Prime Minister launches £3 billion bus revolution

Bus strategy to see passengers across England benefiting from more frequent, reliable, easier to use and cheaper bus services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime...revolution

Prime Minister Boris Johnson today (15 March 2021) unveils the most ambitious shake-up of the bus sector in a generation, which will see lower, simpler flat fares in towns and cities, turn-up-and-go services on main routes, and new flexible services to reconnect communities.
The government’s new bus strategy, backed by £3 billion of investment, will see passengers across England benefiting from more frequent, more reliable, easier to use and understand, better coordinated and cheaper bus services.
Levelling up services across the country will encourage more people to use the bus, rather than the car, as we build back better from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The changes include:

simpler bus fares with daily price caps, so people can use the bus as many times a day as they need without facing mounting costs

more services in the evenings and at the weekends

integrated services and ticketing across all transport modes, so people can easily move from bus to train

all buses to accept contactless payments

Hundreds of miles of new bus lanes will make journeys quicker and more reliable, getting people out of their cars, reducing pollution and operating costs.
The Prime Minister’s ten point plan sets out how we will accelerate the transition to greener and more sustainable transport.
We will:

deliver 4,000 new British-built electric or hydrogen buses will provide clean, quiet, zero-emission travel

transition cities and regions across England to emission-free buses, safeguarding the UK bus manufacturing industry

end sales of new diesel buses, and we have launched a consultation on the end date today.

We expect to see local authorities and operators working together to deliver bus services that are so frequent that passengers can just ‘turn up and go’ – no longer needing to rely on a traditional timetable and having the confidence they won’t wait more than a few minutes.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:

Buses are lifelines and liberators, connecting people to jobs they couldn’t otherwise take, driving pensioners and young people to see their friends, sustaining town centres and protecting the environment.
As we build back from the pandemic, better buses will be one of our first acts of levelling-up.
Just as they did in London, our reforms will make buses the transport of choice, reducing the number of car journeys and improving quality of life for millions.

The fragmented, fully commercialised market, which has operated outside London since 1986 will end. We want to see operators and local councils enter into a statutory “enhanced partnership” or franchising agreements to receive the new funding and deliver the improvements.
It is expected that many councils will choose enhanced partnerships, where local authorities work closely with bus companies, drawing on their operating knowledge and marketing skills. Others may decide that franchising works better for them.
Because of the decline in use caused by the pandemic, bus operators have already received significant emergency support from the government. From this summer, only services under these arrangements will be eligible for continued support or any new sources of funding from the £3 billion transformational investment. The government will also consult later this year on reforming the Bus Service Operators Grant – the current main stream of government bus funding – to achieve the same objectives.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, said:

Buses are this country’s favourite way of getting around. They help us get to school, to the GP, or to the shops – but services across England are patchy, and it’s frankly not good enough.
The quality of bus service you receive shouldn’t be dependent on where you live. Everyone deserves to have access to cheap, reliable and quick bus journeys.
The strategy we’re unveiling today will completely overhaul services, ensuring we build back better from the pandemic. Key to it is the new deal it offers to councils – we will provide unprecedented funding, but we need councils to work closely with operators, and the government, to develop the services of the future.

Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands, said:

Buses are the backbone of public transport in the West Midlands, carrying more than 250 million people every year. Today’s strategy is therefore very welcome, and will enable big city regions such as ours to ensure buses remain at the heart of our future transport plans. Residents here want clean, decarbonised buses that are affordable and continue to remain reliable and punctual, and that’s what the new strategy laid out today will deliver.

Anthony Smith, chief executive of independent watchdog Transport Focus, said:

For bus passengers, today’s announcement of more frequent buses and simpler fares will be welcome news. For many, buses are a lifeline to employment, education, medical appointments and leisure, and are essential to the economy. We know that the key priorities for those considering using the bus are more services running more reliably, providing better value.
Since the pandemic, safety and cleanliness have become ever more important. We will work with bus operators and other partners to make sure passengers’ needs are at the heart of new arrangements.

