(06 Feb 2022, 1:18 pm)Adrian wrote Yeah, there's a few problems with the site Malarkey has highlighted. It'd block 1/3 of the facade of the Grade I listed Newcastle station and therefore damage the appearance of it. It'd probably wouldn't even be considered for this reason alone.

The other problems you'd face is that the former Motorail Terminal is Grade II listed, in part specifically for the front appearance, so blocking it completely would be a big no. It'd also take some of the view away from the Grade II listed 1 Neville Street, which I don't think would be significant enough alone, but it just adds to the reasoning to reject.

Ah yes, the motorail bay, I knew they wouldn't be able to alter the facade. There is so little space with the A186 configuration.

(06 Feb 2022, 3:37 pm)Bazza wrote Is this all not a bit moot now?  I read something on FB (so it must be true) that the BSIP is now dead in the water.  Total promised government spending has been slashed to an extent that the North Easts  plans alone would account for over  two thirds of what’s available for the whole country. 

Sorry I tried to find the article to provide a link but couldn’t.  It was a report in the Northumberland Gazette .

Yes i saw this too. Mr Gannon said the government was heading in the right direct but wasn't offering anywhere near the support £££££ wise to get these ideas up and running. They were not going to change there plans but like you say they arn't going to get 2/3 of the money for the north east. Probably end up with a really watered down version... cant see nothing improving though... which should be an improvement?!?!

(06 Feb 2022, 3:37 pm)Bazza wrote Is this all not a bit moot now?  I read something on FB (so it must be true) that the BSIP is now dead in the water.  Total promised government spending has been slashed to an extent that the North Easts  plans alone would account for over  two thirds of what’s available for the whole country. 

Sorry I tried to find the article to provide a link but couldn’t.  It was a report in the Northumberland Gazette .

(07 Feb 2022, 7:47 am)Rob44 wrote Yes i saw this too. Mr Gannon said the government was heading in the right direct but wasn't offering anywhere near the support £££££ wise to get these ideas up and running. They were not going to change there plans but like you say they arn't going to get 2/3 of the money for the north east. Probably end up with a really watered down version... cant see nothing improving though... which should be an improvement?!?!

It's supposed to be live from April, but it's dead before it starts, unless the UK Government stick their hand in their pocket and gives the NBS the funding it needs.

Local Transport Authorities right across England have developed Bus Service Improvement Plans to the specification of being ambitious, yet the promised funding for the National Bus Strategy has already been dropped from £3bn to £1.4bn, leaving a funding gap of about £5bn.

https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/la...ouncement/

Updates to this.

(04 Apr 2022, 3:40 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/la...ouncement/

Updates to this.

"Tobyn Hughes, Managing Director, Transport North East, said: “This announcement is great news for the region. The government has clearly recognised how important bus and Metro services are to the North East."

Really?  We've been given around 20% of what we stated is required, yet Tobyn is still celebrating it as some great recognition of the North East. It's no wonder we politically struggle to get transport investment in the region, when we're always asking for a golden ticket, but happy to take a kick up the backside instead.

"This has been recognised by a funding award of £163.5 million over three years. This breaks down as £73,758,353 capital to prioritise buses on busy routes, and £89,762,819 revenue to support improved fares and services for local people – one of the highest allocations in the country."

The original split in the plan was -
£495.6 million of this funding is capital, to fund new bus priority infrastructure, waiting facilities, new buses, and new ITS equipment. (61.6%)
£123.6 million of this funding is revenue support, to subsidise the continuation of existing services in light of Covid-related financial shortfalls. (15.4%)
£184.7 million of this funding is revenue support to support the introduction of lower fares and expanded route networks (23.0%)

With the split Transport North East are confirming today, that's around 45% on infrastructure (such as bus priority) and 55% on subsidising bus services, with the aim of improving the networks and delivering lower fares. Given that is over three years, I'm not convinced the money will go very far at all...

from the chronicle

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor...t-23591600

(04 Apr 2022, 3:57 pm)Adrian wrote "Tobyn Hughes, Managing Director, Transport North East, said: “This announcement is great news for the region. The government has clearly recognised how important bus and Metro services are to the North East."

