I was debating whether or not to put this in the Press Cuttings thread, but plumped for the more political thread.

There has been mention in the media over the last few days about how cuts to subsidies (and the failure of operators to fill the gaps commercially), have left communities isolated.

Links to an article will follow, but I found this excellent interactive info graphic relating to the cuts by authority.

http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-bu...-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror....-orange-gb

This report comes barely days after figures showing passenger numbers are dropping. 
Whilst the two may be connected, I wonder what will be or could be done, to reverse these trends?

(12 Nov 2016, 9:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote I was debating whether or not to put this in the Press Cuttings thread, but plumped for the more political thread.

There has been mention in the media over the last few days about how cuts to subsidies (and the failure of operators to fill the gaps commercially), have left communities isolated.

Links to an article will follow, but I found this excellent interactive info graphic relating to the cuts by authority.

http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-bu...-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror....-orange-gb

This report comes barely days after figures showing passenger numbers are dropping. 
Whilst the two may be connected, I wonder what will be or could be done, to reverse these trends?



In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

Your reply ended up in my post, so I've had to quote it like this.

It is interesting to see a number of areas reducing funding in part or in whole.
However, you also have the likes of Nexus seeing their spending increase! That's despite previously tendered routes suddenly becoming viable when the incumbent loses a tender...

Tees Valley Connect's consultation has just over 4 weeks left to run.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport-i...port-plan/

I ends 31st Jan and invites people to share their thoughts on plans and priorities, ahead of the report being published later in 2017.

(22 Dec 2016, 9:06 am)Andreos1 wrote Tees Valley Connect's consultation has just over 4 weeks left to run.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport-i...port-plan/

I ends 31st Jan and invites people to share their thoughts on plans and priorities, ahead of the report being published later in 2017.

I'm guessing this is included in the Buses Bill thread, due to the comment near the end, that suggests "continuing" work with Operators. As such, Partnerships rather than an assumption of Franchising is still a possibility.

Just thought I would share a few links that are maybe worth having a look at.
There are some interesting comments and perspectives on the first link.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1093898464053160

The second link, takes you to 'Platform', a new page organised by the Newcastle branch of PTUG.
https://m.facebook.com/PlatformNewcastle/?refid=13&__tn__=R#!/story.php?story_fbid=1078295195630453&id=815686291891346
Quite quiet there at the moment, but maybe worth keeping an eye on.

(18 Jan 2017, 8:34 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just thought I would share a few links that are maybe worth having a look at.
There are some interesting comments and perspectives on the first link.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1093898464053160

The second link, takes you to 'Platform', a new page organised by the Newcastle branch of PTUG.
https://m.facebook.com/PlatformNewcastle/?refid=13&__tn__=R#!/story.php?story_fbid=1078295195630453&id=815686291891346
Quite quiet there at the moment, but maybe worth keeping an eye on.

Not being local, I can't judge the comments in detail (eg. All buses should stop at the Metro), but its certainly a broader range (and less insulting/abusive) than you normally see on social media. Interesting to see comments about cyclists sticking to the roads instead of using cycle lanes. Here in GM, vulnerable pedestrians would love it if cyclists used either general road space or cycle lanes instead of pavements and footbridges! I suppose it does highlight the desire for a form of "Re-regulation", whilst still including an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some existing non-motorists.

As regards PTUG; as you may know, there are no Public Transport User Groups in GM, although Rail Users interests are looked after by various lobbies (TravelWatch, Transport Focus etc), but if there were, it would be the interests of those in the suburbs rather than the city (sorry, "Regional Centre"), that would be more vital.

Finally, it is a bit of a shame such things are on subscription based insecure media such as Facebook, Twitter etc, so many (including me) would be excluded anyway.

(18 Jan 2017, 9:42 pm)Tamesider wrote Not being local, I can't judge the comments in detail (eg. All buses should stop at the Metro), but its certainly a broader range (and less insulting/abusive) than you normally see on social media. Interesting to see comments about cyclists sticking to the roads instead of using cycle lanes. Here in GM, vulnerable pedestrians would love it if cyclists used either general road space or cycle lanes instead of pavements and footbridges! I suppose it does highlight the desire for a form of "Re-regulation", whilst still including an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some existing non-motorists.

As regards PTUG; as you may know, there are no Public Transport User Groups in GM, although Rail Users interests are looked after by various lobbies (TravelWatch, Transport Focus etc), but if there were, it would be the interests of those in the suburbs rather than the city (sorry, "Regional Centre"), that would be more vital.

Finally, it is a bit of a shame such things are on subscription based insecure media such as Facebook, Twitter etc, so many (including me) would be excluded anyway.

I put a link regarding new MetroLink tender in the relevant thread. Theres some interesting comments from a big boss at RATP regarding bus services in Manchester.

Re Gosforth: It's always an interesting area. I dont think I would be too far off, if I say that a number of the people who live there are of educated middle-class, who generally have a lot to say. Buses, bus-lanes, green space, road layouts etc.
The attitudes shown on the facebook page towards bus operators and integration with the metro was interesting.
There's clearly no scycophancy there!