It also sets out ambitions to provide greater access to bus services for all, with plans revealed to require ‘next stop’ announcements onboard buses throughout Great Britain, helping disabled passengers and others to travel with confidence. The government will also launch a consultation on new regulations to improve access onboard buses for wheelchair users.
London-style services aren’t appropriate for all rural and suburban areas, which is why the Department for Transport is today also announcing the recipients of the £20 million from the government’s ‘Rural mobility fund’, which enables on-demand services – such as minibuses booked via an app – to be trialled in areas where a traditional bus service isn’t appropriate.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Following on from the discussion yesterday in the Nexus tenders thread, I notice that Shapps has put out a range of tweets including this: https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1...59269?s=20

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

(15 Mar 2021, 9:54 am)Adrian wrote Prime Minister launches £3 billion bus revolution

Bus strategy to see passengers across England benefiting from more frequent, reliable, easier to use and cheaper bus services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime...revolution


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

So much in there to digest, but for me

 
The fragmented, fully commercialised market, which has operated outside London since 1986 will end.

(15 Mar 2021, 9:54 am)Adrian wrote Prime Minister launches £3 billion bus revolution

Bus strategy to see passengers across England benefiting from more frequent, reliable, easier to use and cheaper bus services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime...revolution


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Hang on, are we sure we actually voted in the Tories? 

I wonder what this will mean for the operators round here, no doubt NEXUS will pounce on the offer to basically have control of all of the buses (and promptly ruin them), Durham Council will probably do sod all like usual. 

Great to see it looks like they're making NSA mandatory!

(15 Mar 2021, 10:25 am)streetdeckfan wrote Hang on, are we sure we actually voted in the Tories? 

I wonder what this will mean for the operators round here, no doubt NEXUS will pounce on the offer to basically have control of all of the buses (and promptly ruin them), Durham Council will probably do sod all like usual. 

Great to see it looks like they're making NSA mandatory!

Friend linked me the Daily Heil comments for this. Christ, I forget how backward half this country is. 

It seems like they're wanting everything "turn up and go", so I can only assume they've looked at big cities then forgot the rest of the country exists. Areas where a DRT service won't be good enough, but where a bus every 5 minutes would be overkill and run the bus companies/councils into the ground within about a day. I'm welcoming of the plan as a whole but the Tories really need to learn how to temper expectations, how long until these are "world beating buses" much like our "world beating" track and trace...

(15 Mar 2021, 10:53 am)mb134 wrote Friend linked me the Daily Heil comments for this. Christ, I forget how backward half this country is. 

It seems like they're wanting everything "turn up and go", so I can only assume they've looked at big cities then forgot the rest of the country exists. Areas where a DRT service won't be good enough, but where a bus every 5 minutes would be overkill and run the bus companies/councils into the ground within about a day. I'm welcoming of the plan as a whole but the Tories really need to learn how to temper expectations, how long until these are "world beating buses" much like our "world beating" track and trace...

I'd definitely consider myself a Conservative, but I wouldn't dream of reading that shite. Then again, I'm one of the few people that actually reads a variety of sources (of different political leanings) before believing any of it.

For 99% of journeys, a 30 minute frequency is good enough. The only reason you would want a higher frequency is for the extra capacity (and in some cases in order to make connections with other services viable).

(15 Mar 2021, 10:15 am)Andreos1 wrote So much in there to digest, but for me

"The fragmented, fully commercialised market, which has operated outside London since 1986 will end."

It seems to be enhanced partnerships by force*, rather than the voluntary method of present. I'm not convinced that this alone will repair a decade of destruction that austerity has reaped on bus services, not to mention the 6 years prior to that of an improperly funded and discriminatory ENCTS scheme.

* of course you can still opt out, but it sounds like they're trying to stack it in such a way that its impossible. Similar to the regional devolution schemes/Mayors

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

According to BBC News, The Government are spending money to implement new bus lanes, are there any places that would need this up here

There’s so much to take in & to be clarified but the enforced quality partnerships need to have a nationally mandated framework. I don’t see why a council with a poor track record of supporting buses (Hi, Hartlepool) would be any more motivated to support buses under this arrangement. What would prevent the operator and the council agreeing to *reduce* services to save costs?