Really?  We've been given around 20% of what we stated is required, yet Tobyn is still celebrating it as some great recognition of the North East. It's no wonder we politically struggle to get transport investment in the region, when we're always asking for a golden ticket, but happy to take a kick up the backside instead.

"This has been recognised by a funding award of £163.5 million over three years. This breaks down as £73,758,353 capital to prioritise buses on busy routes, and £89,762,819 revenue to support improved fares and services for local people – one of the highest allocations in the country."

The original split in the plan was -
£495.6 million of this funding is capital, to fund new bus priority infrastructure, waiting facilities, new buses, and new ITS equipment. (61.6%)
£123.6 million of this funding is revenue support, to subsidise the continuation of existing services in light of Covid-related financial shortfalls. (15.4%)
£184.7 million of this funding is revenue support to support the introduction of lower fares and expanded route networks (23.0%)

With the split Transport North East are confirming today, that's around 45% on infrastructure (such as bus priority) and 55% on subsidising bus services, with the aim of improving the networks and delivering lower fares. Given that is over three years, I'm not convinced the money will go very far at all...

It's better than nowt. But as you say, I can't see it going very far at all and I struggle to see the long term benefits of this. Particularly when so much of it seems to be on infrastructure, bus priority and propping up the (flawed?) commercial decisions of these operators.

(04 Apr 2022, 3:57 pm)Adrian wrote "Tobyn Hughes, Managing Director, Transport North East, said: “This announcement is great news for the region. The government has clearly recognised how important bus and Metro services are to the North East."

Really?  We've been given around 20% of what we stated is required, yet Tobyn is still celebrating it as some great recognition of the North East. It's no wonder we politically struggle to get transport investment in the region, when we're always asking for a golden ticket, but happy to take a kick up the backside instead.

"This has been recognised by a funding award of £163.5 million over three years. This breaks down as £73,758,353 capital to prioritise buses on busy routes, and £89,762,819 revenue to support improved fares and services for local people – one of the highest allocations in the country."

The original split in the plan was -
£495.6 million of this funding is capital, to fund new bus priority infrastructure, waiting facilities, new buses, and new ITS equipment. (61.6%)
£123.6 million of this funding is revenue support, to subsidise the continuation of existing services in light of Covid-related financial shortfalls. (15.4%)
£184.7 million of this funding is revenue support to support the introduction of lower fares and expanded route networks (23.0%)

With the split Transport North East are confirming today, that's around 45% on infrastructure (such as bus priority) and 55% on subsidising bus services, with the aim of improving the networks and delivering lower fares. Given that is over three years, I'm not convinced the money will go very far at all...

Wonder if the 60/20/56 will be receiving any upgrades in new bus form, or whether the money will just go to Riverside. Maybe the 21.
Would be nice to get some E200EV's maybe for the 60/20. Possible some mini buses upgrades aswell to electrify the Tynedale Links.

Really if the 20/60 got replaced that is around 24 buses to replace the 09 Optares, 35, 61 and more.

(04 Apr 2022, 4:26 pm)Andreos1 wrote It's better than nowt. But as you say, I can't see it going very far at all and I struggle to see the long term benefits of this. Particularly when so much of it seems to be on infrastructure, bus priority and propping up the (flawed?) commercial decisions of these operators.

It's absolutely better than nowt, but we shouldn't be hailing it as some great achievement at the same time. We might have got the most out of the vastly-reduced pot of money available for BSIPs, but I believe we asked for the most originally and it perhaps reflects the diverse network between Rural Northumberland and County Durham, with urban Tyne and Wear in between.

I think we need to see the finer details of how that funding split is going to be spent. There's also the question of how sustainable it is, and what happens after the three years. The BSIP document quoted returning to the pre-pandemic level of 162.4 million trips by March 2023 (so less than 11 months away) and then 10% growth on that a year later, so I wonder if those targets will be revised based on the funding settlement awarded.

