(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-bus-cuts-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bus-route-cuts-leave-vulnerable-9246013.amp?client=ms-android-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 Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago.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.

(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-infrastructure/tees-valley-strategic-transport-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.

(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.

(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.

(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!

(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.

(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

(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/2017-03-01/debates/5E418991-0BA5-435A-B7C2-7774074B6F5A/BusServicesBill(Lords)

(04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am)Andreos1 wrote http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017/03/burnham-plans-to-call-time-on-deregulation/

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

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

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

(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!

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

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

(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.

(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.

(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).

(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.

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

Manchester focus, within Buses Bill feature