You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.

Skip to main content

Tees Valley Combined Authority

RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(27 Feb 2025, 4:30 pm)Superman wrote This point around reliability, punctuality etc always makes me laugh.

Various politicians argue that a franchised world will deliver big improvements to reliability (amongst other things) but in reality, will it?

Whether commercial or franchised, buses in the North East lack any significant levels of bus priority in most of our main towns and city centres. Certainly nothing that makes big impact. The two solutions are either :- more capital spend on bus priority infrastructure, which local authorities are clearly against (Newcastle City for example declaration that they will never put a bus lane on the Coast Road), or a massively increased cost to the authority to 'tender' services with 25% more resource requirement, which increases journey time and pushes people into cars.  

The system needs a rethink, but franchising is an expensive assumed solution, but it won't deliver.

Operators will build in penalty payments into their bid for a standard London style approach. Ultimately costing the public purse more money, whilst. Equally, no operator will be bidding big money to run a traunch the opposite way around either (i.e. run a set of routes with revenue risk), as the revenue will need to be declared at the bid stage, which will show it doesn't stack up - who is responsible if it doesn't? Either the authority needs to underwrite it, or the operator reduces the payments to assume a margin. I'm not sure this way is even legal within the framework to be honest. 

Not disregarding the various points made, but franchising only works if you ignore the balance sheet behind it. Someone is picking up that bill and it won't be the private operators.

You make some interesting points, but in places like Gateshead, there are plenty of bus priority measures. 
In theory, certain routes shouldn't be impacted by traffic at all as the vast majority of the route, can be and is on dedicated bus lanes or benefit from numerous priority measures. 
The short 21's for example, run in bus lanes at various points of the route between Chester and Gateshead. 

I've made this point numerous times and will make it again. 
You can make all the bus lanes and priority measures in the world. But if the buses aren't going to and from where the people want them to, the buses won't make any money and people will continue to use the car en-masse. 

But to get back to the main point, the status quo can't continue. 
The taxpayer can't keep picking up the (ever growing) slack and the operators can't keep up with their best Oliver Twist impressions.
Change needs to happen and it's up to the legal eagles to create a water tight agreement which ensures the taxpayer doesn't continue losing out.
Like they continue to do in Ben Houchens SNE love-in.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(27 Feb 2025, 5:08 pm)Adrian wrote In reality, I believe it can, yes. 

Operators are very quick to blame traffic congestion for reliability issues, and whilst I accept that it is a large contributing factor, it's not the only factor. Operators have for years published unrealistic timetables, which seldom factor in that congestion exists. We've seen with the Bee Network that TfGM have had to throw more buses into some routes to improve that reliability, whereas commercial operators just don't bother most of the time.

I can remember having to rely on the Arriva 56/57/57A/X12 services at peak times 10-12 years ago, and they were an absolute nightmare. Buses would run in pairs, end up extremely late or worse, turn up and go straight past you because they're full. That didn't need capital investment on bus priority, it needed capital investment by the operator.

Councils of course need to do more to improve capital investment and bus infrastructure, but one of the barriers has always been that they don't control the bus network. They could spend £20 million on a scheme and end up with no buses using it. At least the Combined Authority having overall control over transport would give some guarantee for that capital investment, and we've seen it works in Manchester for example. Most of the City Centre road network was redesigned around the trams having priority, and it works really well.

I know it's a bit of a tangant but arguably one of the best things infrastructure wise would be to open some extra depots.

Bishop Auckland, Hexham, Alnwick and Peterlee are the most obviously places for them as the places they're working from now are useless from an operational stand point. 

Would do wonders for reliability really if you could actually regulate some services which aren't really possible on stuff like the 6 and 56 right now as they're miles away from the depot. 

They're also objectively the areas which are most in need for a better network aswell since they've all had their depots shut over the years and the service decimated as a result and if using tranches would be very difficult to tender out.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(06 Jun 2025, 8:52 pm)Adrian wrote Decent funding allocation. I take it it's the 'trackless trams' previously talked about, given they've only allocated £20 million to that project?

It'll just be their budget. Btw none of this is actually new funding, not sure if you knew.

It's just the old City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements 2 renamed and reannounced as 'new' funding. Obviously the mayors have devolution so all the Labour mayors have happily gave out details what they're spending it on. 

Old Name: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...tober-2023
New Name: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...llocations

Obviously you could have a debate whether the Tories actually had any plan in actually giving out the CRSTS2 funds, but it would be rather controversal if they didn't.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(06 Jun 2025, 9:14 pm)Storx wrote It'll just be their budget. Btw none of this is actually new funding, not sure if you knew.

It's just the old City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements 2 renamed and reannounced as 'new' funding. Obviously the mayors have devolution so all the Labour mayors have happily gave out details what they're spending it on. 