From bbc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60987796

(04 Apr 2022, 5:51 pm)Rob44 wrote From bbc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60987796

I don't think the 20% settlement will quite stretch to getting Banksy to spruce up our bus stops!

(04 Apr 2022, 3:57 pm)Adrian wrote "Tobyn Hughes, Managing Director, Transport North East, said: “This announcement is great news for the region. The government has clearly recognised how important bus and Metro services are to the North East."

Really?  We've been given around 20% of what we stated is required, yet Tobyn is still celebrating it as some great recognition of the North East. It's no wonder we politically struggle to get transport investment in the region, when we're always asking for a golden ticket, but happy to take a kick up the backside instead.

"This has been recognised by a funding award of £163.5 million over three years. This breaks down as £73,758,353 capital to prioritise buses on busy routes, and £89,762,819 revenue to support improved fares and services for local people – one of the highest allocations in the country."

The original split in the plan was -
£495.6 million of this funding is capital, to fund new bus priority infrastructure, waiting facilities, new buses, and new ITS equipment. (61.6%)
£123.6 million of this funding is revenue support, to subsidise the continuation of existing services in light of Covid-related financial shortfalls. (15.4%)
£184.7 million of this funding is revenue support to support the introduction of lower and expanded route networks (23.0%)

With the split Transport North East are confirming today, that's around 45% on infrastructure (such as bus priority) and 55% on subsidising bus services, with the aim of improving the networks and delivering lower fares. Given that is over three years, I'm not convinced the money will go very far at all...

We should be rejoicing at the amount the North East has been given!
(bearing in mind that there is also £600m waiting for the North East in the City Region Sustainable Travel Settlement, once the region gets its act together on an elected mayor).

Although it's not the full amount asked for (local authorities always overbid of course) £89.7m (almost £30m per year) will go a long way towards improving services and reducing fares. It would, for example, fund an extra 150 all day buses (7 days per week) without any offsetting revenue!

And almost £74m on bus priority measures will see some significant improvement in journey times for bus passengers - provided that local councillors don't object to individual schemes. 

I wonder what the "new and consistent brand for The Partnership that will be applied across the network, so that it becomes a recognisable symbol of public transport for the North East" will be?

It does, of course, need the operators to play their part through the Enhanced Partnership.
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/wp..._FINAL.pdf
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/en...rtnership/

(04 Apr 2022, 8:00 pm)busmanT wrote We should be rejoicing at the amount the North East has been given!
(bearing in mind that there is also £600m waiting for the North East in the City Region Sustainable Travel Settlement, once the region gets its act together on an elected mayor).

Although it's not the full amount asked for (local authorities always overbid of course) £89.7m (almost £30m per year) will go a long way towards improving services and reducing fares. It would, for example, fund an extra 150 all day buses (7 days per week) without any offsetting revenue!

And almost £74m on bus priority measures will see some significant improvement in journey times for bus passengers - provided that local councillors don't object to individual schemes. 

I wonder what the "new and consistent brand for The Partnership that will be applied across the network, so that it becomes a recognisable symbol of public transport for the North East" will be?

It does, of course, need the operators to play their part through the Enhanced Partnership.
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/wp..._FINAL.pdf
https://www.transportnortheast.gov.uk/en...rtnership/

It's probably unhelpful to look at the proposed CRSTS as making up the BSIP shortfall here, given that the two schemes funding are completely separate - as are the objectives of each. In my opinion, it's only been put together in the DfT's press release to cloud over that the Bus Back Better funding was slashed from £3bn to just over £1bn.

If we ever get our hands on the CRSTS money, there'll only be a fraction of it spent on buses, the sheer scope of what that money has to cover, including funding to councils to maintain and repair the existing state of their roads. Tees Valley are allocating around £40m of their £310m to buses.

We also know that Transport North East's major objective is the reopening of the Leamside and extension of Metro services, which will presumably have to come out of this money.

The almost £74m on bus priority is of course a good thing, but there's now a big decision to choose which of the schemes listed in the BSIP gets funding. Two of the most expensive schemes, West Newcastle and the Coast Road, are likely to be the most deserving, but I'd expect other councillors to argue support for schemes within their authority area.

