(05 Jun 2016, 11:01 am)G-CPTN wrote North East Mayor: Who are the likely candidates to run for the title?

I mentioned Vera Baird's name a few weeks back.
Hopefully the Chronicle voting is representative of any actual vote.

Bus Services Bill 2nd reading going through House of Lords now:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016...tages.html


Lord Whitty (Labour) making some very good points in response to the reading (Timed, starting at 16:52 on Parliament TV link)

Bumpy ride ahead as bus firms struggle to keep a firm hand on the wheel

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016...and-on-th/

(12 Jun 2016, 12:33 pm)Dan wrote Bumpy ride ahead as bus firms struggle to keep a firm hand on the wheel

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016...and-on-th/

Interesting article.

A lot of the debate against QCS focused around the reason being to 'prop the Metro up'. If there's a need to legislate something like this, and by a Conservative government of all people, it shows that what we have is far from ideal.

Why change something that isn't broken after all.

(12 Jun 2016, 1:34 pm)Adrian wrote Interesting article.

A lot of the debate against QCS focused around the reason being to 'prop the Metro up'. If there's a need to legislate something like this, and by a Conservative government of all people, it shows that what we have is far from ideal.

Why change something that isn't broken after all.

The problem is - as with most "political" arguments (including the EU referendum) - its beginning to look like another case of many people being the proverbial Turkeys being asked to choose between Thanksgiving and Christmas. As such, it often interesting to compare notes between different conurbations, albeit being careful to note differences in car ownership levels; areas of depravity (economic, health etc); existing travel patterns/choices etc, and whether Bus Operators and Politicians treat all their customers/tax-payers equally.

In Greater Manchester, Deregulation faiiled bus users so dramatically, one (then) leading Tory, Steven Norris, even admitted as much. Patronage collapsed by nearly 30% in the first year, and the standard of competition has been generally very poor and totally lacking innovation - no genuine fare cuts or service enhancements apart from a few isolated examples in the western half of the conurbation. Things slowly stabilised during the "noughties", and when First announced general fare cuts about 4 years ago, and then the worst of the "cowboy" Operators finally disappeared, it seemed like things were about to change. Unfortunately, it was a false dawn as the combination of EYMS selling Finglands to First and Stagecoach changing Management has lead to a bus war between south Manchester and Swinton/Little Hulton (beyond Salford) with both First and Stagecoach happy to inflict "casualties" throughout their traditional, low car ownership territories across the north and east of the conurbation; by way of service cuts; a further increase in the level of timetable changes and an acceptance of declining punctuality outside the Manchester city boundary - especially in the Evenings and on Sunday mornings when service levels are sparse, and (comparitively speaking) so is traffic congestion. It has also left a big gap in fares; Taking Stagecoach as an example on the competing routes that have increased point to point buses from 12+ to 18+ an hour (off-peak) , a 6 mile journey from Swinton to Manchester costs £1.20; wheras where I live a 0.8 mile journey in a poor area costs £1.90 and has seen a reduction from 10 to 8 buses per hour. Further down the route (into Stockport), the service cuts have been more severe.
In summary, if the Buses Bill had been announced in the 2012 or 2013 Queens' Speech, then the Operators could have made a very good case against the principle. Now, they have demonstrated they can not be trusted to serve the vast majority of the 31% of Greater Manchester's adults without regular access to a car.

OTOH, the record of Greater Manchester's politicians where buses are concerned is not good. Apart from the completion of the M60, the change in liicencing laws and the constant drop (in real terms) in the cost of *running* a car - all of which Local Authorities can't be blamed for; GM's politicians have damaged the lives of bus passengers by banning cross-city services in 1995; changing School hours more dramatically than the rest of the UK; refusing to enforce the prohibition against bus stop blocking and of course, the expansion of Rail - especially Light Rail into (for now!) low car ownership areas.

