(26 Feb 2025, 10:57 pm)Storx wrote To be fair can't disagree with him though, for once. I have a feeling some of these franchising plans will end up being costly for the tax payer, much more than a few subsidised services.

I have a feeling the NECA one could backfire massively as it's all easy to get growth in somewhere in Newcastle, but get the same growth in Bishop Auckland isn't happening and without any growth it's just an expense since Arriva and GoAhead make more money from a contract vs commercial so the money has to come from somewhere.

Municipals bus operators yes, as it removes the shareholders but not franchising as it effectively just protects shareholders from any losses and throws it all at the tax payer instead and there's a lot of weak routes in the North East.

I feel some like Kim are just jumping on a bandwagon ignoring that the NECA area is very different to London and Manchester and London bleeds money anyway.

It's not like the franchising of trains exactly went well which this model isn't exactly a million miles away from...

But he's already handing out a shed load of money. 

The 1 and 2, Teesflex, the 101, the service that goes around Riverside Park in Middlesbrough, the X40/41... The list goes on. 

What's the difference between this and the scheme he's rejecting?