(19 Jan 2017, 7:21 pm)Andreos1 wrote I put a link regarding new MetroLink tender in the relevant thread. Theres some interesting comments from a big boss at RATP regarding bus services in Manchester.

Re Gosforth: It's always an interesting area. I dont think I would be too far off, if I say that a number of the people who live there are of educated middle-class, who generally have a lot to say. Buses, bus-lanes, green space, road layouts etc.
The attitudes shown on the facebook page towards bus operators and integration with the metro was interesting.
There's clearly no scycophancy there!

You threw me for a minute because we don't use a capital "L" in Metrolink.............although I'm pretty sure that is a copyrighted name for a public transport franchise somewhere else in the world.

It is a repeated quote in the MEN, and I think they are just getting their name known locally.

(19 Jan 2017, 9:04 pm)Tamesider wrote You threw me for a minute because we don't use a capital "L" in Metrolink.............although I'm pretty sure that is a copyrighted name for a public transport franchise somewhere else in the world.

It is a repeated quote in the MEN, and I think they are just getting their name known locally.

Didn't think it did (although it's about a year since I used it). Just kept on with the title of the thread.

RAPT have obviously lost Metrolink now (fixed it), but are keen to keep their toes in the city and going by the quote, are keen for the market to open up. They must see some potential there.

Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit. 
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

(09 Feb 2017, 10:43 am)Andreos1 wrote Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit. 
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

How appropriate that any developments would come via Tweets. Giles Fearnley's idea, I suppose (lol).

Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

(02 Mar 2017, 7:44 pm)Adrian wrote Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

Fascinating - absolutely fasciiating. No, I'm not talking about the content, olr even the cross-party support for the basic ethos of the Bill. What is a real eye-opener is the Greater Manchester MPs making accurate observations (apart from Chris Grayling himself) and impassioned arguments for better, more affordable bus services, and yet NEVER use the word BUS in the Media. All you hear from them in the local Media is Metrolink this, and Rail that. I wonder why that is..............?

Can't be sure, but I suspect a big clue can be found in the wording of this week's latest transport story, about the most "Lucrative" bus lane cameras, following an FOI request from the Publicly funded oh so Impartial BBC.

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

Where's a like button when you need one? ?

(04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am)Andreos1 wrote http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

vote grabbing imo.

(04 Apr 2017, 10:34 am)markydh wrote Where's a like button when you need one? ?

Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 wrote vote grabbing imo.

You may be right, but if there people losing out because of the failures and he believes that the alternative would work better...
It would certainly backfire on his short and long term ambitions if it didn't work!

(04 Apr 2017, 11:00 am)Andreos1 wrote Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough


You may be right, but if there people losing out because of the failures and he believes that the alternative would work better...
It would certainly backfire on his short and long term ambitions if it didn't work!

I agree totally and think some cutbacks in this region have failed as we see " new connections " which are simply old routes being reinstated. But taking back control of all buses, trains etc etc when the council have an ever decreasing budget, won't in my opinion solve the problem.

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 wrote vote grabbing imo.

Funny how its vote grabbing if you disagree and democracy if you agree. Unfortunately, deregulation HAS failed the vast majority of bus users in GM, and doubtless most other parts of the UK. Five years ago, things looked reasonably rosy, but today - no chance. Fares up TEN fold (as of 2 days ago) since de-reg, when general inflation has been barely 170%. Service cuts gathering pace especially in low car ownership areas, and punctuality the poorest it has EVER been - certainly regarding a certain company. No names, but I'll give you a clue, Passenger Focus' annual survey has just found them to be rock bottom out of 53 companies in passenger satisfaction rates for "On the bus journey time". Hardly a surprise. I've noticed appalling punctuality on my most frequently used route 7 days a week between 0900 & 1100 hrs. Last Friday, I had to catch the bus at 0652 (not been up that early in yonks). Arrived at my stop on time, but despite a lack off traffic, it was 8 minutes late (more than 50%) reaching its destination.

The question is not whether De-reg has failed, its whether any Mayoral candidate is willing, or indeed, able to turn things round - and its not just a question of (public) money.

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 wrote vote grabbing imo.

Fancy a candidate making pledges in the run up to election time... 

Brian Souter has previous on making bus franchising proposals disappear through threats or persuasion. I'm surprised he's not waded in yet considering it's his largest bus operation at stake.

(04 Apr 2017, 7:56 pm)James101 wrote Brian Souter has previous on making bus franchising proposals disappear through threats or persuasion. I'm surprised he's not waded in yet considering it's his largest bus operation at stake.

Probably because such "threats" would not send anything like the shiver down political spines that they would have done 4 years ago!

(04 Apr 2017, 7:56 pm)James101 wrote Brian Souter has previous on making bus franchising proposals disappear through threats or persuasion. I'm surprised he's not waded in yet considering it's his largest bus operation at stake.