And it is probably this last one, where a comparison with Tyne & Wear is most appropriate. I was last in the North East in late 2012 and travelled on the Metro from South Shields to Newcastle. As I was not making any bus journeys that day, I don't know what "integrated" Bus/Metro fares are like. However, I think there was a significant time saving, and the Metro had comfortable seats despite it being an early 4xxx series unit number - which I assume was the same batch from my previous visit to Newcastle a good twenty years earlier. Are they due for replacement.
I don't suppose I need to give a detailed history of Metrolink to most readers here, but for the younger ones in particular, it seems its role has changed somewhat. The first line, opened almost a quarter of a century ago, was a straight rail replacement line from Bury to Altrincham crossing Manchester city centre from Victoria, through Shudehill (then Arndale Centre), Market Street, Piccadilly Gardens and St.Peter's Square. A large proportion of areas served are high car ownership areas and the time savings compared to buses were significant, even then. Nevertheless, it did lead to the loss of direct buses to Manchester for some estates above Whitefield (near Bury) and evening/SundayNight bus cuts on the main route to Altrincham. Further expansion took in Eccles - although the only tangible benefit was to serve Salford Quays; Chorlton/Wythenshawe/M'cr Airport (where local Councillors supporting it denied the very existance of - then, 16 buses an hour between Wythenshawe and the Airport; Oldham/Rochdale - which according to some surveys has led to house *deflation* even worse than the county average - and Ashton-under-Lyne, which is the most direct competitor to the bus industry of all, not least because there is NO off-peak time saving between Tameside's lborough seat and Piccadilly. Additionally, the original grey/green trams with tolerable seating, have now been replaced by "yellow perils" fitted solely with bum perches every bit as bad as wheelarch seats on Enviro 400s.
Reactive bus service cuts have been slow thus far. However, Arriva have started reducing their services between the Airport and the various parts of Wythenshawe (a massive housing estate); First are about to cut back most remaining commercial services between Rochdale and Chaddeton/Moston/Oldham Road (24/181/182) to just run between Shaw and Manchester, as well as halving the Rushcroft/Shaw to Manchester service through Middleton (59), and Stagecoach are systematically reducing the 216 along Ashton New Road that shadows the tram for about 90% of the route, as well as halving the Littlemoss/Sunnyside-Manchester 231 service, which formed the heart of the well-known Maynes of Manchester network for most of the 20th Century.
I had heard that TFGM/C had (quite rightly) pointed to overbussing of city routes such as the 38 & 192, in contrast to the ever declining services outside of Mancheser/Salford. Noting that the eastern boroughs of Stockport, Tameside and Oldham in particular, have large areas of low car ownership - many on "overspill" estates - and these communities have effectively cross-subsidised the city dwellers and the compartively richer south and west of GM for best part of a century. Unfortunately, the press cutting from Dr. Lamonte (NOT featured anywhere in the local media, btw) does hint at the old adage "Be careful what you wish for....."

(12 Jun 2016, 5:28 pm)Tameside wrote ... areas of depravity....

Don't you mean "areas of depravation..."

Depravity is something entirely different... although, you are talking about Manchester...!!!

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...p-11622700

Bus Bill gets a mention in The Chronicle.

As a side. Which of the two B5's is on the right stand?

(15 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm)Andreos1 wrote http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...p-11622700

Bus Bill gets a mention in The Chronicle.

As a side. Which of the two B5's is on the right stand

I agree to be honest. That clause shouldn't be there, because when operators decide a service can't be ran commercially, it'd give NECA the ability to run it in house instead. 30 years of deregulation shows that to be an issue.
And the one furthest away is in the correct stand I think!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37089246

Corbyn to give powers to local authorities.

Mr Corbyn will promise to expand bus services to areas not currently covered, to give councils franchising powers over their bus networks, and to allow them to set up "municipal bus companies".

Mr Corbyn claims the moves would save money that could be used to reverse government cuts to local bus services.

How on Earth can you 'save money' by setting up companies to expand bus services to areas not currently covered?

Are there untapped revenues out there that the current private companies are ignoring?

Mr Corbyn's bus services will take people to the sunny uplands where people will be able to harvest five-pound notes from low-hanging branches on the world-famous money trees!

(16 Aug 2016, 10:41 am)G-CPTN wrote How on Earth can you 'save money' by setting up companies to expand bus services to areas not currently covered?

Are there untapped revenues out there that the current private companies are ignoring?

If you put it in to context and include the extract from the article:

The Labour leader promised to expand bus services to areas not currently covered, to give councils franchising powers over their bus networks, and to allow them to set up "municipal bus companies".

