(13 Jun 2022, 10:37 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Except it is not such a polarised choice. There is a perfectly sensible solution which has been described on here not so long ago, whereby if the previous commercial operator doesn't want to take the commercial risk, but wants to bid for an identical tendered service, then this should be on the basis of a block payment with all fare revenue retained by the funding authority. Any profits made could then be reinvested into other public services, or further secured services, and not simply line shareholders pockets. I'm not sure there's any legal way in which an incumbent could be prevented from bidding, or that it would be in anyone's interest to do so as you point out they may ultimately submitted the best VFM tender.
To be honest while we have the current basketcase system whereby an operator can cancel any borderline service then submit a low tender to operate basically the same service, collecting the same level of fares as before, but now plus the shiny extra bit of dosh they get from their tender, why would any operator show any social responsibility and not rinse the taxpayer.
Not sure I agree there. Personally I think all tenders should consider fares in them as it promotes growth and the operator who gets them actually wants to run the service as if they don't then they will be a loss.
Giving block payments just leads to a scenario like GCT running services to the bare minimum without them marketing them at all so long term it costs the tax payer more.
There's been some good moves lately because of this in particular the 317, 62 extension and the Tyne Tunnel services which Stagecoach are actively promoting. I could imaging some of the smaller independents would do similar Stanley and Weardale in particular who have pride in their fleets.
For services like GNE though then they should work together and the maximum tender should be the loss for that service for the year and if they agree to that it doesn't go out to tender. If the year goes well they make a profit, if not the tax payer doesn't lose out and they take an element of risk and it's adjusted accordingly every year. It's the best scenario for both ignoring the moral element.