I'm not convinced the near £89m over 3 years will go very, nor will it be sustainable, unless there's rapid growth like we've never seen before. The example of 150 extra buses running all day, 7 days a week, sounds great, but it doesn't take into account the ambition around fare reduction and capping. I don't think its unfair to assume that operators won't be taking a financial hit out of the good of their heart, and a proportion of the money is going to have to subsidise these cheaper fares and price caps.

£163m is clearly better than nothing at all, but rejoicing in acceptance of 20% funding doesn't exactly match the ambition of the BSIP!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Mixed feelings….it’s a positive step but it’s handing to money to Gannon and Hughes. The Gateshead Central Taxis equivalent of leadership.

Until our regionally xenophobic leaders get over themselves and accept a North East Mayor as opposed to Sunderland and Gateshead having panic attacks about their minuscule importance becoming even more minuscule and Newcastle stealing their lunch money the sooner we can move on and actually grow. It’s going to be a labour mayor regardless (low turnout will guarantee it) so they may as well crack on with it.

And more funding of Metro which is increasingly looking like a 21st century nice to have white elephant.

(04 Apr 2022, 8:54 pm)Adrian wrote It's probably unhelpful to look at the proposed CRSTS as making up the BSIP shortfall here, given that the two schemes funding are completely separate - as are the objectives of each. In my opinion, it's only been put together in the DfT's press release to cloud over that the Bus Back Better funding was slashed from £3bn to just over £1bn.

If we ever get our hands on the CRSTS money, there'll only be a fraction of it spent on buses, the sheer scope of what that money has to cover, including funding to councils to maintain and repair the existing state of their roads. Tees Valley are allocating around £40m of their £310m to buses.

We also know that Transport North East's major objective is the reopening of the Leamside and extension of Metro services, which will presumably have to come out of this money.

The almost £74m on bus priority is of course a good thing, but there's now a big decision to choose which of the schemes listed in the BSIP gets funding. Two of the most expensive schemes, West Newcastle and the Coast Road, are likely to be the most deserving, but I'd expect other councillors to argue support for schemes within their authority area. 

I'm not convinced the near £89m over 3 years will go very, nor will it be sustainable, unless there's rapid growth like we've never seen before. The example of 150 extra buses running all day, 7 days a week, sounds great, but it doesn't take into account the ambition around fare reduction and capping. I don't think its unfair to assume that operators won't be taking a financial hit out of the good of their heart, and a proportion of the money is going to have to subsidise these cheaper fares and price caps.

£163m is clearly better than nothing at all, but rejoicing in acceptance of 20% funding doesn't exactly match the ambition of the BSIP!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

This is the bit I am struggling to get my head around. It's quite a significant amount of money to allocate and I genuinely think it could be better spent on something else. 

Using the West Road or Coast Road as examples. There is a churn of bus after bus along these sections. Often not carrying that many people. The Coast Road is nothing more than a pissing contest as far as I can see and unless something changes quickly, commuters aren't going to be travelling in to the City Centre like they used to. It's not an employment hub like it used to be. Yet the decision makers in the corporate towers of the big 3 - seem to be convinced that having a bus queue outside Haymarket or whizz past fresh air on Sandyford Road is the best use of resource. 

Meanwhile all the cars they will be passing at an upgraded set of lights near the Corner House - will continue heading off in another direction. Going nowhere near where the buses originated from and nowhere near where they terminate at. 
The Coast Road is merely a conduit to getting from A-B. The stream of buses are nothing more than an inconvenience. 

The insistence on installing bus priority is simply an expensive excercise in vanity and self importance. Doing nothing more than trying to justify the need for a never ending cycle of buses in and out of the town and would be better spent elsewhere IMHO.

The supposed consolidation of routes and removal of bus duplication between operators seems to reduce the need for these priority measures even more. If less buses are going through, then do they really need these measures introduced?

https://www.facebook.com/100064365174416...sn=scwspmo

Didn't listen to it through, but some interesting comments and perceptions exist across the country. Mentions of the NE in there too.

