say, 50 miles), it is difficult to categorise many of those as long distance, albeit jobs and even tertiary health services are getting further and further away from home. Again, though, most will still have the option of driving.
As an aside - though still linked with long-term transport strategy - how common are Sunday driving lessons nowadays? Its only in the last year or so I have noticed many Driving School (with L-Drivers) on local roads and wondered if this was a general reflection on young people's lifestyles meaning evenings & Saturdays aren't convenient? Is it because more lessons are needed to pass a test or is it simply the increase in demand to learn to drive?
(08 Oct 2018, 6:46 am)Andreos1 wrote It goes without saying there are differences.
The point I was trying to make, was linked to the effects operational decisions can have on passengers and their perception of the organisation.
Just look at train services in your neck of the woods...
The longer term impact on the decisions made in May probably haven't been felt yet.
As for Sunday driving lessons, I haven't a clue.
(17 Oct 2018, 12:04 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...are_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Fall in bus journeys, takes numbers to lowest level since 2006.
Fares have gone up 55% in meantime.
(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 wrote Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.
ENCTS is a failed system.
The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.
(18 Oct 2018, 9:41 pm)James101 wrote Councillor Tett sums up up succinctly. Councils are forced to provide free travel via ENCTS yet are in no way obliged to provide the service in the first place. There’s only one way it could have ever ended, marginal socially necessary services are withdrawn hand over fist.
ENCTS is a failed system.
The various figures online point to around 1bn ENCTS journeys being made annually just in England. If every journey was surcharged by £1 (payable by the passenger, kept by the local authority by way of deducting said £1 fares from bus company’s ENCTS reimbursement total) there would be an awful lot more money to keep services operating in the first place.
(21 Oct 2018, 3:55 pm)Tamesider wrote Trouble is it would now be politically unpalatable to reverse one of the few socially progressive policies this country has seen since 1979. Also, would a flat rate surcharge be fair or indeed, sustainable? The biggest problem seems to be for bus companies away from the conurbations, presumably because the re-imbursement is a lower percentage and a higher proportion of passengers LA-wide are concessionaries. The latter due to a combination of less full fare paying adults using buses and the better life expectancy. Remember, the entitlement is linked to the state Pension age which is increasing, whilst in many parts of the country, life expectancy has stalled (and in some areas has been stalled for many years).
There is also the question of what happens in areas where Concessionary travel is free on Rail? The general public aren't interested in the subtlety of who subsidises what, but is it really fair that Pensioners without access to rail (the vast majority) should pay for their public transport, whilst those with a car or within walking distance of a rail/tram stop continue to get free travel? Further, if this leads to more defections from commercial bus services to Rail, will the full farepayer suffer (as usual) yet more service cuts?
(22 Oct 2018, 11:58 am)Andreos1 wrote Or, companies just take a little bit of a hit.
I'm a supporter of ENCTS passes. I think it has a bigger social impact than many other schemes and assists in many more ways than helping Ethel get down to the post office to collect her pension.
It opens up many opportunities to health care for example.
It is a perk of paying in to the system for so long. Where else do you draw the line? Cut pensions to pay for the NHS?
Of course there will be some who take advantage of the system.
It is up to operators to manage their services in a manner that not only works for their shareholders, but ordinary passengers and the taxpayer too.
For years, we have seen operators work tendered services, because they're apparently not economically viable. Yet when said operator loses the contract to a rival, it suddenly becomes viable and they operate it commercially.
How much money has been wasted over the years on those contracts? Where is the furore about that? How many other services could have been saved as a result of it being operated commercially in the 2/3 years prior?
(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 wrote I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves.
I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system?
You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system.
I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.
I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass.
I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country.
The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy.
I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.
(22 Oct 2018, 9:54 pm)James101 wrote I entirely agree it would be politically unpalatable to remove or reduce ENCTS given the demographic it serves.
I'd be interested to hear why you think a system that would generate around £1bn per year would be less sustainable than the current money-pit system?
You'll not be surprised to discover that given I'm against completely free ECNTS bus travel, I agree free rail travel for pass holders should also be replaced with a subsidised fare system.
I'll set out my stall on the issue clearly here. Access to transport for those with mobility challenges is something I wholeheartedly believe in. In fact, I'm a volunteer driver for my local community transport charity. As it happens, a good number of the clients I ferry around could have once made their journeys by conventional bus, had they not been withdrawn. I'm in favour of a sustainable system, which ENCTS is not.
I think it's a tad facetious to jump from ECNTS contributions to NHS cuts Given that ENCTS wasn't introduced until 2008, the vast majority of current users weren't 'paying in to the system' expecting a bus pass in return, it's very much a Brucie Bonus for them and I've pretty much accepted there'll be barely a state pension left by the time I retire, let alone a free bus pass.
I tend not to agree that the issue should be pushed back to the operator to fix. Your point assumes all operators are ran like Stagecoach & Go-Ahead, with large profits and shareholders. The reality is these companies have already moved away from the services most threatened by ENCTS, the non-core, often rural community route. These are left to marginal operators such as Scarlet Band and PCL Travel to fight over the scraps of what is left of the subsided network. These aren't mega-corporations, these are effectively family business. If they take any less money for there carriage of ENCTS passengers they'll simply be forced to withdraw, as is already happening up and down the country.
The issue of operators unnecessarily taking funds for profitable contracted services is a scandal. It's unlikely to be repeated, however, as outside of PTE areas, more and more councils have a budget of £0 for subsidising services. If £1 surcharges were introduced, my fag-packet maths works out that could re-intoduce around 1000 extra buses on the road across the country, with many more if services require only part-subsidy.
I'd be interested to hear any views from forum members who think a ENCTS surcharge is explicitly a bad idea.