Old Name: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...tober-2023
New Name: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...llocations

Obviously you could have a debate whether the Tories actually had any plan in actually giving out the CRSTS2 funds, but it would be rather controversal if they didn't.

I'm not defending the Labour position obviously, but the Tories actually had a reputation for playing carrot and stick. Promising money that was never ever going to happen. 

Tyne Bridge is a good example of that. Hand over most of it, but then play games over the final 6 million or so needed.

I understand that people will be sceptical, but I think people in Teesside should have confidence in that funding is actually being committed to this time.
Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(02 Mar 2026, 5:32 pm)Kimlfixit wrote Stagecoach with some pretty robust remarks regarding Tees Flex

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local...d-33503439

I think the views shared on here over the years, pretty much match up with what SNE are saying in the report.

I cannot get over the costs mentioned. 

Mind, at the same time, that 13 needs to go commercial.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(02 Mar 2026, 5:45 pm)Andreos1 wrote I think the views shared on here over the years, pretty much match up with what SNE are saying in the report.

I cannot get over the costs mentioned. 

Mind, at the same time, that 13 needs to go commercial.

It was, until last year when Stagecoach declared it was no longer. TVCA now fund it and Stagecoach are milking it. Simple as.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
TVCA cabinet signed off on renewal of supported bus contracts as well as a number of new services to be tendered for introduction in September.

All current contracts are in there for renewal. New additions include the new 10/X86 for Tees Flex replacements as well as various other new service additions mentioned such as Port Clarence, Stainton, Ingleby Arncliffe(!), Longnewton, Elton, School Aycliffe.

The full document can be found here: https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/about/wp-co...h-2026.pdf

Forum Moderator   | Let us know if you have any issues

Enjoy a new life down under…

RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(21 Mar 2026, 4:02 am)tyresmoke wrote TVCA cabinet signed off on renewal of supported bus contracts as well as a number of new services to be tendered for introduction in September.

All current contracts are in there for renewal. New additions include the new 10/X86 for Tees Flex replacements as well as various other new service additions mentioned such as Port Clarence, Stainton, Ingleby Arncliffe(!), Longnewton, Elton, School Aycliffe.

The full document can be found here: https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/about/wp-co...h-2026.pdf

Ingleby Arncliffe is a rather oddball choice
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
If these are from national statistics or counted in the same way as they are there, the bus passengers will be counting each passenger once (passenger boardings in R&C), but the rail data will be counting "exits and entrances" (boardings AND alightings), so one passenger journey is counted twice. Essentially, to make them comparable you need to double the bus passengers, so there are over 5 times as many bus passengers. Even so, the relatively high proportion of rail passengers (about 1 in 6 of all public transport passengers) is quite striking. 
The very modest increase in bus travel is a bit disappointing given that 24/25 will have had the national fares cap and the local "21 and under" capped fare. I wonder what the equivalent figures will be for other areas of the north east?
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(31 Mar 2026, 9:51 pm)Busadvocate wrote If these are from national statistics or counted in the same way as they are there, the bus passengers will be counting each passenger once (passenger boardings in R&C), but the rail data will be counting "exits and entrances" (boardings AND alightings), so one passenger journey is counted twice. Essentially, to make them comparable you need to double the bus passengers, so there are over 5 times as many bus passengers. Even so, the relatively high proportion of rail passengers (about 1 in 6 of all public transport passengers) is quite striking. 
The very modest increase in bus travel is a bit disappointing given that 24/25 will have had the national fares cap and the local "21 and under" capped fare. I wonder what the equivalent figures will be for other areas of the north east?

To be fair the cap down there is probably actually negative.

£6 for a return from somewhere like Eston to Middlesbrough isn't good value imo, and without checking there's nothing cheaper these days. Is it much of a surprise that numbers are down and that's before mentioning Redcar was a shambles and cancelling services left, right and centre

The fare cap is questionable as £3 is only good value, if you're travelling a long distance, but within cities/towns etc it's bad value imo.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(Yesterday, 10:44 am)Storx wrote To be fair the cap down there is probably actually negative.

£6 for a return from somewhere like Eston to Middlesbrough isn't good value imo, and without checking there's nothing cheaper these days. Is it much of a surprise that numbers are down and that's before mentioning Redcar was a shambles and cancelling services left, right and centre

The fare cap is questionable as £3 is only good value, if you're travelling a long distance, but within cities/towns etc it's bad value imo.
Even £2.50 isn’t great but NECA care more about Public Transport than Teeswork Ben.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(Yesterday, 11:06 am)Economic505 wrote Even £2.50 isn’t great but NECA care more about Public Transport than Teeswork Ben.

