(30 Jul 2024, 8:38 pm)Adrian wrote It still has functions as the transport authority for the 5x Tyne and Wear Councils, reporting to NECA, but I think it's looking increasingly likely that it'll be absorbed into NECA. Similar to what South and (I think?) West Yorkshire have done. The lines are becoming increasingly blurred between the two organisations now.

I think a lot of the staff are working directly for NECA at the moment, aside from Metro-related staff remaining with Nexus?

Yeah agreed, mind I haven't heard of anything about Durham and Northumberland joining anytime soon, don't believe it's been discussed at all yet?

Honestly not too sure on who's working for who if I had to be honest though, it's very blurred like you said. 

Mind I do think the Metro should stay independent with it's own management and not be ran by NECA directly. It's always been a bit of a conflict of interest having Nexus running the light rail system while supposedly supporting the bus operators who are arguably their competition when they need to make fare revenue. Obviously won't be an issue in the future with franchising, or whatever they choose, but that's years away.

No one could run the Metro run efficently with its current stock.

(30 Jul 2024, 9:35 pm)Storx wrote Yeah agreed, mind I haven't heard of anything about Durham and Northumberland joining anytime soon, don't believe it's been discussed at all yet?

Honestly not too sure on who's working for who if I had to be honest though, it's very blurred like you said. 

Mind I do think the Metro should stay independent with it's own management and not be ran by NECA directly. It's always been a bit of a conflict of interest having Nexus running the light rail system while supposedly supporting the bus operators who are arguably their competition when they need to make fare revenue. Obviously won't be an issue in the future with franchising, or whatever they choose, but that's years away.

Pretty sure this has been mentioned recently, but operational transport functions were delegated to Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council at June's cabinet meeting. This replicates the arrangement that was in place previously, though NECA remains the Transport Authority (taking over from the JTC)

I don't see how it's a conflict of interest. We need an integrated transport model, and it's what the Metro was designed to be part of. It's 40 years of bus deregulation that has put that to bed, as why would operators help the Metro out, when they could have a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. 

The fact that different forms of public transport (or even different operators), see each other as competition, is the problem.

(31 Jul 2024, 9:43 am)Adrian wrote Pretty sure this has been mentioned recently, but operational transport functions were delegated to Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council at June's cabinet meeting. This replicates the arrangement that was in place previously, though NECA remains the Transport Authority (taking over from the JTC)

I don't see how it's a conflict of interest. We need an integrated transport model, and it's what the Metro was designed to be part of. It's 40 years of bus deregulation that has put that to bed, as why would operators help the Metro out, when they could have a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. 

The fact that different forms of public transport (or even different operators), see each other as competition, is the problem.

Yeah it was, don't believe anything has been planned beyond it yet, unless I've missed it?

Agreed with the integration though but I just think the operation of the Metro should be independent from the planners. Not to mention it means that the Metro can have some accountability if things go wrong, with the option on the table to do a management agreement with a private company if things go to pot (not suggesting that though).

You'll also have the massive benefit that they won't be affected by political changes who want to change things for the sake of changing things, obviously Nexus wasn't affected by that too much, but NECA definitely is as if Gannon or McGuiness lose their places then everything could change overnight.

It means that the planners and Metro are independent from each other, obviously under the current system it's better for Nexus to make extra money via the Metro rather than a bus paying it to shareholders. It's totally wrong, but it's reality really. If they were independent then let them compete with the franchisees, a bit of competition is never a bad thing for improving service. I don't think anyone has an issue with the competition element of local buses, it's more where the money is going and the bits they choose not to do which franchising should fix.

Transport Secretary sets the wheels in motion on "biggest overhaul to buses in a generation"
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/trans...generation

There's also a consultation that has been launched on draft new guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultati...g-guidance

The key takes from me seem to be:

• Bus franchising opened up to all local transport authorities - previously this was Mayoral authorities only.
  
• LTAs that aren't Mayoral authorities still need to seek Secretary of State approval to proceed.
  
• Simplified guidance will be delivered to allow a speeding up of the process of franchising, along with the cost of developing the scheme.
  
• Any authority that has already published a notice of intent on or after 4 July 2024, would fall under the new guidance. This includes North East Mayoral Region, where the notice of intent is dated 8 August 2024.
  

Following the Statutory Instrument to deliver the above, they've also spoken about the Buses Bill that'll soon be presented to Parliament. This was part of the King's speech. It was mentioned that this will include:

• A reform of funding, including for those councils who don't want franchising.
  
• the Ban on municipal operators to be lifted.
  
• Further changes to make bus franchising even quicker and easier to deliver.
  
• Something on accessible travel.
  

Hopefully this will help speed up the process massively, as the worry is there'll be nothing left, the way some networks are being ran into the ground.

I'm not against franchises and public ownership. However, I'd welcome proper scrutiny of any proposed alternative schemes, rather than see the process rushed for what appears to be ideological reasons.

Just because the current situation is poor doesn't automatically mean those proposing the medicine are any better.

(09 Sep 2024, 6:02 pm)DeltaMan wrote I'm not against franchises and public ownership. However, I'd welcome proper scrutiny of any proposed alternative schemes, rather than see the process rushed for what appears to be ideological reasons.

Just because the current situation is poor doesn't automatically mean those proposing the medicine are any better.

In fairness, it's worth noting that deregulation in the first place was for ideological reasons, not because there was any supportive evidence that it'd deliver improvements.

NECA have commissioned a Delivery Model Feasibility Study, which was included (pg.279 onwards) in the report to Cabinet back in July. See: https://www.northeast-ca.gov.uk/download...-07-24.pdf

Only a short paper to yesterday's North East CA Cabinet yesterday on Bus Reform, but they were asked to agree delegated authority to the Chief Executive to "commence procurement arrangements and approve contract awards for specialist support associated with the region’s Bus Franchising Scheme Assessment (FSA)".

In the paper, they state that the Bus Reform project is in a "mobilisation phase, which critically includes procurement of specialist support to support the development of the FSA". The current authority level is £500k, and the report suggests that this covers the event that they need to enlist support over the value, not that it's an absolute.

Reading the paper, the reasoning behind the request is that "specialist support is required to complete some elements, including economic and demand
modelling, which the CA does not have the skills or capacity to undertake internally". This sounds like a sensible approach, as I think there's a risk of tunnel vision by trying to deliver this modelling internally.

(09 Sep 2024, 6:02 pm)DeltaMan wrote I'm not against franchises and public ownership. However, I'd welcome proper scrutiny of any proposed alternative schemes, rather than see the process rushed for what appears to be ideological reasons.

Just because the current situation is poor doesn't automatically mean those proposing the medicine are any better.

It is because of ideology that Public Transport is in a mess. Pick up one of the many pre 1986 TW timetables from EBay to see what was destroyed by a mad woman.

(1 hour ago)Economic505 wrote It is because of ideology that Public Transport is in a mess. Pick up one of the many pre 1986 TW timetables from EBay to see what was destroyed by a mad woman.

It's hard to compare to 1986 though as cars have become much more popular and affordable since then. 

Unless the government wants to invest in public transport properly it won't make too much difference imo. That's the real problem and building the odd bus station and buying the odd electric bus is no-where near enough.

(1 hour ago)Economic505 wrote It is because of ideology that Public Transport is in a mess. Pick up one of the many pre 1986 TW timetables from EBay to see what was destroyed by a mad woman.

Dont forget the ideological mess caused by numerous busmen. 

Rubber their hands with glee when she had her batshit ideas.