As for cross boundary services, it could be messy to get every local authority in which the X9/10/11 operate to agree.

(15 Mar 2021, 12:54 pm)James101 wrote There’s so much to take in & to be clarified but the enforced quality partnerships need to have a nationally mandated framework. I don’t see why a council with a poor track record of supporting buses (Hi, Hartlepool) would be any more motivated to support buses under this arrangement. What would prevent the operator and the council agreeing to *reduce* services to save costs?

As for cross boundary services, it could be messy to get every local authority in which the X9/10/11 operate to agree.

It's should be the North East Joint Transport Committee (Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham) and Tees Valley CA (Darlington, Hartlepool, Redcar, Stockton, Middlesbrough) who should be the 2 people controlling the budgets for it imo rather than the local councils doing it. I believe the Tees Valley pretty much do already anyway with the new DRT scheme all over the area.

NEJTC on the other hand is a bit more messy, but it would be better if it was combined rather than the Metro (Nexus), Northumberland and Durham Councils running it who none have any interest in buses bar how cheap they can do it.

Is there any elections happening soon...? Or something that needs distracting from...?

Pie in the sky as always from the Tories but Joe Public don't know it's going to be dumped on the "too complicated" pile and eventually forgotten about. Bit like the tunnels under the Irish Sea.

(15 Mar 2021, 1:20 pm)omnicity4659 wrote Is there any elections happening soon...? Or something that needs distracting from...?

Pie in the sky as always from the Tories but Joe Public don't know it's going to be dumped on the "too complicated" pile and eventually forgotten about. Bit like the tunnels under the Irish Sea.

I’d say the fact Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant is due to end well before passenger numbers will recover to commercially sustainable levels means that a lot of what’s been announced is very likely to happen

The Government statement on this should be after 3.30 today: https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/statu...21638?s=19

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Just to counter something written earlier. I’m old enough to remember integrated transport ran by the PTE. Happy to return to that. Go North East will defo resist. They will be forced to offer a good service , and not keep chopping and changing every few months. Remind me , how do I get a GNE bus to Hartlepool ? Is it the 230, or x35, or x5, or 55 or 55A? Oh balls, it’s been scrapped.

(15 Mar 2021, 11:32 am)streetdeckfan wrote I'd definitely consider myself a Conservative, but I wouldn't dream of reading that shite. Then again, I'm one of the few people that actually reads a variety of sources (of different political leanings) before believing any of it.

For 99% of journeys, a 30 minute frequency is good enough. The only reason you would want a higher frequency is for the extra capacity (and in some cases in order to make connections with other services viable).

The frightening thing is that, for a number of people, that rag is their main source of news. Agreed though, not enough people fact check news before taking the first source as gospel because it aligns with their personal beliefs (which, often, wouldn't be their personal beliefs if they'd bothered to actually do some reading once in a while). 

I find 20 to be the sweet spot myself, majority of routes that aren't wholly in a city don't need more than that on the whole. As soon as you start taking it down, especially if you want a clockface timetable, you then have half hourly or hourly. Half hourly for me is a tricky one, on one hand those services don't tend to deserve an increase in frequency, though at the same time I find that service frequency will put people off using it for their commute, for example, as if they miss one it's an awful long wait on a cold morning. Same thing with hourly - on current (pre-Covid) loadings there's not a chance in hell I'd suggest something like ANEs 57 should be more than hourly, yet if it was would those in Ashington/Bedlington be more likely to use it to get to work in Cramlington, or those in Delaval more likely to use it to Whitley Bay? It's ultimately a balancing act, which is why I think this statement from Boris quite irresponsible, between being attractive enough for punters and making enough money to keep the wheels turning. With every 20 minutes, you generally find that there are other reasonably frequent services on those same corridors, leading to an increased confidence for passengers that they'll be able to catch a bus easily, resulting in healthy passenger numbers.

(15 Mar 2021, 2:17 pm)Economic505 wrote Just to counter something written earlier. I’m old enough to remember integrated transport ran by the PTE. Happy to return to that. Go North East will defo resist. They will be forced to offer a good service , and not keep chopping and changing every few months. Remind me , how do I get a GNE bus to Hartlepool ? Is it the 230, or x35, or x5, or 55 or 55A? Oh balls, it’s been scrapped.

