(10 hours ago)Superman wrote I can't help but be pessimistic about the whole thing to be honest.

On paper, sounds great, will be a huge political win. In reality, I cannot see the growth they are expecting, not without incurred additional cost (I.e extra resources to run more services and/or cheaper fare initiatives).

London and Manchester both need government funding to work and they have the critical mass to achieve a self sustaining network.

Once a good chunk of England goes franchised, pressure on public funds will dramatically increase. Where is that coming from? Increases in general taxation or a local mayor tax?  For a country who has a huge debt, this isn't a sustainable long term plan, not without extra funding.

Operators will bid with a guaranteed margin, plus they will cost in assumptions for fines. Essentially, they will have a window of failing funded by their franchise payment. Most operators now speak very fondly towards the inevitable as they know a stable expected income is a preferable position.

Maybe, once public control the buses and can see the poor state of congestion and lack of priority, we might see a bigger push, forcing modal shift in some cases to pay the whole thing pay.

I just cannot see this working long term, without significant government funding across all regions which has to come from somewhere.

The North East, without any franchising scheme in place, cost us £125 million of public funds last year. More than half of the operators income came from the public purse. If we're paying out such significant sums of money anyway, then why not set up a franchising scheme and develop the network to fit into your overall objectives for the region.

I think it's easy to say 'where's it coming from?' in terms of funding, but it doesn't really offer an alternative view to the published financial modelling. Why don't you think it's sustainable, what do you think they've got wrong in the model or haven't properly considered?

"Franchising is assessed to be affordable, feasible and deliverable – and offers benefits including significantly greater value for money, increased public influence, and greater fulfilment of the MSA’s strategic objectives as discussed above." was one of the concluding remarks of the independently assured scheme.

On operators, yes, absolutely they will bid with a margin, but they're still going to have to competitively bid against other operators. As we've seen with Manchester, the cards don't all fall as expected. 

NEMCA and the Local Authorities will be more than aware of where traffic priority or road improvement schemes are needed, but the barriers have always been not having the funding and the power to influence the delivery of the schemes. The MSA grants the Mayor some powers to deliver on this, but remember that she's only two years in to the first term of a new authority. They can't deliver everything overnight, and even if they could, they still need a further devolution of power from Government. 

One of the barriers to securing funding has always been the business case. Look at it this way: you want to deliver a bus priority scheme, but in your business case, you actually have zero control over how many (if any) buses will actually use this scheme in the future. Look at Centrelink and Wardley Bus Gate. The former cost £17 million for no buses to use it just over 10 years later. Infrastructure and delivery under the same roof makes perfect sense to avoid this type of nonsense in the future.