Likes buses are supposed to, things emerge from the DfT in threes. Last week we had a huge fillip in the shape of the Green Bus Fun and Better Bus Area funding announcements. Now we get “Green Light for Better Buses”…
There will be those who in disbelief read yesterday’s news that some (and in certain cases, all) BSOG will in future go to local authorities, not operators.
I actually saw this as positive, because the DfT paper that considers among other things the future of BSOG enshrines the nature of partnerships within it, over more regimented control (quality contracts are there but they hardly get a mention). A side effect will mean BSOG passing to the tendering authority for subsidised services.
So, for a minute, let’s leave aside the bureaucratic loop that means operators will need to tender higher to compensate for the loss of BSOG so that the local transport authority can claim it back from the DfT, to pay the operator. As Geordie Lad was quick to point out yesterday, was this a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? But the passing of BSOG to LTAs for subsidised services does cement this idea of partnership. Some LTAs need more than a nudge in this direction. Could this be that prod?
Now, here’s the real surprise. What will happen in (future?) Better Bus Areas is that *all* of the BSOG will go to the LTA rather than any operator. This will effectively establish a local fund to help support the BBAs. We know from last week’s announcement about BBA funding that these are now incredibly important. Transferring BSOG to encourage more BBAs will boost partnerships even further.
The problem comes when you realise that each LTA’s BSOG will not be ring fenced (except in the transitional period). This means an unscrupulous PTE could spend the money on the railway. And a council on schools or even roads, should the local democratic process deem this acceptable. All this rather than using BOSG funding alongside existing transport capital & revenue expenditure. And, although the direct loss of BSOG should pay a dividend in investing in better infrastructure, multi-operator ticketing, wi-fi and much else besides—and, presumably, give operators a voice in those decisions—it’s difficult to evidence the virtuous circle that returns a higher number of passengers.
So, all that may happen is simply that operators could end up increasing fares—again—to compensate, this time, for the loss of BSOG. Could this amount effectively to a tax on passengers, whose fares increase go towards improvements on the roads? And will this cause uncertainty with operators who may be less keen on future BBAs?
Still, we’ve said before that the DfT needs to shift away from the automatic link of BSOG related to the amount of fuel you use. And, in the round, the Green Light paper is a very positive one. It recognises the contribution buses make and that buses are commercial. The DfT has obviously listened to much oif what the industry is saying in publishing its reforming proposals.
i Worth a read if you haven’t already
Additional information from Geordie Lad—still chewing on that pasty
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Coming in Threes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
"This means an unscrupulous PTE could spend the money on the railway."
How dare they spend transport money on the best choice of transport for their area?
In a city context *stop* thinking about just buses. Start thinking about a single, overall transport system to get people out of their cars.
If they spent it on bin collection, I'd object - but the railway is hardly a bad target.
Neil
FWIW, I like the proposals and have called for it for ages. If the money is coming from the taxpayer, let the organisation that (to some extent) represents the taxpayer - the Council - decide how it is spent, not just commercial companies.
Neil
"The Government therefore is developing, with bus companies and local transport authorities, guidance on developing mandatory, competitively priced bus-only multi-operator ticketing schemes"
Almost there. Now *include* local rail where present.
Neil
So Neil would argue it's reasonable for a public authority to heavily subsidise a rail network, promoting fare levels which are unrealistic and undercut commercial bus operation? Never mind, at least it gives a PTE something to do.
"So Neil would argue it's reasonable for a public authority to heavily subsidise a rail network, promoting fare levels which are unrealistic and undercut commercial bus operation?"
No. I think bus and rail should be run together as a regulated public transport system with a single fare set, as it is done in civilised places, e.g. Germany.
I care less about whether the buses in said system are operated under tendered contract by commercial companies or directly by the authority. The cheapest option would do there.
Neil
I think this discussion has got rather bogged down in bus/rail integration arguements. Most parts of England don't have a railway service to speak of; most have buses provided comemrcially. LAs will see BBAs as a method of grabbing 'un-ring fenced' cash, if (and it's a big 'if') they can get bus operators to play ball.
Operators might be wise to consider BSOG to be nothing more than a temporary windfall that they're going to lose altogether sooner or later and to start talking to LAs to get themselves the best possible deal.
'If the money is coming from the taxpayer, let the organisation that (to some extent) represents the taxpayer - the Council - decide how it is spent, not just commercial companies.'
If the taxpayers money is meant to help bus users, I would say the bus companies have a bigger stake than councils in supporting bus users. Councils mostly care more about motorists
"If the taxpayers money is meant to help bus users, I would say the bus companies have a bigger stake than councils in supporting bus users. Councils mostly care more about motorists"
At least Councils have democratic representation in them. Bus companies (at the kind of level that gets to decide on spending) are interested mainly in their profits.
Neil
I wonder if anyone could calculate by how much rail fares would rise if the railway received zero financial support from our pockets.Think of it as,oh I don't know,RSOG.
In addition to removing BSOG,fuel price rises may well finish off the very small operators who could have provided a better value for money option in keeping council supported service going. Or is that the intention,as in Dorset recently?
Neil,
there is no point arguing with English speakers about integrated transport. They simply can't, don't and won't understand it.
There is no point living in an English speaking country if you are interested in good, integrated transport. I've been reading your posts on uk.railway for years and would have stayed in Germany if I was you as Britain will never get good integrated transport as English speaking countries don't understand the concept.
@ RW:
No, wrong. Bus companies have a stake in promoting the interests of their shareholders and not a single person else. That's why the north east is littered with single decker buses that are now over fifteen years old and showing their age in a bad bad way. It makes more sense to run them into the ground because of depreciation accounting, rather than giving us buses that are actually pleasant to ride on.
I think it is right that BSOG is paid through local authorities because bus companies are either unable or unwilling to behave. You only have to look at First in West Yorkshire, getting Metro to spend thousands on new bus shelters and raised kerbs and such like only to change the routes months after getting the infrastructure installed. At least if BSOG goes through LAs/PTEs there's some say as to where, when and how bus services are delivered.
The fact that Go North East- a company that have been vilified by the Competition Commission for corrupt and anti-competitive business practices- are so opposed to Nexus taking over bus delivery shows that it can only be a good thing for Nexus to do that.
As for LAs using it on railways, so what? Better than what Stagecoach plc have been using BSOG for- paying out £1,000,000,000 in dividends to shareholders in the last five years. What a fantastic way to spend money that was(!)
David: payments to shareholders are the cost of capital, which is non-trivial for other owners of buses (e.g. if you lease them in which case the money goes to banks and not to shareholders).
The question is really about assignment of property rights to BSOG I.e. to fuel duty. What fuel price ought bus operators pay?
'there is no point arguing with English speakers about integrated transport. They simply can't, don't and won't understand it'.
What I can understand is that rural transport in most EU countries is poor. As for Germany, I met a German girl in Horton in Ribblesdale, which IMHO has lousy public transport, even allowing for the fairly good train service and she was saying how wonderful the public transport was!
What proponents of integrated public transport will not face up to is the cost which is helping to impoverish many EU countries as they lavish money they do not have on super duper trams.
A good thing about most EU countries is that cars are not welcome in cities, if we had such a policy our buses would really shine, and they would need much less public support.
And if companies were only interested in shareholders, they could get into an industry more profitable than buses. It constantly amazes me just how pro bus most senior managers are. And disgusts me how negative most politicians are about buses. Maybe EU politicians are more pro bus, but here you would have to hate buses to support franchising if you thought through the implications.
@ RW:
There aren't many plcs that have paid their owners £1bn in dividends in the last five years. I'd say the bus industry was very very profitable for the likes of Souter, Gloag, Lockhead and Fearnley. They wouldn't still be in it if it didn't make them barrowloads of cash, I don't think you can say First particularly care about the quality of the product they sell and Stagecoach only seem to care about the packaging.
As for franchising being "bad for users", the best bus network in the UK can be found in London. Which is, er, franchised. There's no chopping and changing of routes or frequencies, tickets are valid on all operators and there's a flat fare. Compare that to the commercial market, where over-bussing and loss-leading fares are common on competitive routes (e.g. Oxford Road in Manchester, Alcester Road in Birmingham) and sky-high fares and minimal levels of service are common on routes that are a monopoly. And that's before we talk about the Go/Arriva shenanigans in the North East- I'll eat my hat if they were an isolated incident.
As for Europe, there's a reason why Deutsche Bahn, Transdev and RATP are investing in Britain- it's because they can make money here that they cannot make in their own countries. Germans wouldn't tolerate Deutsche Bahn providing an Arriva standard of service in their homeland, for starters.
You can't exactly call Germany 'impoverished'. Indeed they have prospered considerably since 2008, unlike the UK. You could say the same about most northern European countries, despite their high PT spending.
And why focus on rural services? Even in the UK which, contrary to popular opinion, does have a fair rural network compared to other European countries, the modal share is very low. The comparison should really be with urban and inter-urban networks where integrated PT and cycling has a real chance of affecting modal shift.
"The comparison should really be with urban and inter-urban networks where integrated PT and cycling has a real chance of affecting modal shift."
Yet some improvements to rural networks might increase their use, in tourist areas at least.
A co-ordinated coach network in the Lakes heavily promoted to tourists might well get more takers than the present service - which itself isn't all that bad.
TBH, I think of the UCOC X5 style service (or the Stagecoach Gold type one, but I vastly prefer accessible coaches over buses with fancy seats) as the minimum you'll be able to attract people out of their cars with.
Neil
'And why focus on rural services? Even in the UK which, contrary to popular opinion, does have a fair rural network compared to other European countries, the modal share is very low.'
I focus on rural services because it would seem that if we ever have EU style integrated transport I will never be able to visit the countryside again, as my hobby is hiking I would rather have Souter and Co to integrated transport.
'The comparison should really be with urban and inter-urban networks where integrated PT and cycling has a real chance of affecting modal shift'.
Souter & Co have provided exactly that in Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton and quite a few other places in partneship with like minded councils. There is much more to be done but they have shown we can have the benefits of good bus networks without the huge costs of franchising - and we get the rural services thrown in too.
bRIGHTON is GO AHEAD not STAGECOACH!!
Not a bus v. rail argument but the following wouldn't have happened on a bus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17522232
LTA's should be spending money with partners who are offering a service that all can use.
Some of the commenters here are very glib and facile about ignoring the benefits the PLCs have actually provided passengers, whilst making their profits.
Where I live, the thought of going back to Pre 1985 fills me with horror...In my small town the NBC and the local council who funded it (joke) knew only one word - CUT! Most of the frequencies in my area have trebled and quadrupled since those days.
And then there are the pro-rail lobby...fine...But unlike buses, railways already get BSOG - funded unconditionally at 100% - they, like gas-guzzling airlines don't pay ANY fuel duty ,(oh let's not kid ourself with this stupid BSOG con! It's fuel duty rebate cynically hi-jacked to make it sound like a grant, already diluted and about to become more so).
So where's the sense in taking it off the buses to give even more support to trains? Which mode of transport is more critical for the most passengers each day? Which mode of mass transit already receives the least support? Got it in one...
And for what it's worth some of the councils you hear about, are so full of self-promoting, bottom-feeding troughers and guzzlers, I frankly wouldn't even trust them with the tea-boat....they'd probably only use it for their overseas jollies and subsidised train rides anyway!
Have I lost the plot here somewhere? the taxpayer that funds BSOG is the bus company, & hence the bus passenger. If the government cuts BSOG it is increasing net fuel prices. Fuel duty was 0% of local bus costs in 1990, 5% now, & probably 10%+ in a year or two. By redistributing BSOG the government is reintroducing cross subsidy. We are heading back to the 70s, but at least then cross subsidy was kept in the network. Now most of it will go on bureaucrats & ministerial vanity projects.
A poll conducted last year by our local authority (in relation to proposed spending cuts) rated public transport so far down the list of priorities that I see little likelehood that any of the money that may come from the re-distribution of BSOG invested in any form of public transport!
As a shire county resident and tendered rural bus service operator, I am feeling somewhat picked on by central government!
Should I just terminate my contracts and move into the city to compete on a commercial basis with a major operator, that is where all of this legislation seems to be steering me!
I am also astonished by the continued calls to improve fuel economy (not emissions)! The easiest way to achieve this for the next couple of years is to run clapped out high floor vehicles at 7ish mpg instead of new low floor equivalent vehicles with at least 25% higher consumption!
I can't help wondering that BSOG is going to be used by local authorities to plug holes in funding for concessionary travel, rather than government providing the additional funding needed for concessionary travel. In my view, all the bus industry needs to sort out its financing is for government to put a cap on concessionary travel. There is absolutely no need for people to have unlimited free bus travel resulting in councils having to write out blank cheques to operators.
For those calling for London style tendered bus operation where are you assuming the money comes from? London households contribute something like £800 a year to TfL tendered bus operations, outside of London something like £25 per year, what politician in their right mind is ever going to get voters to increase their contribution by £725 per year per household? Good luck with that one! If it was politically acceptable it would be happening already, but it's easier to just bash the bus company and paint a rather tedious picture of nasty bus barons probably in between agreeing their latest multi million vanity project or p@ssing more money up the wall on a jolly abroad on taxpayer funded expenses.
Manchester had the opportunity to have a public transport network akin to that of London and that was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
As for spending BSOG on rail, I struggle to remember the last time a dafter suggestion was made. Taking money out of the bus network to put into a grossly expensive rail network that already enjoys zero fuel taxation and proportionately higher government funding - madness!
Integration isn't rocket science, by and large the networks exist already, they need decent marketing and multi operator ticket where they don't exist already. From bitter experience the biggest barrier to multi operator, multi modal ticketing are the rail operators who generally view integration as a bit of an irrelevance and ticketing as too much hassle.
Neil said...
"If the money is coming from the taxpayer, let the organisation that (to some extent) represents the taxpayer - the Council - decide how it is spent, not just commercial companies."
I thought the central government was also supposed to represent the taxpayer? Indeed, arguably, central government more directly represents taxpayer than do local authorities, given that most tax revenue is collected centrally.
It seems to me that this simply adds an extra layer into the process of money being transferred from central government to bus operators - therefore adding more bureaucracy and cost. Or perhaps I am just being cynical.
I am inclined to agree with the point in paragraph 4.15 of the document, that it doesn't make sense to pay BSOG simply based on the amount of fuel used - that could clearly reduce the incentive to be more fuel efficient. However, I rather doubt the proposals will go far to achieving that goal - as far as I can see, it mostly means more 'consultation' and 'partnerships' - i.e. lots of talk and probably very little action!
Where does the money come from for integrated PT networks in most European countries? Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, for example, are still very rich countries, despite spending large sums on PT. Integrated transport hasn't bankrupted those countries. They are actually doing much better than the UK.
Stop making excuses and just get on with it.
"David said...
There aren't many plcs that have paid their owners £1bn in dividends in the last five years. I'd say the bus industry was very very profitable for the likes of Souter, Gloag, Lockhead and Fearnley."
Sorry David but this dividend thing is a complete non-issue. As you say the dividend money goes to the *owners* of the company (i.e. the shareholders), so it's their own money that they're receiving and with every payment, the value of their investment (shareholding) goes down by exactly the same amount. At the end of the day, the investors *choose* to put their money in the companies they do, simply because they believe in the company and its management to grow the business so that the share price will increase (even after the decreases for dividends). If they didn't believe in the business, they would invest elsewhere. In any event, the main/biggest shareholders are pension funds, not individuals and not just "Souter, Gloag, Lockhead and Fearnley".
"Stop making excuses and just get on with it"
Hmm interesting approach, there are two issues here, if you are referring to London style regulated integration it requires political will and potentially tax payer subsidy - as I've already pointed out Manchester have tried it but overwhelmingly rejected by the electorate so good luck trying it anywhere else in the country outside of London.
Integration doesn't need to cost a fortune and be run by overpaid bureaucrats at the whim of politicians, the networks are largely already there but competition legislation has largely hindered bus companies from being adult and talking to each other to ensure multi operator tickets can happen and the network is efficient.
But where do the changes leave the smaller operators and more importantly all the CT's who it could be argued provide the most targeted service of all operators but who are least likely to benefit from the measures suggested - how will multi multi operator ticketing benefit a CT running hospital/day care contracts?.
Surely a cut in BSOG will just lead to an increase in the cost of contracts ( school, tendered, hospital etc etc) which in turn means that more public funds will have to be used.
See - more excuses!
That is why the UK will never get proper integration. Britain is so insular that they choose not to look at how it is done elsewhere. There is a pretty obvious template that most civilised countries use. Instead Britain tries to do its own thing.
The vast majority of commercial operators are made up of individuals with years of experience. Most of the larger operators have also turned into skilled marketers.
How is passing control to a bunch of elected officials with very different motives and civil servants with no experience going to improve things.
Whilst we all have our own views on de-regularisation, I guarantee that if Stagecoach or any other larger operator was in public hands they would be no where near as profitable.
"Manchester had the opportunity to have a public transport network akin to that of London and that was overwhelmingly rejected by voters."
Nonsense. They rejected an ill-conceived congestion charge scheme.
They weren't offered the chance of a tendered bus system alone (either a more limited one than TfL, or a Council Tax increase to pay for it). Indeed, GMPTE had no power to offer that.
"I thought the central government was also supposed to represent the taxpayer? Indeed, arguably, central government more directly represents taxpayer than do local authorities, given that most tax revenue is collected centrally."
Quite possibly. But a bus company, which is who decides where it goes under the BSOG system as-is, isn't.
"There is absolutely no need for people to have unlimited free bus travel resulting in councils having to write out blank cheques to operators."
Agree. It was an ill-conceived and not properly funded scheme that appeared to be a spoiler for the new Government to some extent.
"Souter & Co have provided exactly that in Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton and quite a few other places in partneship with like minded councils. There is much more to be done but they have shown we can have the benefits of good bus networks without the huge costs of franchising - and we get the rural services thrown in too."
True. Indeed, one of the biggest ways you'd get an improvement would be to remove buses from "monopolies and mergers" rules and allow cartels to form. The bus competes mainly with the car, not with other buses. Recognise that, and networks and fares unions might start to form naturally.
After all, that's how the Verkehrsverbuende started.
Neil
Update: The Oxford Chiltern Bus Page suggests BSOG will be paid to Councils *only* on tendered routes.
That correct?
Neil
Correct, unless the Council agrees with its bus operators to set up a Better Bus Area (BBA), whereupon the Council snaffles ALL the BSOG! BUT a BBA will have to include SPECIFIC schemes hat WILL increase bus ridership... eg., investment in new vehicles, perhaps? For which the Council will give the BSOG back to the operators!
It's not just 'the wheels on the bus' that go 'round and round'!
"Nonsense. They rejected an ill-conceived congestion charge scheme."
A congestion scheme to fund better bus services, isn't that in part what London has ??!!
"They weren't offered the chance of a tendered bus system alone (either a more limited one than TfL, or a Council Tax increase to pay for it). Indeed, GMPTE had no power to offer that."
Rubbish, if politicans are serious about improving buses in their local area then campaign on the subject, explain to people you can have London style bus operations but it will cost and then see how many votes they get. Given that no political party has won a local election with that mandate outside of London suggests the majority of voters aren't that interested in improving bus services in that manner, that assumption is backed up by the survey undertaken by local authorities identifying their residents priorities for protecting spending in todays austere times and buses come a very long way down the list.
@ Anonymous:
Sorry David but this dividend thing is a complete non-issue. As you say the dividend money goes to the *owners* of the company (i.e. the shareholders), so it's their own money that they're receiving and with every payment, the value of their investment (shareholding) goes down by exactly the same amount.
Nonsense. The shareholders dividends come out of company profits. Company profits come out of trading. Trading comes out of selling bus tickets to passengers.
The majority shareholders at Stagecoach plc are Souter and Gloag. They bought ex-NBC companies at bargain basement prices and have systematically ripped off the farepayer and the taxpayer ever since. They're not interested in quality services, hence why they couldn't get out of London fast enough back in 2006 (and indeed only came back because Macquarie made such a dog's dinner of it).
Point is that my bus pass is going up by 8% on Sunday "with regret" whilst Stagecoach are making bumper profits. Still, at least we're all in this together; it's just a shame Sir Brian is slightly less in it than us poor sods stuck using his unreliable, filthy buses.
"...the survey undertaken by local authorities identifying their residents priorities for protecting spending in todays austere times and buses come a very long way down the list."
Is that perhaps because the vast majority of bus users are relatively happy with what they've got?
I couldn't agree more with what David has said throughout this thread.
His assessment of the situation with bus operators especially in the north east, is completely accurate. You only have to look at Go North East and their recently launched "Say Yes" campaign. Saying yes is in effect saying that the status quo must be maintained for the purpose of the bus company, and not for the benefit of bus passengers.
Pre-deregulation there was a perfectly integrated transport system in Tyne and Wear, with through ticketing at reasonable prices. I for one will be saying an emphatic "no" to GNE in favour of the proposals currently being considered by Nexus (the PTE), which puts passengers first and profits for the greedy shareholders second.
Bring it on!
"A congestion scheme to fund better bus services, isn't that in part what London has ??!!"
Yes, to some extent. But you could have a tendered bus service with lower frequencies and higher fares without a Congestion Charge. It is not a tendered service that is the expensive thing per-se, it is the high frequencies and low fares London has.
"Is that perhaps because the vast majority of bus users are relatively happy with what they've got?"
They might be, possibly because they have low expectations. But that's not going to get anyone out of their car, is it?
Neil
Actually, thinking of Manchester, there are plenty of places where money could be saved by reducing waste.
The Oxford Road corridor operates vast, inefficient overcapacity much of the time. It's a fine example of why on-road competition is a nonsense.
Cut back frequencies and introduce a regulated service of bendy buses with full off-bus ticketing, and you'd save a packet.
Neil
Neil said..."Yes, to some extent. But you could have a tendered bus service with lower frequencies and higher fares without a Congestion Charge. It is not a tendered service that is the expensive thing per-se, it is the high frequencies and low fares London has."
Are London fares low? Or is that simply the perception outside the capital? A one-stop Tube fare is £4.00 and a single cash fare on a bus is £2.30 (Oyster is cheaper at £1.35). In Brighton, for example, single fares are £1.20 - £2.00 within the City.
David said:
"Nonsense. The shareholders dividends come out of company profits. Company profits come out of trading. Trading comes out of selling bus tickets to passengers."
I don't disagree but you miss the point entirely. Any company needs to make a profit and allow it to invest back in the business. It's a publicly quoted company so its competing for investors like any other (and particularly First and Go-Ahead). Investors need a return in the same way that Banks and the like charge interest on loans. No difference.
"The majority shareholders at Stagecoach plc are Souter and Gloag."
Rubbish. Souter holds around 15%. Souter and Gloag don't own it. If they held majority shareholdings it would be a very odd structure for a publicly-quoted company.
Hardly anyone pays cash fares in London so the £2.30 cash fare is irrelevant. The single fare may be £1.35 but in reality a lot of people are free (children/pensioners) and a lot of others have Travelcards where the money mostly goes on tube/rail. So London Buses hardly gets anything per passenger.
But the massive increase in reliability measures and frequency has meant a lot more expense. London Buses also cost more because of much worse traffic compared to outside London, despite the Congestion Charge and more bus lanes. London Buses were virtually at break even before these improvements.
"Are London fares low? Or is that simply the perception outside the capital? A one-stop Tube fare is £4.00 and a single cash fare on a bus is £2.30 (Oyster is cheaper at £1.35). In Brighton, for example, single fares are £1.20 - £2.00 within the City."
Cash fares are irrelevant other than as a tourist/stubbornness/stupidity tax. Almost nobody pays them. So the Oyster fare is the relevant one, and it is rather low.
That London only uses very new buses also adds to the cost, as does the Borismaster.
You could do something rather more reminiscent of a German city (well-maintained mixed older and newer vehicles replaced only when necessary, slightly lower frequencies) for far less cost than London's setup.
Neil
"Bus companies have a stake in promoting the interests of their shareholders and not a single person else. That's why the north east is littered with single decker buses that are now over fifteen years old and showing their age in a bad bad way. It makes more sense to run them into the ground because of depreciation accounting, rather than giving us buses that are actually pleasant to ride on."
I think this gives a highly misleading view of the North East. If this were the truth, then the North East fleets would have a high number of vehicles P reg and older.
Arriva are regarded as the worst of the NE firms (rightly so in terms of quality) but they're probably down to a token number of Olympians and Scanias that are now on death row. In fact, in the last five years, they've taken over 50 new double deckers, over 70 Solos, and over 110 Pulsars and Temsas. Granted, they needed to but that was then and this is now.
Similarly, Stagecoach has invested in many new single and double decks including hybrids, whilst Go Ahead have always invested in their fleet, recently disposing of V reg MPDs and S reg Dart SLFs.
Aside from this, I do wonder on a wider level about the wish among many observers to re-regulate or franchise. London is often cited as the example but both the cost/investment and the unique nature of the capital's transport (e.g. congestion levels, congestion zone, etc)have assisted ridership levels.
Moreover, there are plenty of examples where local authorities have failed to reflect the changing nature of public transport use. Teesside had a Sunday bus network that dated from de-regulation until recently; this may have aided stability but doesn't reflect how our lives have changed in the intervening 25 years.
Also, I remember the days of the NBC. It wasn't the land of milk and honey that some may have you believe, and whilst de-regulation has its drawn backs, I don't think I'd like to see lack of innovation that came from that time.
I've read the DfT document and I'm not really convinced.
There seems to be a very strong emphasis on getting smartcard equipment "out there" but little coherence about how attractive ticket schemes that give seamless modal and geographic products. It's noteworthy that the "threat" of legislation looms if the industry doesn't pull the "all operator" rabbit out of the hat.
There also seems to be a real pre-occupation with getting electronic usage and revenue data. Is this all to make concessionary payments more accurate / transparent?
I really do not see how the proposals can deliver more competition but avoid bus wars *and* better bus areas *and* more operator incentivised investment. I also think the government is being disingenuous in promoting devolution while slashing funding and then criticising those authorities who have slashed bus services to meet Mr Pickles' and Mr Osbourne's ridiculous cuts.
If the government is really serious about wanting better buses then it must ring fence the redirected BSOG funding permanently. I also find it very disappointing that the government does not wish to set mandatory minimum standards for bus service coverage that it would also fund. There are no guarantees here that similar rural areas with similar transport needs would get similar services. Without guarantees how are people to trust public transport services and therefore use them in preference to cars?
I also think there are some interesting issues about how BBAs work and how they would cope if operators were financially forced to walk away from their commitments after a couple of years. It's happened several times before with big groups changing their business priorities. Operators will argue they need that commercial freedom so other than wanting to grab the cash on offer why would they sign up? First need to sell bits of their business in order to restore business health and we've seen Stagecoach's reaction to any threat to their right to do as they wish commerciallly. Good luck to the DfT in making that bit work!
I admit I am a bit torn between the integration / control arguments and those who point to commercial operations which work well and are genuinely popular with passengers. I wouldn't want to lose the latter but how do you fit them into a more "controlled" environment that delivers more service and easier travel for everyone? I'm not sure BBAs are quite the right answer.
@ anonymous
I think this gives a highly misleading view of the North East. If this were the truth, then the North East fleets would have a high number of vehicles P reg and older.
Arriva are regarded as the worst of the NE firms (rightly so in terms of quality) but they're probably down to a token number of Olympians and Scanias that are now on death row. In fact, in the last five years, they've taken over 50 new double deckers, over 70 Solos, and over 110 Pulsars and Temsas. Granted, they needed to but that was then and this is now.
Many of the Arriva buses in Durham, including major inter-urban routes like the X1/X2, are still R-reg Darts and DAF Prestiges and Stagecoach Newcastle have now "upgraded" some of their routes to operate scrapheap R-reg MPDs. My route has recently regressed back to regular R-reg B10BLEs. Yes, they're low floor, but that doesn't make them modern. Go North East are the best of the north east operators but last week on the X9/X10 I counted a wide selection of high-step Olympian/Paladins; many of Go's "new" double deckers are V-reg Tridents cascaded from London.
Post a Comment