(07 Jul 2026, 9:15 pm)Superman wrote Yes, the report says it is affordable, but it also says the data provided by the operators was of varying quality and, in many cases, wasn't robust enough. Or perhaps that's just shorthand for "the numbers weren't as good as expected, so assumptions were made that support the business case". Either way, that should be the immediate red flag for anyone who understands the financial side of developing a business case. The underlying numbers simply aren't robust enough to justify diving head first into something on this scale.

Parking the vision of perfectly reliable buses, service levels that mirror those before 1986, and very cheap fares, which, let's be honest, is probably what much of the public expects based on how this is being sold. The cost is the single biggest driver of the whole proposal, and I worry that as more of these schemes come online across the country, the pressure on the public purse will increase significantly compared with the current system. I don't think it's sustainable, nor do I think it will deliver what people expect, certainly not without some form of additional local taxation. The only guaranteed outcome is that, eventually, all the buses will be painted the same colour.

That said, I'm also a realist. Politics will win here because it's a manifesto pledge and an obvious vote winner. The majority will be in favour because many local people believe this will immediately deliver prompt and reliable buses, perfectly designed routes, better timetables and a transformed network. I'm far less convinced the reality will match those expectations, even months or years later.

I simply cannot see how it works financially. The funding currently provided to operators doesn't disappear under franchising. It still has to be built into the business case. ENCTS and BSOG, by far the two largest funding streams, will still be paid, with the likelihood of regular additional revenue support on top, as we've seen in places such as London and Manchester.

This is the additional funding I'm referring to. Even London's franchised bus network requires substantial ongoing public subsidy rather than operating on a financially self sustaining basis. If many more areas move to franchising and require similar levels of ongoing support, the cumulative cost to central government becomes significant over time.

That strikes me as a major funding challenge that hasn't really been addressed. As a taxpayer, like everyone else, I'd want to know where that money will come from in five or ten years' time. Will taxes have to increase, will new local funding mechanisms be introduced, or will spending have to be reduced elsewhere? Those are questions that deserve clear answers before committing to such a significant change.

Instead, I worry that many of these franchising debates are driven more by emotion than evidence, with the existing bus operators often portrayed as the villains simply because they operate for profit. Whether or not franchising is the right answer should be judged on robust evidence, realistic financial assumptions and long term affordability, not on whether private operators are seen as inherently good or bad.

Doesn't every business case include forecasted financial assumptions? I'm not sure how you'd write one without it. 

As it outlines in the scheme assessment, it is prepared in accordance with the HM Treasury Green Book, the DfT's Transport Analysis Guidance and the DfT franchising guidance. An alignment that they feel ensures that all their "forecasts, modelling, and impact appraisals are not only methodologically sound but also policy-compliant and
consistent with UK government expectations for major transportation investment decisions."

So I think it's worth asking again. If you feel that the underlying numbers simply aren't robust enough to proceed with the scheme, which of course is a valid view to hold, but equally it's then reasonable to ask you to share some specifics to support that view? 

I'd also question the point about the "pressure on the public purse will increase significantly compared with the current system". It's already increased to £123 million for the last financial year. What makes you feel that the pressure would be greater in funding a system that we actually have say and control over, versus the current method of pouring money into someone else's business?

It's pertinent to go back to Ambassedor's point here - "I think the big mentality change here for those on the forum is that public buses are not supposed to return profit in real terms. They create economic opportunities for people to work, enjoy leisure time and stay connected."

On taxation, yes, there are options here. NEMSA doesn't charge a mayoral precept on Council tax, despite it being within the gift of the Mayor. This was of course a manifesto commitment, but there's nothing stopping one being introduced in a second term. Greater Manchester is about £154 on a Band D property for the general fund, which also includes the contribution to the fire service. Newcastle already pay £105 alone for the fire service, so it'd be what, an additional £50 a year?

There's also additional options such as the tourist tax on overnight stays, or introducing measures such as workplace parking levies. Where that has been introduced in Nottingham, it has returned £10 million to the authority. There's also potential to save a significant amount of money in not paying operators to run some of the most ridiculous secured routes, because the delivery body would have the ability to serve those places within more reasonable routes, and without fear of operators complaining that it's treading onto their commercial network. We spend £32 million alone on these services.

Personally I don't have a problem with reasonable additional taxation, if it's to improve lives of others. I do think that we have an over-obsession with 'where is the money coming from?', yet never 'where is the money going?' - perhaps if we started asking the latter more, the former would answer for itself.

(07 Jul 2026, 9:28 pm)Busadvocate wrote I think there is something in Superman's scepticism about assumptions of growth - it does feel rather magical. I also share the scepticism about the prospects for material net extra funding.
But also Adrian is right to highlight how much of the operators' income is public funding these days. IF there is net new public funding that gives any scope for improved services, the current deregulated environment makes that very difficult to achieve as soon as it impinges on "commercial" services. It is possible that Burnham's ideas on devolution will give extra scope, too.
The barrier to material bus priority is surely an unwillingness to cause much upset to car drivers, not lack of powers or lack of certainty about the details of future bus services.
re Centrelink: only slightly tongue in cheek, was this not a case of a poor scheme in the first place?  I suspect it was case of "we want to do something; this is something that can be done (using ring-fenced special funding?), so let's do it" . Do we really think the world would be better if buses were forced to go that way?

(08 Jul 2026, 6:44 am)Storx wrote imo it shouldn't be tongue and cheek. It's just another of a long list of things which means you can't fully trust the local leaders to actually run the service better. It was always setup to fail since it goes away from the two major bus areas (Gateshead / Newcastle) and serves absolutely nothing on the way. It's not like it's the only thing in recent years which is similar. This is nothing to do with the bus companies and is just anti commercial operation for the sake of it imo as no bus route should be using it as it's a detour for the sake of a detour. 

I'm not saying the current lot will do it, but we really don't need schemes like that full stop but then again the 4 councils South of the water have a manifesto of blocking any anti car measures so...

On Centrelink, it's hard to comment in full, as it'll be a trip to Gateshead Town Hall in order to see the original business case for it in full, but I think it's a fair assumption to suggest that they weren't handed millions on a whim. 

Whether or not it's a poor scheme is perhaps irrelevant (in the nicest possible way!), because the fact is that the operator could have refused to use the segregated bus way from day one. There's no obligation for them to so.