It actually looks like most operators, including Go North East and Stagecoach, have spoken out in favour of this.

https://twitter.com/gonortheast/status/1...74914?s=19

https://otp.investis.com/generic/regulat...px?cid=273&newsid=1460855

I was a bit surprised by the latter, so I'd be interested to see the finer detail and how the benefits for customers stack up vs benefits for operators.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

(15 Mar 2021, 2:23 pm)mb134 wrote The frightening thing is that, for a number of people, that rag is their main source of news. Agreed though, not enough people fact check news before taking the first source as gospel because it aligns with their personal beliefs (which, often, wouldn't be their personal beliefs if they'd bothered to actually do some reading once in a while). 

I find 20 to be the sweet spot myself, majority of routes that aren't wholly in a city don't need more than that on the whole. As soon as you start taking it down, especially if you want a clockface timetable, you then have half hourly or hourly. Half hourly for me is a tricky one, on one hand those services don't tend to deserve an increase in frequency, though at the same time I find that service frequency will put people off using it for their commute, for example, as if they miss one it's an awful long wait on a cold morning. Same thing with hourly - on current (pre-Covid) loadings there's not a chance in hell I'd suggest something like ANEs 57 should be more than hourly, yet if it was would those in Ashington/Bedlington be more likely to use it to get to work in Cramlington, or those in Delaval more likely to use it to Whitley Bay? It's ultimately a balancing act, which is why I think this statement from Boris quite irresponsible, between being attractive enough for punters and making enough money to keep the wheels turning. With every 20 minutes, you generally find that there are other reasonably frequent services on those same corridors, leading to an increased confidence for passengers that they'll be able to catch a bus easily, resulting in healthy passenger numbers.

The issue is going from a 30 minute to a 20 minute frequency is a 50% increase, that's quite a big jump, and some routes just won't be able to justify it.

(15 Mar 2021, 3:14 pm)Adrian wrote It actually looks like most operators, including Go North East and Stagecoach, have spoken out in favour of this.

https://twitter.com/gonortheast/status/1...74914?s=19

https://otp.investis.com/generic/regulat...px?cid=273&newsid=1460855

I was a bit surprised by the latter, so I'd be interested to see the finer detail and how the benefits for customers stack up vs benefits for operators.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

If the big operators are in favour of it, then there must be more to it that we haven't heard yet.
On the surface, it seems like they're wanting to do over the whole country what they're doing in Manchester, but if the ops aren't opposing this then there has to be something.

Not surprised the operators are speaking out in favour - less commercial risk for them. We're not going to see a return to pre COVID levels for sometime and that will put a strain on the coffers.

Franchising and local control is seen as some big evil and it worked for a long long time up here with the PTE and it worked really well. The concern of course would be Gannon and Co and Nexus being in charge of the implementation. Just look at the utter farce that is the lack of regionwide smart cards or contactless.

None of it really addresses the age old problem of tempting car users out of their cars (and away from taxis) onto buses but it's a start.

I'd love to know who this re-incarnation of "bus bill" this is aimed at? It's clearly not at the humble car user, rather people who don't already have cars. I'd have thought these are the sort of people who would be using the bus regardless of these initiatives...

There's zero pull factors to convert, and there's surely no push factors from automobile manufacturers the other way. The system needs a full re-envisagement top to bottom.

I'm also struggling to think who is paying for all of this. Sounds like mystical magic money trees again. Are we going to pay by an increase in fare? Or by increase in taxation on top of all of the covid drama. 10 years to late to me. All of this (bar contactless) could have been done before. Buses have had GPS tracking for as long as I can remember, "smartphones" have been popular for at least 15 years. Bus lanes are habitually ignored due to traffic levels and just as it's human nature. People park wherever they want.

It's a sorry state of affairs that is a catch-22 to break.

(15 Mar 2021, 3:40 pm)Ambassador wrote Not surprised the operators are speaking out in favour - less commercial risk for them. We're not going to see a return to pre COVID levels for sometime and that will put a strain on the coffers.