You can see that new routes alone won't save money. It will be a factor of the other elements.
As a starter, (got to choose my words carefully here, cos eezypeazy might tell me off again) the many millions of pounds claimed by private operators every year by local and central government will be reduced.
The many millions of pounds given to shareholders will cease. 

(16 Aug 2016, 10:59 am)eezypeazy wrote Mr Corbyn's bus services will take people to the sunny uplands where people will be able to harvest five-pound notes from low-hanging branches on the world-famous money trees!

You mean the PLC'S haven't cherry picked the best ones and have left some?!

(16 Aug 2016, 10:41 am)G-CPTN wrote How on Earth can you 'save money' by setting up companies to expand bus services to areas not currently covered?

Are there untapped revenues out there that the current private companies are ignoring?

This is obviously going to vary from area to area - and I suspect it is based on a more "holistic" approach, for which the actual "savings" would be difficult to quantify, but the theory deserves serious consideration.

I assume this plan is an extension of the principle of the current Bus Services Bill, with the removal of the need to have an Elected Mayor, plus the choice of LAs setting up their own companies. A direct saving identified by TFGM is simply taking buses of over-bussed services, and redeploying them where they will better serve the tax-paying public.
There is then the outside advantages of better bus services in lower car-ownership areas, such as better access to medical services and quality, fresh food. Longer-term, a more punctual and affordable bus service will slow the increase in car ownership, and therefore car usage, leading to less congestion and pollution.

It could be argued that its all irrelevant anyway. British domestic politics has swung massively to the right in the last generation or so - not least the Trade Union movement, as evidenced by their comments on Raill fares today - so I doubt the Labour party will win the next Election

(16 Aug 2016, 4:46 pm)Andreos1 wrote The many millions of pounds given to shareholders will cease.

Oh dear... doesn't that mean that the many billions of pounds invested by shareholders in trains and buses will also cease?

So shareholders will invest their money elsewhere - possibly overseas - making it a double-whammy - overseas countries suddenly get investors interested in helping their businesses grow by investing in them, while the UK transport industry needs public investment by the Labour government, that doesn't have any money, so they go out and borrow it at what are presently historically low interest rates, which are not attractive to today's investors... so the government has difficulty raising cash that way, so resorts to good old-fashioned taxes to do it... which makes us all poorer!

Don'tcha just love left-wing politics?

(17 Aug 2016, 8:30 am)eezypeazy wrote Oh dear... doesn't that mean that the many billions of pounds invested by shareholders in trains and buses will also cease?

So shareholders will invest their money elsewhere - possibly overseas - making it a double-whammy - overseas countries suddenly get investors interested in helping their businesses grow by investing in them, while the UK transport industry needs public investment by the Labour government, that doesn't have any money, so they go out and borrow it at what are presently historically low interest rates, which are not attractive to today's investors... so the government has difficulty raising cash that way, so resorts to good old-fashioned taxes to do it... which makes us all poorer!

Don'tcha just love left-wing politics?

As opposed to the selling off of publicly owned companies and getting a nice little few quid - but then not seeing any more income from that now privatised business, but giving them money in various guises? Like we have seen with buses, trains, banks, elements of the health sector...

Or relying on the private sector to employ people and grow in an economy hit by recession?

Or seeing these huge private companies (and their directors) not pay tax or use loopholes to reduce their contribution? Dickie Branson being a lovely example.

Or lowering tax levels for higher-earners, reducing the amount of money coming in to the treasury.

Or Public services being cut (which sometimes impacts on the bus operators), as a result of neo-liberal austerity measures imposed on the tax paying public.

Quite astounding as to how much the public purse loses out!


Don'tcha just love capitalism?
Remember those bus and coach builders who lost out after de-reg, who then closed and made thousands redundant? When all of the new privately owned operators decided not to invest in new vehicles? Pretty sure the pattern was repeated in the rail industry too...

Magic money tree strikes again:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport...21241.html

He admitted that the Night Tube would take three years to break even and would cost £24.6 million a year to run, with projected income for the first year of £20 million.

Many passengers will effectively be able to travel free because journeys started before 4.30am will be counted as part of the previous day’s travel and therefore included in the Oyster card fare-capping system.

(17 Aug 2016, 8:30 am)eezypeazy wrote Oh dear... doesn't that mean that the many billions of pounds invested by shareholders in trains and buses will also cease?