Aye agreed, personally I wish we'd scrap the £2.50 subsidy and instead replace it with a £5 regionwide bus day ticket or £5 regionwide metro/rail day ticket, with the £7.50 regionwide bus/metro/train ticket staying, with new weekly/monthly/yearly tickets around them and Metro Season Tickets/Network One/Individual Bus and whatever nonsense exists all being scrapped.

Let's be honest the vast majority of people aren't using 1 bus a day. If you have a monthly ticket for work then you'd much likely choose to use it on the weekend, as you have it already imo and it also doesn't punish people who live on hub and spoke networks like Washington. 

Right now anyone who travels regularly is getting punished hard for Bob who goes to the football once a week. It's stupid.
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(Yesterday, 11:52 am)Storx wrote Aye agreed, personally I wish we'd scrap the £2.50 subsidy and instead replace it with a £5 regionwide bus day ticket or £5 regionwide metro/rail day ticket, with the £7.50 regionwide bus/metro/train ticket staying, with new weekly/monthly/yearly tickets around them and Metro Season Tickets/Network One/Individual Bus and whatever nonsense exists all being scrapped.

Let's be honest the vast majority of people aren't using 1 bus a day. If you have a monthly ticket for work then you'd much likely choose to use it on the weekend, as you have it already imo and it also doesn't punish people who live on hub and spoke networks like Washington. 

Right now anyone who travels regularly is getting punished hard for Bob who goes to the football once a week. It's stupid.

How!!!  I have a magpie mover!!!

On a serious note i sometimes get the bus to town to go on the ale and get a taxi back as last bus is around 11pm

Also a couple of my staff get bus to work from Birtly but a lift home so adding 100% to there daily travel cost wont go down well with them
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(11 hours ago)Rob44 wrote How!!!  I have a magpie mover!!!

On a serious note i sometimes get the bus to town to go on the ale and get a taxi back as last bus is around 11pm

Also a couple of my staff get bus to work from Birtly but a lift home so adding 100% to there daily travel cost wont go down well with them

Aye no arguments on the singles, but it's why you need to get people promoted upto weekly/4 weekly/season tickets. I'm not sure how many days they work but if they done that 5 days a week, and the 4 weekly ticket was only £70 per month, it's not a kick in the teeth off the same price anyway.

Now they've got an extra ticket so if they go to the pub, they can get the bus as they've already got their ticket and those extra journeys (if they did them) they'll be better off anyway and it's car journeys off the road. 

Single Journey:
Upto £3 / Journey (National Cap)

One Mode:
£5 / Day
£20 / Week
£70 / 4 Weeks
£770 / Year 

Multimodal:
£7.50 / Day
£30 / Week
£105 / 4 Weeks
£1145 / Year

Is pretty fair pricing imo; the multimodal being 50% more than the single mode if wondering where the pricing is coming from. Those using 1Z Network One tickets having an increased price as lets be honest the majority are probably single mode anyway.

(I'm aware there's some price increases in places like Sunderland but you gain access to Stagecoach or vice versa services as a compromise).
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(Yesterday, 11:52 am)Storx wrote Aye agreed, personally I wish we'd scrap the £2.50 subsidy and instead replace it with a £5 regionwide bus day ticket or £5 regionwide metro/rail day ticket, with the £7.50 regionwide bus/metro/train ticket staying, with new weekly/monthly/yearly tickets around them and Metro Season Tickets/Network One/Individual Bus and whatever nonsense exists all being scrapped.

Let's be honest the vast majority of people aren't using 1 bus a day. If you have a monthly ticket for work then you'd much likely choose to use it on the weekend, as you have it already imo and it also doesn't punish people who live on hub and spoke networks like Washington. 

Right now anyone who travels regularly is getting punished hard for Bob who goes to the football once a week. It's stupid.

Why do you want to go that route, instead of, for example, having a lower priced hopper fare?

London of course have had this for a while now, but TfGM have recently introduced a £2 hopper fare within their franchising scheme.
Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
RE: Tees Valley Combined Authority
(10 hours ago)Adrian wrote Why do you want to go that route, instead of, for example, having a lower priced hopper fare?

London of course have had this for a while now, but TfGM have recently introduced a £2 hopper fare within their franchising scheme.

Not sure it would really work up here because of the ruralality of the network; like Washington to Durham is a reasonable journey but coming out of Durham it'd be practically impossible since it's 50 minutes on the 50. 

If you give it longer than an hour, then it might aswell be a day ticket.

Obviously nothing wrong with doing in addition of the day ticket though like Manchester for those in urban areas as I know they have a £5 day ticket aswell. I wouldn't complain for doing both of those, but not sure we have the funds to be funding a £2 single and a £5 day ticket because of the sheer size of the network.