Are companies allowed to buy new buses, as Martjin Said they aren't allowed to upgrade/improving current services and are only for new initiatives

(05 Apr 2022, 6:34 pm)Unber43 wrote Are companies allowed to buy new buses, as Martjin Said they aren't allowed to upgrade/improving current services and are only for new initiatives

Looking at the information that's been shared in documents and press releases - it's an awful lot of money for investment and improvement to services, if there isn't an allocation or option to purchase new vehicles.

(07 Apr 2022, 3:55 pm)Andreos1 wrote Looking at the information that's been shared in documents and press releases - it's an awful lot of money for investment and improvement to services, if there isn't an allocation or option to purchase new vehicles.

I don’t believe that any of the BSIP money is allocated to new vehicle purchases.
With all the service cuts we’ve had, and no doubt more to come, will companies actually need any new buses?
Or will they simply withdraw the oldest ones as services are cut?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-62...ebook_page&at_custom1=link&at_campaign=64&at_custom4=710B604C-1C94-11ED-A9ED-5FEE2052A482&at_custom3=LR+BBC+Radio+Newcastle&at_medium=custom7

Mayor's come together and ask for more money to prop up/save routes.

Just nationalise the lot now and save all the hassle.

(15 Aug 2022, 12:46 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-62...ebook_page&at_custom1=link&at_campaign=64&at_custom4=710B604C-1C94-11ED-A9ED-5FEE2052A482&at_custom3=LR+BBC+Radio+Newcastle&at_medium=custom7

Mayor's come together and ask for more money to prop up/save routes.

Just nationalise the lot now and save all the hassle.

I don't think there's the political will or the public appetite for nationalisation.  People like the idea of it but the reality isn't all its cracked up to be. The buses in manchester will forever end up being a stick to beat Burnham with. 

It doesn't help that the vast majority of passengers will be of the lower demo and less likely to vote versus a private car user eiither.

(16 Aug 2022, 3:15 pm)Ambassador wrote I don't think there's the political will or the public appetite for nationalisation.  People like the idea of it but the reality isn't all its cracked up to be. The buses in manchester will forever end up being a stick to beat Burnham with. 

It doesn't help that the vast majority of passengers will be of the lower demo and less likely to vote versus a private car user eiither.

Not sure about that.

It's not as if the taxpayer isn't contributing millions in handouts to these PLCs since Covid came along.
Obviously they were already getting hundreds of thousands prior.

Might as well cut out the middle man and send it from one Government department to another, rather than continue sending it from a Government department to a clueless commercial team - so they can 'spaff it up a wall'

(16 Aug 2022, 3:15 pm)Ambassador wrote I don't think there's the political will or the public appetite for nationalisation.  People like the idea of it but the reality isn't all its cracked up to be. The buses in manchester will forever end up being a stick to beat Burnham with. 

It doesn't help that the vast majority of passengers will be of the lower demo and less likely to vote versus a private car user eiither.

I think the appetite is there and is greater than it ever has been, now that we're seeing the private sector all but collapse in trying to deliver vital public services. And more so losing interest, now that their oil well has dried up.

I think 5-10 years ago, regulation of buses in Greater Manchester (or anywhere else, for that matter), would have been used as a stick to beat whichever political leader up with. The difference now is that the buses right across England are either at or beyond breaking point. Project deregulation has completely failed, and I'd bet even most of the industry, outside of the 10% club, are now accepting this as fact.

Regulation isn't without it's own challenges though, and one will be ongoing funding. We only have to look at TFL, the NHS or Councils up and down England, to see how politically motivated funding models have become. It needs a Government willing to view public transport in the same light as any other national infrastructure, and that needs to be more than a glossy strategy document.

(16 Aug 2022, 7:57 pm)Andreos1 wrote Not sure about that.

It's not as if the taxpayer isn't contributing millions in handouts to these PLCs since Covid came along.
Obviously they were already getting hundreds of thousands prior.