So shareholders will invest their money elsewhere - possibly overseas - making it a double-whammy - overseas countries suddenly get investors interested in helping their businesses grow by investing in them, while the UK transport industry needs public investment by the Labour government, that doesn't have any money, so they go out and borrow it at what are presently historically low interest rates, which are not attractive to today's investors... so the government has difficulty raising cash that way, so resorts to good old-fashioned taxes to do it... which makes us all poorer!

Don'tcha just love left-wing politics?

Two technical queries:
1. What has trains got to do with extend the Bus Services Bill provisions to the whole of the UK BUS operating industry?
2. I thought the main "shareholder" investing billions in Britain's trains was the Tax-payer.

Its interesting that those who decry what they themselves call "left wing politics", talk endlessly about investors, shareholders, entrepreneurs, politicians, bureaucrats etc etc.    but hardly ever mention customers, passengers etc.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit...ill-16-17/

Details of submission process with regard to the Bus Bill and associated TOR's.

A problem with democracy is that there is always a vocal minority that have unrealistic expectations, whether it be benefits or services.

Who wouldn't want free public transport serving every outlying settlement? - and not just once a week (there are inevitably residents who might be able to work or shop were such connections available).
Unfortunately, wherever there are people who take it into their own hands by buying a car for their own use this reduces the number of potential passengers available to make such services commercially viable (even subsidised services require a 'potential' revenue before the subsidy is granted).

Of course the corollary is that if there was universal frequent public service connections then people wouldn't provide their own transport (well, some would, inevitably, but they aren't those who would choose to use public transport regardless of the availability). 

I recently attended a local consultation for the future development of a market place.
The weekly market is a shadow of what it used to be, and the majority of those who had bothered to attend and submit proposals are in favour of excluding through traffic (and vehicle parking) thus accelerating the demise of the town which is bleeding footfall.
The bus station is currently in progress of being moved further out of the centre of the town, and removing the possibility of access into the centre (the market place) will compound the move to out-of town shopping centres.

(18 Aug 2016, 9:11 am)Andreos1 wrote http://www.parliament.uk/business/commit...ill-16-17/

Details of submission process with regard to the Bus Bill and associated TOR's.

Is this what's called "Open Government"? How do the general (bus using) public get to know about such Inquiries? Even through here, we've stumbled across it a week before the end of a 37 day submission period!

(17 Aug 2016, 1:09 pm)eezypeazy wrote Magic money tree strikes again:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport...21241.html

He admitted that the Night Tube would take three years to break even and would cost £24.6 million a year to run, with projected income for the first year of £20 million.

Many passengers will effectively be able to travel free because journeys started before 4.30am will be counted as part of the previous day’s travel and therefore included in the Oyster card fare-capping system.

To be fair, 'Night Tube' was a Boris Johnson policy, and you could hardly accuse him of being left-wing!

It's difficult to comment without the full figures. Of course it depends on what their initial projections are. If it didn't break even for three years, but ran at an overall surplus over a 10 year period, then it's a sound investment as far as I'd be concerned. 

(18 Aug 2016, 1:21 pm)G-CPTN wrote A problem with democracy is that there is always a vocal minority that have unrealistic expectations, whether it be benefits or services.

I wouldn't say it's a problem, but more a positive that people are willing to be vocal to achieve what they so desire. This is no different to the lobbying of Government from boardrooms, mainly trying to ensure that we remain in a race for the bottom.

(18 Aug 2016, 1:21 pm)G-CPTN wrote A problem with democracy is that there is always a vocal minority that have unrealistic expectations, whether it be benefits or services.

Who wouldn't want free public transport serving every outlying settlement? - and not just once a week (there are inevitably residents who might be able to work or shop were such connections available).
Unfortunately, wherever there are people who take it into their own hands by buying a car for their own use this reduces the number of potential passengers available to make such services commercially viable (even subsidised services require a 'potential' revenue before the subsidy is granted).

Of course the corollary is that if there was universal frequent public service connections then people wouldn't provide their own transport (well, some would, inevitably, but they aren't those who would choose to use public transport regardless of the availability).