See, I had thought this too (data had very much suggested it) however a couple of drivers I've spoke to over the past week have said that there's been a definite pick up with them hitting the enforced capacity on a couple of trips and school dupes very much being required. Obviously even that isn't near the usual level of travel, with reduced frequencies at the moment as well, but it is a promising sign that we hopefully won't be too far off - particularly when pubs, clubs, shops and restaurants fully open back up (and the mask requirement is gone).

(15 Mar 2021, 3:40 pm)Ambassador wrote Not surprised the operators are speaking out in favour - less commercial risk for them. We're not going to see a return to pre COVID levels for sometime and that will put a strain on the coffers.

Franchising and local control is seen as some big evil and it worked for a long long time up here with the PTE and it worked really well. The concern of course would be Gannon and Co and Nexus being in charge of the implementation. Just look at the utter farce that is the lack of regionwide smart cards or contactless.

None of it really addresses the age old problem of tempting car users out of their cars (and away from taxis) onto buses but it's a start.

Less commercial risk and potentially more support for bus lanes.

I genuinely don't get the mentality of forcing people out of cars or making it difficult for them to use cars.
No matter how many bus lanes and white paint are thrown about in wild abandon across Birtley and Low Fell, cars will continue to be there as long as its quicker, easier and more efficient than hanging around waiting for connections and paying a premium for it.

Vigo to Newcastle Business Park and all after dropping the kids off at school and needing to be back to pick them up afterwards. Buses aren't an option.

The journey on the buses needed between Great Lumley and the Arnison Centre is going to be slower than the car making the same journey by virtue of the bus making stops along the way. Regardless of how many bus lanes there may be.

A car journey between one of the many villages in Washington to Team Valley vs the two/three bus marathon which heads off in the opposite direction for most of the trip, is always going to win for those with a car - regardless of how many bus priority measures there may be in Wrekenton.

To see this constant drivel about priority measures and less parking spaces does my head in. 
It's unbelievably narrow-minded and smacks of desperation and a total lack of imagination and creativity.
If something was done about the actual network over the last 35 years, we may well be chatting about something else tonight.
Instead, we are chatting about failed political dogma and operators using yet another potential financial hand-out to fix problems of their own doing.

(15 Mar 2021, 12:54 pm)James101 wrote As for cross boundary services, it could be messy to get every local authority in which the X9/10/11 operate to agree.

This question has just been asked specifically during the Ministerial statement. Shapps said its something he'll be paying special attention to, mocking the fact that services/tickets/fares often change dramatically when crossing some invisible boundary between LA areas.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Martijn Gilbert was live earlier talking about it.

https://www.facebook.com/100009920923911...6394621377

Hopefully this means the absolute s**tshow of a network up here is sorted out

So is this effectively a "Superoute MK2"? Or a half way house beteeen Quality Contracts & privatisation

(15 Mar 2021, 7:47 pm)L469 YVK wrote So is this effectively a "Superoute MK2"? Or a half way house beteeen Quality Contracts & privatisation

The full 'Bus Back Better' strategy document is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...ngland.pdf

But it seems to be forcing operators/LAs to agree (by end of June 2021) whether to go down the route of Enhanced Partnerships or Franchising, both of which are covered under the Buses Act 2017. From what Martjin Gilbert said on his live stream tonight, it looks like they'll be moving towards the EP route here.

I've been reading through the 86-page document tonight. Its well worth a read through, if you've got some time on your hands. 

Being the cynic that I am, I am still curious as to what exactly is in the scheme for all parties, for it to be so openly promoted by operators. I think a couple of years ago, most operators would have walked out of the room if an offer was made to the degree that Enhanced Partnerships provide control to the local authority. Despite it being a Tory scheme, from what I've read so far, it doesn't appear to be all too bad on paper... but as with most things, the proof is always in the pudding. My biggest reservations remain that I don't think £3bn is nearly enough to cover more than a decade of austerity impacting secured services and that the option of municipal bus companies should exist for every local authority to consider. 

As far as the operators go, I think the biggest carrot on a stick that is being dangled in front of them is this - "From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary."

The funding is obviously heavily relied on at present, and I think it'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Even after social distancing rules are dropped. Public confidence in being around others will be a real challenge and clearly that has a knock-on effect to efforts of encouraging people back onto buses. The loss of this funding, combined with the scale-down of the furlough scheme later in the year, would be devastating to operators. 

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the public/local authorities having more control over bus services in the past, so a route to Enhanced Partnerships would be welcome, but I'm somewhat surprised that the approach is to almost hold a gun to the operators heads. As much as I'd like a scheme to exist, I'd want it to be the right scheme first time, and not the quickest scheme that could be achieved in a short timescale. 


The timescale itself is quite fast-paced:

• By the end of June 2021 LTAs will need to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships under the Bus Services Act or the LTA should begin the statutory process of franchising services. Operators in those areas should cooperate with those processes.
• Those LTAs who do not have access to franchising powers at present, but consider that it is the best route to adopt in the interest of passengers and that they have the capability and resources to deliver it, should progress with the implementation of an Enhanced Partnership alongside applying to the Secretary of State for access to franchising powers.
• By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan* and in other relevant local plans such as Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
• From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, to access the new discretionary streams of bus funding. Only services operated or measures taken under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made will be eligible to  receive the new funding streams.

I've pulled some bits from the document that enthusiasts might find of interest:

"Each local area should have a common numbering system, to avoid two routes with the same number in the same place, and bus stops should be named consistently by operators running the same bus routes."
Of course, at one time this is something that we had and it generally worked very well. I don't particularly think that this is a bad thing.

"Local branding that reflects the community and not the operator should be adopted, though successful existing brands such as Harrogate’s 36 should not be sacrificed."
This is obviously something that would impact Go North East more than any other operator, as far as the North East goes. I'd personally hope that Xlines is something that could be adapted as an express brand for the entire region, but I'm not sure how much of a life the likes of the Crusader or Coaster might have left.

"All operators which run the same route should accept the same tickets, use the same route number and be shown on the same timetable." 
and 
"Timetable changes should be minimised and co-ordinated across operators, so they happen at the same time."
It'll be interesting to see what degree this is done to, i.e. whether it's full identical routes, or how it impacts those that largely share a common section. The 21/X12 for example. 

"Common tickets, passes and daily capping should be available on all services irrespective of operator, at little or no premium to single-operator fares. All buses should accept contactless payment. Tickets and fares should be simple; flat fares should increasingly be standard in urban areas. Bus stations should be protected from closure and redevelopment and improved."
This would be a real improvement IMO. Operators tend to point to Network One as an example of this already happening, despite it being a scheme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. There's also the North East Smartzone of course, which was a step in the right direction, but very slow in progress and only exists in areas of strong competition. 
On the final point, I wonder if that will see a return to staffed bus stations with information points. 

"Railway stations should be hubs for connecting services with high quality stops close to station entrances. Schemes that move buses further away from stations should not be allowed."
This could potentially be more services serving Durham Railway Station, which I believe at one time they did. You only have the 40 now with a limited service during the day, so not great in terms of accessibility to Durham station at other times.

"Accessible and inclusive by design: Disabled people must be able to use bus services as easily as other passengers. Making buses more accessible (not just the vehicles themselves, but also bus stops, bus stations, and by providing excellent customer service) will benefit other passengers too. Next stop announcements, for example, will help everyone know where the bus is going and when they’ve reached their stop"
This obviously comes up quite often on this forum, so its good to see that the benefit of next stop is heavily referenced throughout. 

Interesting times...

(15 Mar 2021, 8:04 pm)Adrian wrote The full 'Bus Back Better' strategy document is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...ngland.pdf

But it seems to be forcing operators/LAs to agree (by end of June 2021) whether to go down the route of Enhanced Partnerships or Franchising, both of which are covered under the Buses Act 2017. From what Martjin Gilbert said on his live stream tonight, it looks like they'll be moving towards the EP route here.

It's 100% going to be an enchanced partnership.

https://northeastca.gov.uk/wp-content/up...Public.pdf - They're voting on it tonight.

There's some interesting things in there which I've never seen aswell especially in the new transport plan which is coming which breaks down everything that is planned in the next 10 years from page 67. Then the stuff about the partnership is right at the end, interesting to note that Network One is finally going to a smart card and it's getting expanded to County Durham and Northumberland in the near future aswell which is about time imo.

If this is pursued then it's the biggest change to buses in a generation. The bits that stood out for me are:

Buy your shares in Mercedes/EvoBus now
There's going to be a lot more Sprinters on the road soon. This report loves Demand Responsive Transport and cites Tees Flex as one of its best practice examples. As well as 17 more pilot projects announced yesterday, the report suggests DRT could be used to as a flexible way to provide evening & weekend services where demand is low & spread out. As such, DRT should be integrated into the scheduled network in terms of branding, timetabling & ticketing. I think this is a great way forward & hopefully it sees towns keeping a core timetabled route in the evening and the rest of the town becomes a DRT zone when the scheduled buses have gone to bed. The report also suggests promoting DRT as a safer way to travel as the door to door nature reduces waiting at bus stops. There's a suggestion a reformed BSOG could pay an enhanced rate to DRT services.  

Improving Roadside Information 
The report asks LTAs to use bus stops as 'free advertising', so as well as high-quality timetable information the infrastructure should be used to promote the advantages of bus travel to passing car users. This is something I've long wanted to see. Hopefully we see the end of anonymous bus stop flags strapped to a lamppost with no clue as to who or what stops there, when it may come or where it may go. The report also asks for partners to actively market their services, including specific tourist services. 

Network Changes
I'm not convinced this report is telling us there's going to be many whole-scale changes or improvements to the network. There's lots of mention of 'reviewing' but also it says LTAs may face 'difficult decisions' about the services they run. This almost always translates to cuts. The impression I get seems to be about stabilising the network before looking to grow patronage. Any new services seem to be about connecting rural communities or extending current service provision into evenings and weekends. There's a few mentions of the change in working patterns toward out-of-town employment parks and shift working so we may initially see more amazon-style worker services. There's specific mention of new 'economically necessary' services which provide access to employment.

Road Management 
The report talks a lot about using traffic management in the form of bus priority to speed up journeys. It also moves to make LTAs legally obliged to consider bus priority in future road developments. We've kind-of seen this done half-heartedly in the past where councils force developers to build in raised curbs & bus stops in new developments but they rarely follow through with a bus service to match. Hopefully Enchanced Partnerships will see bus services genuinely incorporated into urban planning from the start. I'd imagine this will be a big part of a lot of future service improvement partnerships - LTA will build a bus lane in return for operator enhancing timetable and buying new vehicles. There's mention of new powers to enforce traffic violations, LTAs should be careful as not to come across as attacking motorists or the while thing will become too politicised. A good enough bus 'product' should attract users without penalising them for using their cars. 

Legal Complications
I worry there could be some heel-digging by anti-regulation operators like Stagecoach. The report now specially encourages cross-subsidy from profitable services to support unprofitable ones. So if an operator is required to use profits from the 'mainline' to operate the village shopper bus I would have thought they would want some protection from competition on their mainline? Similarly, as the report suggests competitive over-bussing should be removed, how will, for example, GNE be persuaded/forced/compensated for backing down on the Coast Road? Then if these partnerships become legally binding, or at least the operator is only ever going to be paid BSOG if they play ball, then we are surely just edging toward franchising via the back door?

Certainly it'll be interesting to see the reports published toward the end of this year to see how different LTAs respond. I'm sure we'll see some overly ambitious plans as well as some fairly uninspiring ones too. It'll definitely by an interesting 2022 for buses, but probably a fairly uneventful 2021 as bus operators tread water to see what their LTA partners come up with.

(15 Mar 2021, 11:16 pm)Adrian wrote I've been reading through the 86-page document tonight. Its well worth a read through, if you've got some time on your hands. 

Being the cynic that I am, I am still curious as to what exactly is in the scheme for all parties, for it to be so openly promoted by operators. I think a couple of years ago, most operators would have walked out of the room if an offer was made to the degree that Enhanced Partnerships provide control to the local authority. Despite it being a Tory scheme, from what I've read so far, it doesn't appear to be all too bad on paper... but as with most things, the proof is always in the pudding. My biggest reservations remain that I don't think £3bn is nearly enough to cover more than a decade of austerity impacting secured services and that the option of municipal bus companies should exist for every local authority to consider. 

As far as the operators go, I think the biggest carrot on a stick that is being dangled in front of them is this - "From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary."

The funding is obviously heavily relied on at present, and I think it'll remain the case for the foreseeable future. Even after social distancing rules are dropped. Public confidence in being around others will be a real challenge and clearly that has a knock-on effect to efforts of encouraging people back onto buses. The loss of this funding, combined with the scale-down of the furlough scheme later in the year, would be devastating to operators. 

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of the public/local authorities having more control over bus services in the past, so a route to Enhanced Partnerships would be welcome, but I'm somewhat surprised that the approach is to almost hold a gun to the operators heads. As much as I'd like a scheme to exist, I'd want it to be the right scheme first time, and not the quickest scheme that could be achieved in a short timescale. 


The timescale itself is quite fast-paced:

• By the end of June 2021 LTAs will need to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships under the Bus Services Act or the LTA should begin the statutory process of franchising services. Operators in those areas should cooperate with those processes.
• Those LTAs who do not have access to franchising powers at present, but consider that it is the best route to adopt in the interest of passengers and that they have the capability and resources to deliver it, should progress with the implementation of an Enhanced Partnership alongside applying to the Secretary of State for access to franchising powers.
• By the end of October 2021 each LTA will need to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan. Each plan will need to be updated annually and reflected in the authority’s Local Transport Plan* and in other relevant local plans such as Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).
• From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, to access the new discretionary streams of bus funding. Only services operated or measures taken under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made will be eligible to  receive the new funding streams.

I've pulled some bits from the document that enthusiasts might find of interest:

"Each local area should have a common numbering system, to avoid two routes with the same number in the same place, and bus stops should be named consistently by operators running the same bus routes."
Of course, at one time this is something that we had and it generally worked very well. I don't particularly think that this is a bad thing.

"Local branding that reflects the community and not the operator should be adopted, though successful existing brands such as Harrogate’s 36 should not be sacrificed."
This is obviously something that would impact Go North East more than any other operator, as far as the North East goes. I'd personally hope that Xlines is something that could be adapted as an express brand for the entire region, but I'm not sure how much of a life the likes of the Crusader or Coaster might have left.

"All operators which run the same route should accept the same tickets, use the same route number and be shown on the same timetable." 
and 
"Timetable changes should be minimised and co-ordinated across operators, so they happen at the same time."
It'll be interesting to see what degree this is done to, i.e. whether it's full identical routes, or how it impacts those that largely share a common section. The 21/X12 for example. 

"Common tickets, passes and daily capping should be available on all services irrespective of operator, at little or no premium to single-operator fares. All buses should accept contactless payment. Tickets and fares should be simple; flat fares should increasingly be standard in urban areas. Bus stations should be protected from closure and redevelopment and improved."
This would be a real improvement IMO. Operators tend to point to Network One as an example of this already happening, despite it being a scheme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. There's also the North East Smartzone of course, which was a step in the right direction, but very slow in progress and only exists in areas of strong competition. 
On the final point, I wonder if that will see a return to staffed bus stations with information points. 

"Railway stations should be hubs for connecting services with high quality stops close to station entrances. Schemes that move buses further away from stations should not be allowed."
This could potentially be more services serving Durham Railway Station, which I believe at one time they did. You only have the 40 now with a limited service during the day, so not great in terms of accessibility to Durham station at other times.

"Accessible and inclusive by design: Disabled people must be able to use bus services as easily as other passengers. Making buses more accessible (not just the vehicles themselves, but also bus stops, bus stations, and by providing excellent customer service) will benefit other passengers too. Next stop announcements, for example, will help everyone know where the bus is going and when they’ve reached their stop"
This obviously comes up quite often on this forum, so its good to see that the benefit of next stop is heavily referenced throughout. 

Interesting times...

To me, it seems too good to be true.