Looks like he's managed to get Theresa May to do it after all - even if by default. Difference of opinion depending on who is commenting, but with a limited time left, the MEN suggests the Bus Services Bill will be "washed up" (Parliamentary jargon, apparently), as it would take only the slightest contention to stop a bill before the "snap" General Election. As Chris Grayling doesn't support the bill - and why would he, as yet another Transport Secretary from a super-rich, high car ownership Home Counties constituency - that would be enough to scrap it without any time to negotiate. Shades of 31+ years ago, when it was widely believed in political circles that we got "Hard De-reg", due to one person; Sarah Keays, remember her. Still, that's modern democracy for you; Ask Messrs Putin, Trump, Erdogan and Kim.

The Commons amendments have been agreed by the Lords, and the bill is scheduled to receive royal assent tomorrow (27th April).

Fantastic news!

(26 Apr 2017, 1:27 pm)Adrian wrote The Commons amendments have been agreed by the Lords, and the bill is scheduled to receive royal assent tomorrow (27th April).

Yes. It looks like the MEN were slightly wide of the mark as its approval by both Houses left Grayling's hands tied. Apparently, he had said that if he was Transport Secretary at the time the Bill was first mooted he would have put a stop to it.

The decision is just in time for the Mayoral Elections and it is significant that - publicly, at least - all the GM Candidates (even the Conservative and millionaire independant) have said they exercise the option to "control" Bus services in their region. That doesn't necessarily mean franchising, but whatever pitfalls an dangers lie ahead with such control, there is virtually nobody in GM who would claim De-reg has been a success. Certainly not amongst the county's hundreds of thousands of non-motorists.

(26 Apr 2017, 8:07 pm)Tamesider wrote Yes. It looks like the MEN were slightly wide of the mark as its approval by both Houses left Grayling's hands tied. Apparently, he had said that if he was Transport Secretary at the time the Bill was first mooted he would have put a stop to it.

The decision is just in time for the Mayoral Elections and it is significant that - publicly, at least - all the GM Candidates (even the Conservative and millionaire independant) have said they exercise the option to "control" Bus services in their region. That doesn't necessarily mean franchising, but whatever pitfalls an dangers lie ahead with such control, there is virtually nobody in GM who would claim De-reg has been a success. Certainly not amongst the county's hundreds of thousands of non-motorists.

As predicted, the Bill received Royal Assent and became an Act yesterday. However, Guidance notes won't be published until after the Election. Its not clear how much of a delay this will be in the grand scheme of things as presumably, the Mayor's intentions will still be worked on by TFGM (or GMCA) in advance of Public Consultation. If the intention is for Franchising, no one expects it to be implemented for at least 18 months - probably longer - anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-man...r-39709700

Manchester focus, within Buses Bill feature

(01 May 2017, 8:05 am)Andreos1 wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-man...r-39709700

Manchester focus, within Buses Bill feature

Well, no one can accuse the BBC of being either punctual or integrated! This item dated today, states the Bus Services Bill is still awaiting Royal Assent. That happened 4 days ago! Also, there was absolutely no mention of this on the Regional News this lunchtime, and indeed BBC's coverage of the Mayoral Elections has been poor compared to Granada. Meanwhile, there was an interesting piece on the BBC National News about continued cuts in subsidised services. The example used was First's route 267 from Bath to Frome, used by Shift workers and Students alike needing to catch the last bus of the night at 2310. From First's own publicity, it is a single bus/driver running a two hourly service on the 14 mile each way route, with Day tickets costing £6 (mticket) or £6.50 (paper). Now, there could be some element of stage management, but it looked like a good dozen or more passengers were on the bus, which at the time of filming would translate to at least £72 revenue*. That alone would surely pay the Drivers wage for the back "half" of his/her duty, and surely the earlier journeys will be picking up some passengers, even if few would board the last bus after leaving Bath behind. Equally, even if it wasn't quite breaking even, then the subsidy should not be that high. We are not talking a couple of blokes who like to go into town for a drink twice a week here; its a reasonable number of passengers making essential trips.


What I would say about the enclosed article is that Monton is (comparatively) well off in the context of being near Eccles - and is barely a mile from the town centre. Whilst, subsidised local services have been changed and cut regularly in recent years, the "village" does still have a bus through Eccles into Piccadilly every 15 minutes (M-Sa) daytime, as well as connections in either Eccles or at Salford Royal to a combined 8 buses an hour to Shudehill.
All these services are run by First, so no financial penalty is incurred. Reliability/Punctuality is a whole seperate argument though!

The article also reveals a wider worry about just how devolved, Devolution will be; Just as London and the South East dominate the UK Economy and democratic access to media and influential politicians, it is increasingly looking like the three most politically correct districts of GM are dominating this election; that is Salford (where Monton is), Trafford and Manchester (and specifically South M'cr).

*If there is no bus home, they are not going to be buying a DayTicket. In fact, from what the passengers were saying, they would not be travelling at all!