 

Trouble is with "democracy" in terms of transport is that no matter how vocal non-motorists are, nobody listens. Worse still, they have no lobby as those who you would think might be sympathetic increasingly deny their existance. On local news in the North West, the lead (non Olympics) story was about options for digging a road tunnel under the Peak District to reduce journey times between Manchester and Sheffield by 30 minutes. In it the CBT put up someone for interview stating that it should be a rail tunnel to take freight off the roads to ease things for the "long suffering motorist". No mention of non-motorists. Doubtless, the CBT (alongside supposedly left-wing Trade Unions) were the most vociferous in protesting about the Regulated Rail fare rise.

I do look forward to CBT, Unite or anyone appearing in the Media to discuss this Bus Services Bill....but I won't hold my breath. Closet Clarksons the lot of them.

As for your (perfectly reasonable) point about car ownership, it is noticable that car ownership in Greater Manchester has grew from about 83% of the national average in 1991 to 94% of the national average by 2011. Yes, most people will drive as soon as they can raise he money to "acquire" a car, but "most people" isn't everyone. For various reasons (though mainly wealth and/or health) millions of Adults in this country don't drive. However, if the money can be raised in the first place - and I get the impression most under 25s drivers aren't insured, so we are only really talking about buying the car as a fixed cost - basic Ecomonics states that you would never use buses anyway. The only exceptions being Greater London, and major city centres where you have to pay to park. Everywhere else, the economic benefits of car use (or even car/rail, off peak) has grown massively in the last 30 years. And that's where bus services still exist at something akin to pre-1986 in terms of frequency, punctuality and journey times.

The other problem is also, the uber-snobbish and utterly reprehensible stigma against bus users/usage. Which, I assume is based on the observation that you get a better class of Yob on trains. Only yesterday, I overheard a work colleague - whose general politics would be described as left of centre - stating he would never use buses because of the "sort of people who do use buses". He owns a car, but drives it to the nearest Station (in West Yorkshire) and catches the train everyday to his job.............promoting public transport in Greater Manchester! I hadn't the heart to interrupt him and remind him that I regularly use the bus. I can only assume his fellow passengers are the most genteel and sober rail users in the whole of the north of England, or he's been collecting horror stories about occasional incidents on buses.

(18 Aug 2016, 8:02 pm)Adrian wrote To be fair, 'Night Tube' was a Boris Johnson policy, and you could hardly accuse him of being left-wing!

It's difficult to comment without the full figures. Of course it depends on what their initial projections are. If it didn't break even for three years, but ran at an overall surplus over a 10 year period, then it's a sound investment as far as I'd be concerned.


I wouldn't say it's a problem, but more a positive that people are willing to be vocal to achieve what they so desire. This is no different to the lobbying of Government from boardrooms, mainly trying to ensure that we remain in a race for the bottom.

That will be this fella?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/...rney-night

The same fella who cut jobs and axed booking offices, trying to balance his books and searched for outside investment to cover the costs of his tourist attraction cable car.

Mind, I will give him some (tiny) credit for taking the tubelines contract back in house - whatever the real agenda may have been.

I wonder how long it will be before we hear the cry, "If it's good enough for London, it's good enough for us."

(19 Aug 2016, 1:15 pm)eezypeazy wrote I wonder how long it will be before we hear the cry, "If it's good enough for London, it's good enough for us."

What about 'magic money tree'?

I'm wondering whether we will see that one again.

Probably sooner than you think!

Update from the House of Lords vote on amendments to the bus services bill.

http://www.route-one.net/articles/Politi...vices_Bill

(19 Aug 2016, 1:15 pm)eezypeazy wrote I wonder how long it will be before we hear the cry, "If it's good enough for London, it's good enough for us."

And what would be wrong with that? Is the an egalitarian democracy which outlaws Discrimination of any kind....or not?

(21 Oct 2016, 10:30 am)GuyParkRoyal wrote Update from the House of Lords vote on amendments to the bus services bill.

http://www.route-one.net/articles/Politi...vices_Bill

Remind me again, what were the concepts and objectives of De-regulation?

(21 Oct 2016, 10:30 am)GuyParkRoyal wrote Update from the House of Lords vote on amendments to the bus services bill.

http://www.route-one.net/articles/Politi...vices_Bill

I'd read about it elsewhere, but hadn't seen the Route One article. I tend not to read Route One, and the standard of that article is a very good reason why...