Might as well cut out the middle man and send it from one Government department to another, rather than continue sending it from a Government department to a clueless commercial team - so they can 'spaff it up a wall'

Regulation and centralisation would be a disaster. In my opinion it'll only work with a proper devolution model and regional control of transport networks.

(16 Aug 2022, 8:07 pm)Adrian wrote I think the appetite is there and is greater than it ever has been, now that we're seeing the private sector all but collapse in trying to deliver vital public services. And more so losing interest, now that their oil well has dried up.

I think 5-10 years ago, regulation of buses in Greater Manchester (or anywhere else, for that matter), would have been used as a stick to beat whichever political leader up with. The difference now is that the buses right across England are either at or beyond breaking point. Project deregulation has completely failed, and I'd bet even most of the industry, outside of the 10% club, are now accepting this as fact.

Regulation isn't without it's own challenges though, and one will be ongoing funding. We only have to look at TFL, the NHS or Councils up and down England, to see how politically motivated funding models have become. It needs a Government willing to view public transport in the same light as any other national infrastructure, and that needs to be more than a glossy strategy document.


Regulation and centralisation would be a disaster.  In my opinion it'll only work with a proper devolution model and regional control of transport networks.

Any worse than what we see now? It's going from bad to worse and whilst a devolution deal may be better long term, in the short term, someone needs to get hold of the whole thing and give it urgent life support. 
Local/regional control can still happen under a centralised funding model - even before devolution (if it ever happens).

(17 Aug 2022, 10:22 am)Andreos1 wrote Any worse than what we see now? It's going from bad to worse and whilst a devolution deal may be better long term, in the short term, someone needs to get hold of the whole thing and give it urgent life support. 
Local/regional control can still happen under a centralised funding model - even before devolution (if it ever happens).

I don't think it'd be any better than what we see now. Centralisation of a local service, as public transport is, just doesn't work in my opinion. It detaches the decision makers from the network.

If there was widespread regulation of buses in England, in my opinion it has to be regionally controlled.

I just thought I would put it in here

Government bus service funding to continue beyond October

Up to £130 million of government funding announced to support vital bus services across England until March 2023. Measure to protect bus routes which people rely on at a time of rising costs

[/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/CBWtweets/status/1560618532739592192/photo/1]

(19 Aug 2022, 6:17 pm)Unber43 wrote I just thought I would put it in here

Government bus service funding to continue beyond October

Up to £130 million of government funding announced to support vital bus services across England until March 2023. Measure to protect bus routes which people rely on at a time of rising costs

[/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/CBWtweets/status/1560618532739592192/photo/1]

I admire the governments latest funding but if the driver shortage does not improve and there is not the drivers to operate services without cancellations more service cuts will happen

(19 Aug 2022, 7:35 pm)N1cholas wrote I admire the governments latest funding but if the driver shortage does not improve and there is not the drivers to operate services without cancellations more service cuts will happen

And if the passengers are pissed off at the lack of services or the fact the buses don't take them where they need or want to be - it's nowt but the government pissing in to the wind and the operators clapping their hands like seals off their face on crack and sardines.

(19 Aug 2022, 6:17 pm)Unber43 wrote I just thought I would put it in here

Government bus service funding to continue beyond October

Up to £130 million of government funding announced to support vital bus services across England until March 2023. Measure to protect bus routes which people rely on at a time of rising costs

[/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/CBWtweets/status/1560618532739592192/photo/1]

Bit of a shame GNE have already cut services multiple times in anticipation of the funding coming to an end.

(20 Aug 2022, 12:34 am)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Bit of a shame GNE have already cut services multiple times in anticipation of the funding coming to an end.

Unlike CBSSG, the support from BRG wasn’t enough to bring Go North East to breakeven point - they’re still a loss-making business.

The cuts from Go North East would have happened regardless of BRG being there or not.

If I was a betting man, I’d say that cuts from other operators in this region will still go ahead at the end of October too - especially Arriva for any cuts linked to Jesmond, now the depot itself is linked to those cuts. The overheads saving from closing a depot is likely to be a lot higher than the revenue income from BRG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk