Geordie Lad continues his look at contractual developments. Omnibuses welcomes contributions
It should come as no surprise to industry watchers that Go North East has mounted a robust campaign (i Say Yes Now) to counter the proposal from Nexus PTE and the Tyne & Wear ITA to seek to introduce a quality contract scheme for the county. The late Peter Huntley had gone on the offensive as soon as the proposal became public, last November. He didn’t pull his punches. He referred to the scheme as a “cynical plan to grab power”. He wondered whether such central planning was Britain of 2011… or North Korea of 1971.
“They insult users by telling them that they are too stupid to understand brands & cheap ticket offers and tell them they need a remote central planning authority to tell them what bus services they can have”—Peter Huntley, November 2011Details of the contract scheme remain sketchy. Although nothing has been confirmed, industry insiders believe that the scheme will consist of just six contracts for groups of routes. Presuming that European procurement rules apply, the way could be open for any group to bid for a slice of the action. Little wonder, then, that the three main operators are concerned for their businesses, some of the very businesses sold off by Nexus itself.
While Nexus talks vaguely of ‘network benefits’, there is considerable concern about the fate of ‘cross boundary’ services running into Tyne & Wear from County Durham and Northumberland. Could Nexus take control of services running into Tyne & Wear from as far afield as Carlisle, Berwick upon Tweed and Middlesbrough? Sixty per cent of Northumberland’s bus services run into Tyne & Wear. If the ‘incumbent’ operator fails to win the Nexus contract for these, might he find that depots providing local routes in such places as Blyth, Ashington and Hexham are no longer viable? Could the Nexus QC scheme have serious implications for public transport funding in Northumberland and Durham, already hugely burdened with the cost of rural transport?
Go North East is already a ‘partnership’ player. There’s a very successful partnership in East Gateshead that’s seen improved services, increased usage and infrastructure improvements—a definite ‘win-win’ all round. If they wish to defeat the Nexus plan, the other bus operators might have to demonstrate their willingness to play ball, too. Watch this space.Geordie Lad–Omnibuses correspondent doon the Bigg Market
i Say Yes Now from Go North East
38 comments:
The concern on the effect on cross-border services and their associated local ones is a very real issue. If you look at the network in north surrey where many routes have historically run into London (some of the largest towns in historical Surrey ended up in London - Kingston, Sutton & Croydon - and the county hall is in Kingston) after TfL began its more subsidised politically driven management of bus services around 2000 the cross-border services from Surrey to London were decimated. Long-standing services from Guildford, Woking, Redhill & Crawley to these places have disappeared or been severley cut back and others have been taken over by TfL leading to London taxpayers subsidising buses as far as Dorking & Redhill. Any route that paralled established London corridors for any length has gone (often cut back in a much reduced form to the first decent sized settlement on the Surrey side of the border (the only survivors either leaving London quickley or due to serving stretches of road in London others don't were taken on by TfL). Alongside this the TfL requirements on vehicle spec to be able to be paid for accepting TfL tickets made marginal services uneconomic (either through the cost of the bus or the loss of local passengers on the way into London) pushing up the amount of subsidy needed by Surrey to fund important services from Surrey towns and villages to their nearest large centre of shopping and employment.
This cutting back on the trunk routes lead to a pull back on the local services where these services ran from, excerbated by the difficulty in recruiting drivers when competing against the subsidised wages of London Bus drivers (and in North West Surrey the high wages offered for working at Heathrow) led to wholesale withdrawals and the need for the council to step in and fund previously commercial services that the area has never fully recovered from.
Surrey was the worse effected though I believe Essex has seen a similar decline, Herts & Kent have seen less due to the large towns on the border ending up on the county side of it whilst Berks & Bucks the town (Uxbridge) is so close to the border for it to not be a great factor.
Surely the TfL buses in Surrey are far better than the ones they replaced? 405, 406, 465 etc. now successful and popular routes.
Arriva in north and east Surrey was particularly poor. They were the ones who ran away first. TfL just stepped in when Arriva deregistered so many routes. If Metrobus had been operating at the time then maybe the TfL takeover would not have happened. Metrobus and TfL co-exist quite happily in the Redhill area.
You make it sound like deregulation is normal. Almost nowhere outside the UK has deregulation. The norm is state ownership but London-style tendering is becoming more common, especially in the Netherlands where most buses are now tendered.
The current tick & fares system are a totalmess and are poorly advertised in fact even the drivers are not normally aware of them. Something needs to be done about the mess.
TRying to find out on what services and what companies buses is more of a blackart than anything elese. It is almost impossible to find that information out and frequently the drivers seem to make up their own rules. It is a total mess.
Peter Huntley was right, it's pure empire building. Local authorities/PTEs/ITAs etc have no *need* to get involved in the provision of commercial bus services. It adds yet more costs and bureaucracy and takes away the incentive for bus operators to innovate, something that the likes of Go-Ahead and Stagecoach excel at.
The country is in a crisis: there needs to be a wholesale *reduction* in red tape/interference/costs/tax and more before the economy can start to grow properly. Heaping more and more regulation and costs onto business (not just bus companies) is inflationary and totally counter-productive, and that's before one considers the green issues. I'm no greeny/environmentalist but it's abundantly clear that bus companies should be incentivised and encouraged to grow their businesses both to help kick-start the economy and reduce car dependence. Quality Contract schemes are not the way to do it. BSOG is ideal for starters, the problem is that whatever is done, there will always be a fight against the perception of 'greedy private bus companies milking the taxpayer' and politicians enviously eyeing up the way London bus services operate without understanding the huge costs and the rationales involved.
Yes the cross boarder services and those around the fringes of London have indeed been decimated. It is also a mess with tickets usually being only accepted on one companies services but not always and sometimes only in the evening or on sUnday or even maybe depending on the direction of the wind
Anon at 10:12 - you make some very sweeping generalisations which I, for one, don't recognise. Can we have some examples and locations please?
Are Dutch and Swiss buses better or worse than British buses?
The Netherlands and Switzerland don't have deregulation.
Ref: Anon 0951
The service may be better if TfL run the buses as far as you live, but for instance you can't get direct from south of Epsom to Croydon or Sutton (as services that used to be half-hourly now no longer exists and certain of the routes between Epsom & Croydon have hardly seen an improvement). Unsurprisingly TfL are focused on London and once outside it are fairly ruthless in how they serve people but what they do provide, largely on main roads, makes it harder for county operators to cover the gaps and the TfL requirements limit what buses can be used or what passengers can be carried making it harder still. Arriva did pull out, a combination of a difficulty in recruiting drivers and the un-level playing field of subsidised fares set at about a quarter of commercial fares levels made it impossible for commercial operations to survive where paralleled by a TfL funded service. Metrobus may co-exist but that is largely becuase almost all services in East Surrey are paid for by either TfL or Surrey County Council - it is surprising the number/type of services in that area that are council supported.
As for the concept of deregulation and its lack of spread, most places in the world also don't have anything resembling a useable interurban/country bus network in most places so don't have the issue of cross-boundary services and unintended consequences. Also where they do all services are funded by their local authorities but no shire council is even considering franchising (they simply can't afford it even if they wanted it) so this problem will still occur. We can't have a system that mixes everything without these issues occurring, either everything is supported by the taxpayer (as occurs elsewhere in Europe), and there has been no indication of UK taxpayers being willing to pay what is required, or we remain with a deregulated system and accept we will get what is profitable.
London & Europe has shown that regulation is more expensive than a deregulated market is. They may have the potential to be better (though having dealt with the passenger transport units of a number of local authorities I'm not sure I would trust them to organise the proverbial drunken party in a brewery) but they will also be more expensive to achieve the same aims. You pay your money and make your choice and the UK has chosen the cheaper option and no matter what PTEG may claim they can't franchise and do it cheaply (TfL themselves have said over and over you can't do what they do on the cheap), London only became the jewel in the crown it is when it started paying, before when they tendered on the basis of minimal subsidy to the network London was remarkeably rock-like.
Metrobus have actually converted some of their East Surrey routes to commercial operation. They succeed where Arriva fail. Same goes for their services in Crawley and Horsham.
You obviously haven't been to the Netherlands. It is possible to travel across the country using inter-urban buses only.
British people think deregulation is the only way because they are ignorant about what happens outside the UK. Unless you have extensively travelled in the Netherlands by bus you are unable to comment on their service.
Each province in the Netherlands is in charge of its own tendering, but they still have cross boundary routes.
Germany is particularly keen on PTE areas (Verkehrsverbund) and they often border each other. They do have cross border arrangements.
But what is more important is how buses integrate into trains. The Dutch and especially the Swiss are masters at this.
Anonymous said...
"You obviously haven't been to the Netherlands. It is possible to travel across the country using inter-urban buses only."
The Netherlands is generally regarded as being the only country in Europe that has a rural/interurban bus network that is similar to that of the UK (in terms of density of service coverage), so it is not typical of Europe as a whole. The population density will also have a bearing on the level of service; in that respect, the Netherlands is more densely populated than the UK.
I think the PTAs should be abolished.
I seem to recall that they were kept going after the 1985 Act to funnel money to the rail industry. Now we have rail franchising to do that.
PTAs are looking for something to do by interfering in the bus industry.
So what is your point? The Netherlands is very similar to the UK, so what is possible in NL should be possible in the UK.
The UK also has the advantage of much less competition from bikes than NL. Outside major cities, buses are hardly used for local trips in NL because of the popularity of cycling, but they still manage to have a very high quality urban and inter-urban network.
I can see Nexus' point of view. The problem is that there is no single public transport network serving Tyne & Wear. There is a metro and three separate bus networks thanks to deregulation.
Nowhere else in the developed world does it like this. If Nexus' plans are a step too far for the operators then maybe they need to start working together with Nexus to follow the Oxford model.
This would make greater sense to passengers compared to the current offering. There's little direct competition between the big three in Tyne & Wear anyway as each operator sticks to it's own 'territory'. So in effect the issue of cross boundary services is already there for the passenger who lives on a Stagecoach route but wants to travel into GNE territory and has to change bus and pay again.
A Quality Partnership offering a single network and ticketing should be the aim.
Passengers just want to get where they want to be. Waiting time is a cost on passengers. They want to be able to get on the first bus that comes, not wait for the one that their special discount ticket is valid on.
Tyne and Wear had a particularly integrated network prior to 1986, almost comparable to the European standard.
"Are Dutch and Swiss buses better or worse than British buses?"
I would say they are less innovative, but more "quietly competent".
The question is what would I want. I reckon in a city network I want (in no particular order)...
1. Completely integrated ticketing
2. As good punctuality and reliability as possible
3. Good and consistent standard of vehicles
4. Correct passenger information
5. Integrated, connectional timetables, particularly with other modes e.g. rail
6. A sense of local buy-in and "ownership" rather than "the big evil bus company".
7. Consistency, rather than changes every 56 days. At most two timetable changes a year would make sense, as on the railway. People need to be able to plan their lives around local bus services.
I would say all of those are best delivered by a German-model regulated Verkehrsverbund. I care less about whether the individual services should be tendered or state-run - I would decide that one on cost alone.
For longer-distance or inter-regional services, I see a greater need for innovation, so I would see those remaining unregulated.
Neil
One thing the proponents of regulation will not face up to is that UK politicians outside London simply will not fund buses properly. They largely dislike buses. They will not even have a level playing field with trains and planes when it comes to fuel duty
Secondly they will not restrict cars in the same way ans London and continental countries do.
With deregulation bus copmpanies run the biggest network that the fares income allows and they try to promote patronage. Some are not very good yet but they are all getting better. I see no evidence whatsoever that political and public authoriites are doing anything other than getting worse and more expensive
Think about your local council services - surely you do not want buses run as badly or as expensively?
"PTAs are looking for something to do by interfering in the bus industry."
Rubbish. If the bus network was not "interfered with", it would stand alone, and not integrate fares across companies, nor with railway networks.
On road competition is an utter, utter nonsense. The car is the competition.
"The UK also has the advantage of much less competition from bikes than NL"
Advantage? Not at all. The bicycle, and Dutch-style cycling infrastructure rather than a London-style free for all, need to play a *far* greater part in local transport needs in the UK, IMO.
Neil
Of course it is preferable to have Dutch style cycle infrastructure. See www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com
When I said 'advantage', I meant that buses in the UK should be even cheaper to subsidise than in the Netherlands, as the potential market for bus travel in the UK is much greater as in the UK people are scared from cycling due to a lack of quality cycle infrastructure. So there is even less excuse for poor buses in the UK.
If the cycle rate in the UK was as high in the Netherlands, there would be very little bus use in most towns, meaning that deregulation would become impossible as local buses would be not be commercially viable.
There is a need for a body to cordinate services within a given area. At present we end up with just a number of services with little to no cordination even when with the same operator. You frequently end up with areas over bussed and many under bussed
It would probably be better to keep local councils out of it as they go in for empire building
If an areas has its service cordinated the starting point should be the current commercial network. Any changes should improve service but not increase costs. It could also include thing like defining the garage it operates from to minimize dead running and costs
All services would run under tender including all commercial ones. In most cases it would be at zero cost and in some case the operator would pay for the tender for a route or routes.
Ref: Neil 07 March, 2012 16:06
" "PTAs are looking for something to do by interfering in the bus industry."
Rubbish. If the bus network was not "interfered with", it would stand alone, and not integrate fares across companies, nor with railway networks."
There appears to be little demand for these things in the UK.
We have had buses and trains privately and publicly owned, We have bus companies part owned by train companies, and train companies owned by bus companies.
At no time have the things you mention been implemented in any significant way in the UK, regardless of what happens elsewhere. That's not intended as a "not invented here" comment, but rather an observation that we just don't seem to have seen it as important.
"At no time have the things you mention been implemented in any significant way in the UK, regardless of what happens elsewhere. That's not intended as a "not invented here" comment, but rather an observation that we just don't seem to have seen it as important."
There was a reasonable attempt at integration in the PTE areas before 1986, and TfL do certain aspects today.
The vested interests prevent progress on integration, as well as a complete ignorance of what happens outside the UK, due to the usual insular nature of the Anglosphere.
Anonymous @ 1622 said...
"There is a need for a body to cordinate services within a given area. At present we end up with just a number of services with little to no cordination even when with the same operator. You frequently end up with areas over bussed and many under bussed"
There can be an entity co-ordinating multi-operator tickets, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. In fact it already happens in some areas, Explorer in the SE for example but once you get into network design and tendering costs will inevitably increase and the only people who end up paying the extra are taxpayers and bus users. Do we want that?
BTW what is 'under bussed'? Areas with little or no demand presumably, otherwise they'd have a better service already. Why should additional resources be put into routes where demand is low and expansion unlikely? If there was a perceived opportunity, operators would already be working on innovations. Having a body forcing extra buses in areas of little demand shows exactly why regulation and interference ends up costing more money.
"If there was a perceived opportunity, operators would already be working on innovations. Having a body forcing extra buses in areas of little demand shows exactly why regulation and interference ends up costing more money."
Not everywhere is served by Metrobus or Stagecoach, and most companies are actually risk averse and unwilling to develop difficult markets such as wealthy suburbs.
And why shouldn't there be good public transport to areas which aren't full of captive passengers?
“And why shouldn't there be good public transport to areas which aren't full of captive passengers?”
Because no one is willing to pay for this!
The commercial network could be expanded massively with supportive policies like
Park and Ride
Bus priority
100% BSOG
Parking controls
Enforced safer driving – many drivers would have to drop out of driving if they had to drive safely!
Companies try expand patronage as a 10% uplift doubles profit margins.
But it is a hard task especially when the politicians only want to pander to motorists .
"Because no one is willing to pay for this!"
That is not an acceptable excuse for a developed country. That means the UK isn't civilised. I see no reason to live in the UK while this prevails.
Anonymous said...
"That is not an acceptable excuse for a developed country. That means the UK isn't civilised. I see no reason to live in the UK while this prevails."
Huh? See you, then! Do you think money grows on trees? This sort of pandering to everyone and not living within our means is why we're in such a mess.
The Netherlands and Switzerland have much better economies than the UK, yet they spend a large amount on their public transport and cycling.
I fully support both the Tyne and Wear PTA and Nexus.
Go North East under the late Peter Huntley and Arriva North East, were caught red-handed by the Competition Commission effectively operating as a cartel which is illegal, by way of an agreement not to encroach on each others "territories." This stifles competition which was not the original intention of deregulation.
If quality contracts and franchising are the answer to the problem of anti-competitive practices, then I fully support these measures.
If Go North East, Stagecoach and Arriva don't want something imposed on them, perhaps they should sort themselves out before Nexus have to do it for them.
Tyne and Wear used to have one of the most integrated networks in the country. You could buy one single ticket from any place in Tyne and Wear to any other place in Tyne and Wear, using any combination of bus, Metro, train and ferry. This Transfare scheme has become more and more diluted under pressure from the bus companies and now it is only valid for a bus/metro/ferry interchange. If you're travelling from one bus to another bus you now have to pay twice.
This would be fine if there was any sort of on-road competition, but there isn't. Arriva stick to North Tyneside, Go-Ahead stick to south of Tyne services and Stagecoach stick to the ex-corporation services. So if you have to travel from one "patch" to another "patch" you get clobbered for two bus fares. A journey from my house to Blaydon, a distance of about two miles, costs as much on the bus as a Transfare to the far end of Sunderland (15 miles away) does because I need to use two operators.
And that's before we talk about the fact that Nexus only have the traction they do now because of Huntley's proven corrupt and anti-competitive practices. Something that seems to still be ongoing in County Durham, given that Go Ahead are taking a great interest in competing against Arriva on their most profitable routes in Bishop Auckland, but without going to the trouble of operating a proper network.
The simple fact is that bus networks in Tyne and Wear are a joke and a mess. I don't care whether Go Ahead fix it or whether Nexus do, just as long as someone does. The current situation cannot continue.
given that Go Ahead are taking a great interest in competing against Arriva on their most profitable routes in Bishop Auckland....
The competition won't last - it never does. I can't work out why GNE are competing in Bishop Auckland six years after they sold most of their services to Arriva, closed the depot and pulled out of the town. Maybe it is to try and fool the authorities that there is some "real" competition?!
I couldn't agree more with David's comments in his post.
Anon, I don't think it will last either. I think it is there to a) destabilise Arriva (which makes me wonder who leaked the emails to the Competition Commission) and b) to try and create an illusion of competition.
The frustrating thing about all this is that Go Ahead are the best of all the operators in the North East, and by quite a margin too. It's just a shame they spend so much time trying to play games with Nexus and not enough time trying to put back the integrated network that they've spent the last 10-15 years destroying.
This is my first comment after lurking on this excellent blog for some time.
The to and fro arguments around franchising / quality contracts versus a free-for-all 'let the market decide' are I suspect polarised largely along ideological lines with right-leaning commenters disagreeing with the lefties, plus a smattering of vested interests such as bus operators.
I've worked in both bus operators and local authority passenger transport departments and what I think is needed more than anything is consistency and stability. For too long have the public had to put up with frequent changes to routes, poor quality information, and, in this context, most importantly a confusing and illogical (to the public) division of responsibility - it's oh so easy for local authority to blame bus operator and for bus operator to blame local authority with the public still insisting that 'the council' runs the buses.
Let's use the commercial nous of the market led bus operators by importing their expertise into franchising authorities and let private bus operators then compete for the market not in the market. I am sure the London model can be made to work for much less cost and we would then have some stability to networks
Cost can be saved by cordinating service and fares. Yes TfL has gone down the road of massive subsidies but that does not have to be the case.
You can cut costs significantly by cordinating service. With the current set up of different bus companies and fares and little to no cordination costs increase. Most operators just look at each route. Bus operators also are not innovative and tend to stick to centuries old routes which ignore the fact that the travel needs have totally changed since then.
There are plenty of example of overbussed areas and routes some routes can be every 10 minutes but do not need to be and frequently bunch yet others will be every hour
If you look at tan area as a network you can improve services without increasing costs
Other things that could be looked at are travel mapping. They could work with local companies to map the working hours and travel patterns by using the post codes. A network of commutor routes could then be constructed around this.
"There are plenty of example of overbussed areas"
The best example of this I can think of, and the best example of sheer waste due to on-road competition, is the Oxford Road corridor in Manchester. Double deckers every couple of minutes (sometimes every 30 seconds) with loads of time wasted for fare collection, stops just before traffic lights and deckers running half full half the time.
A sensible service for this corridor would be at most two routes, run using bendy buses with 100% off-bus ticketing, and stops located with the traffic lights - a bit like, if you will, the very similar city centre-uni-Niendorf route run in Hamburg (used to be the 102, but now Metrobus something-or-other).
Frequency would be something like a bus every 3 to 5 minutes, splitting into every 6/10 to either Parrs Wood or West Didsbury, and bunching would be reduced by the above changes.
Neil
The current deregulated system has clearly failed. It has led to big declines in services coupled with huge fares increases and confusing fares. No coordination and instability of services and poor publicity.. Even completion has not occurred, We have ended up with large regional monopolies and informal agreements by operators not to compete in the others area.
A system similar to that in London but without the subsidies in my view is the way forward possibly bringing the garages under this body as they can be key to improving competition and driving costs down.
Anonymous said...
"The current deregulated system has clearly failed. It has led to big declines in services coupled with huge fares increases and confusing fares."
The decline in the use of bus services started a few years after the end of the Second World War, and the reductions in service levels followed as a result of that decline. The decline over the last 25 years is a continuation of a trend that started at least 50 years ago; and some operators have been reporting growth in passenger numbers in recent years - something which rarely happened in the 15 years prior to deregulation.
A franchising or tendering authority could no doubt try to achieve "A system similar to that in London but without the subsidies.." but the level of service would inevitably have to be lower, or the fares higher - or both. Since the current London system is subsidised, logically, it will not be possible to buy the same level of service, etc, for less money.
It will not reach the TfL levels for two reasons the lower population density and it will not be subsidised.
Having an integrated network though and that should extend to rail would significantly reduce costs as looking at the services in an area as a network rather than a collection of individual routes enables big costs savings to be made
Having the services advistised and marketed as a n integrated network with standardized fares and interchangability of tickets will increase usage of the services
THe curret disjointed and frequently chaotic services togther with constant changes at short notice usually with little to no advance publicity dscourages usage. Even worse is the confusing ticket systems which even the companies own staff don't even understand.
All this whining about Surrey and / or Tyne and Wear transport services pales into insignificance when compared with the bus arrangements Cumbria and Northumberland County Councils have inflicted on the Alston Moor / South Tyne Valley area - i.e. virtually no bus services at all.
Post a Comment