Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[HSTEd]

So the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has posted notice that an assesment wil be carried out into the practicality of introducing bus franchising in the area.

110/17 BUS SERVICES ACT 2017

Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Portfolio Lead for Transport, introduced a report updating Members on the Bus Services Act 2017, its provisions and the associated next steps for Greater Manchester. He reminded members that the report was about the preparatory work to be undertaken which will enable the GMCA to make an informed decision at the appropriate time.
RESOLVED/-

1. That the update on the Bus Services Act 2017 be noted.
2. That the preparation of an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme in accordance with Section 4, S123B of the Bus Services Act 2017, be agreed.
3. That a notice stating the GMCA’s intention to prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme, in accordance with Section 4, S123C (4) of the Bus Services Act 2017, be approved
4. That the administration arrangements for the notice to be published be agreed and that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive of TfGM, in consultation with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, for the assessment to be prepared

Does anyone know what this might involve and whether there will be any consultations in the near future?

Although I doubt much will happen soon - there doesn't appear to be much enthusiasm for the idea from Andy Burnham.
Although I can dream of Orange-and-Cream Articulated Buses on the Oxford Road corridor.....

 

[radamfi]

there doesn't appear to be much enthusiasm for the idea from Andy Burnham.

Has he said something recently for you to say that? Or simply that he hasn't said anything?

 

[edwin_m]

Posting the notice recording the intention to post a notice sounds a bit like that sign that says "do not throw stones at this sign".

 

[HSTEd]

Has he said something recently for you to say that? Or simply that he hasn't said anything?

Well he has failed to mention it all, and the statement about "making informed decisions at the proper time" indicates that he is not in a hurry at all.

 

[the101]

Does anyone know what this might involve and whether there will be any consultations in the near future?

There was something about this in Route One recently and I'm sure if you go on its website a bit of searching will find the article.

There is no consultation. Instead it's demanding commercially-sensitive information of operators with a threat to report them to the Traffic Commissioner if they don't comply. TfGM is even demanding information from operators about tendered routes that it already knows thanks to the normal reporting procedures for such work.

The laughable bit about it is that, besides the massive amount of work that is being demanded of operators with a subtle threat of reporting them to the TC if they don't do as they're told, TfGM also has a similarly extensive list of voluntary data that it actually thinks that operators will supply out of kindness despite not being obliged to do so. Still, it gives a good idea of how out of touch it is.

 

[Busaholic]

Posting the notice recording the intention to post a notice sounds a bit like that sign that says "do not throw stones at this sign".

We used to have a sign in Penzance which read 'this sign is not in use'. Either Cornish humour or...

 

[nerd]

There was something about this in Route One recently and I'm sure if you go on its website a bit of searching will find the article.

There is no consultation. Instead it's demanding commercially-sensitive information of operators with a threat to report them to the Traffic Commissioner if they don't comply. TfGM is even demanding information from operators about tendered routes that it already knows thanks to the normal reporting procedures for such work.

The laughable bit about it is that, besides the massive amount of work that is being demanded of operators with a subtle threat of reporting them to the TC if they don't do as they're told, TfGM also has a similarly extensive list of voluntary data that it actually thinks that operators will supply out of kindness despite not being obliged to do so. Still, it gives a good idea of how out of touch it is.

I think you are misreading the situation here; GMCA and the Mayor are climbing through the regulatory and information hoops demanded of the Bus Services Act. This is inherently a stop-start process; as the DfT regulations governing it are themselves in draft and subject to further national consultations.

The DfT published for consultation, draft regulations and guidance to accompany the Bus Services Act in February 2017. A detailed response to this consultation was submitted by TfGM. There is currently no published timetable for the publication of the finalised guidance and regulations and in addition there are other aspects of the Act for which a further round of consultation will be necessary by the DfT.

TfGM officers are maintaining active dialogue with DfT officials throughout this process.

But the overall process is already clear. It is for the Mayor to make a decision, or not, on franchising. But he can only do that once an independent audit has been undertaken - comparing a proposed franchising scheme with one or more alternative schemes; and also once the proposed scheme (as amended following the audit) has been the subject of public consultation.

The Bus Services Act gives combined authorities with directly elected Mayors the power to introduce bus franchising across all or part of the combined authority area. This replaces the existing Quality Contract Scheme powers.

The Bus Services Act sets out a number of legislative steps that must be undertaken by an authority before a decision can be made by the Mayor as to whether or not to introduce a franchising scheme. An assessment of the proposed franchising scheme must be completed and an authority must compare its preferred model of bus service delivery with one of more other courses of action.

In addition, the assessment must be independently audited and the proposed scheme must be the subject of a public consultation exercise.

If, following the above steps, a franchising model of service delivery is adopted by the Mayor, it will be the responsibility of the Mayor to determine what bus services should be provided and the standards of those services. Operators will then bid for the right to operate a service.

In order to manage services in the city-region that do not form part of a franchising scheme, the Bus Services Act allows authorities to implement a service permit scheme, following a public consultation. If a service permit scheme is implemented by an authority, operators will only be able to operate commercial and cross boundary services in a franchise area if granted a permit to operate by the combined authority.

all this from the GMCA report

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/325/greater_manchester_combined_authority

So; TfGM will be gathering all relevant detailed information needed to generate a business case for at least two future bus network schemes (only on of which can involve franchising). That then goes to the independent auditor. Then a preferred scheme(s) go to public consultation. Then the Mayor decides

Obviously, preparing alternative schemes will require operators to supply commercially sensitive information; and if possible volunteer any further information that could inform the independent audit. The more and better the information supplied, the more robust is likely to be the assessment of the auditor. That involves the operators in extra costs now; but a successful replacement to the current failed deregulated structure will be in everyone's long-term interests. The operators won't be able to challenge the decision of the Mayor in court (as they clearly wish to have the option to do) if it emerges that they withheld key information from him, pleading cost or commercial confidentiality.

Interesting to note how many medium-scale operators (those outside the monopolistic five; Stagecoach, First, Arriva, Go Ahead and National Express) are now lining up in support of franchising as a general model for future bus network provision; Whippet being the latest.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think you are misreading the situation here; GMCA and the Mayor are climbing through the regulatory and information hoops demanded of the Bus Services Act. This is inherently a stop-start process; as the DfT regulations governing it are themselves in draft and subject to further national consultations.



But the overall process is already clear. It is for the Mayor to make a decision, or not, on franchising. But he can only do that once an independent audit has been undertaken - comparing a proposed franchising scheme with one or more alternative schemes; and also once the proposed scheme (as amended following the audit) has been the subject of public consultation.



all this from the GMCA report

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/325/greater_manchester_combined_authority

So; TfGM will be gathering all relevant detailed information needed to generate a business case for at least two future bus network schemes (only on of which can involve franchising). That then goes to the independent auditor. Then a preferred scheme(s) go to public consultation. Then the Mayor decides

Obviously, preparing alternative schemes will require operators to supply commercially sensitive information; and if possible volunteer any further information that could inform the independent audit. The more and better the information supplied, the more robust is likely to be the decision of the auditor. That involves the operators in extra costs now; but a successful replacement to the current failed deregulated structure will be in everyone's long-term interests. The operators won't be able to challenge the decision of the Mayor in court (as they clearly wish to have the option to do) if it emerges that they withheld key information from him, pleading cost or commercial confidentiality.

Interesting to note how many medium-scale operators (those outside the monopolistic five; Stagecoach, First, Arriva, Go Ahead and National Express) are now lining up in support of franchising as a general model for future bus network provision; Whippet being the latest.

Whippet is Transit Systems - the guys who bought half of First's London business so not exactly a surprise.

 

[nerd]

Whippet is Transit Systems - the guys who bought half of First's London business so not exactly a surprise.

Indeed so; though the comments were specific to their Cambridgeshire operations. Pressing for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to take up the options for developing franchising in the Bus Services Act.

But it is not at all surprising that bus operators outside the big five are now hoping to see the writing on the wall for deregulation; and so want the potential for franchising in the legislation initiated as soon as possible.

 

[pemma]

Jeremy Corbyn just appeared on Granada Reports and said London is the only place with a bus system which works properly.

 

[Stan Drews]

Indeed so; though the comments were specific to their Cambridgeshire operations. Pressing for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to take up the options for developing franchising in the Bus Services Act.

But it is not at all surprising that bus operators outside the big five are now hoping to see the writing on the wall for deregulation; and so want the potential for franchising in the legislation initiated as soon as possible.

I suspect the significant losses being made by Whippet will have more to do with their desire for a franchising system in Cambridgeshire.

Are you able to name any of these operators hoping to see the writing on the wall for deregulation? I'd be interested to know who they are.

 

[radamfi]

Are you able to name any of these operators hoping to see the writing on the wall for deregulation? I'd be interested to know who they are.

Presumably Rotala are one of them.

https://cbwmagazine.com/rotala-optimistic-bus-services-bill-profits-increase/

“The effects of the Bus Services Bill look to be very positive for Rotala,” he said.

“The Bill is expected to bring us considerably greater opportunities in the West Midlands area and our recent investment will enable us to take full advantage of these.

“The Bill, as expected, covers the re-franchising of bus networks in major cities. We have a presence in three of those conurbations, Greater Manchester, Bristol/Bath and the West Midlands.

“The approach of the new transport authorities in each of these regions is however different. In both the Bristol/Bath areas and Greater Manchester it is clearly envisaged that the local authorities will use the legislation to achieve complete control over local bus networks by the franchise process. But in the West Midlands a more collaborative approach using bus alliances is favoured by the local authority.

“From our perspective both lines of approach offer the prospect of considerably increasing the market shares we can achieve to a level to which we could not have aspired under the existing structure of the bus markets in these locations."

 

[carlberry]

Jeremy Corbyn just appeared on Granada Reports and said London is the only place with a bus system which works properly.

I assume he means because it's losing passengers, and isnt full of those nasty plebs using cash anymore!

 

[nerd]

Presumably Rotala are one of them.

https://cbwmagazine.com/rotala-optimistic-bus-services-bill-profits-increase/

And HCT

http://hctgroup.org/about_us/dai_po...ing, or why bus operators need the Buses Bill

At HCT Group, we want to compete and disrupt – we’ve grown by a hundredfold over the past decade and we want to double in size again over the next five years. Yet HCT Group will never compete on the road against an established operator outside London, ever. It would be commercial suicide. We’d be front-run. We’d be over-bussed. This would continue until we withdrew or went out of business. We are amongst the hungriest of the mid-scale operators, so if the market signals us not to even try to compete, very few will.

Regardless of the intention of the 1985 Act, we have effectively replaced public monopolies with private ones. This lack of competition has had a devastating effect on the market. Prices have risen, mileage operated has fallen and passengers have stayed away as a consequence. When you catch a depot head at a major operator in a reflective moment, they will tell you that their job is to manage decline profitably. We can all point to the outlier examples of where this is not the case, but the over-arching national numbers tell the real story. We are on the glide-path to history.

 

[HSTEd]

I assume he means because it's losing passengers, and isnt full of those nasty plebs using cash anymore!

Because buses outside London are doing so well by comparison

 

[pemma]

Presumably Rotala are one of them.

https://cbwmagazine.com/rotala-optimistic-bus-services-bill-profits-increase/

Reportedly they are on the verge of buying the bus operations of Go Goodwins/Little Gem with a deal expected to be completed in September.

 

[pemma]

Because buses outside London are doing so well by comparison

Indeed. Outside of London it's a case of:

Route A - Passenger growth. Half-hourly subsided service.
Council response "An operator should run this route commercially. We'll withdraw the full subsidy even if it results in the service going to hourly and losing passengers as a result of the frequency cut."

Route B - Passenger numbers declining on irregular subsided service due to poorly timed services.
Council response "Cancel the contract. Never mind looking at re-timing the service to run at times when people might actually use it."

Route C - Steady passenger numbers. Hourly subsided service.
Council response "Keep services most hours but cancel the return 08:00 and 15:30 workings so that the same bus and driver can be used for a school contract."

 

[martinsh]

Jeremy Corbyn just appeared on Granada Reports and said London is the only place with a bus system which works properly.

Not: Venezuela ?! :roll: :razz:

 

[daodao]

There is a fundamental contradiction between the concept of a structured/planned integrated "public" service and the free market economy. Competition depends on different providers jostling to provide services to the customer, who makes a choice as to which provider to use for the service he/she requires.

Consensus in this country has accepted the free market philosophy for providing many services since the 1980s (in the case of buses since October 1986), and there is no good reason to revert back to inefficient socialist state planning.

There may be a need for the state (directly or via local government) to subsidise a few key (but uneconomic) bus services in rural areas (local examples would be Macclesfield-Knutsford and Altrincham-Dunham-Warrington). There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations and little need for subsidies where population density is high, i.e. most (but not all) parts of metropolitan counties.

Putting it bluntly, bus franchising is a step in the wrong direction.

The state still has a role in regulating privately provided services to ensure that they are safe, in the case of buses via the Traffic Commissioners, and prohibit unsafe operators.

 

[radamfi]

Consensus in this country has accepted the free market philosophy for providing many services since the 1980s (in the case of buses since October 1986)

Yes, that is why competitive tendering is now commonplace in the provision of public services. Indeed, much of Europe has embraced tendering for rail and bus services. But there are some commies who want London buses brought back into public ownership.

 

[pemma]

There may be a need for the state (directly or via local government) to subsidise a few key (but uneconomic) bus services in rural areas (local examples would be Macclesfield-Knutsford and Altrincham-Dunham-Warrington). There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations and little need for subsidies where population density is high, i.e. most (but not all) parts of metropolitan counties.

I think both the examples you've given are routes which are currently subsided but operators have attempted to run commercially in the past. In the case of the former it provides a service to Macclesfield Hospital, while the 130 also provides a service between Macclesfield town centre and Macclesfield Hospital - a problem with the current system is working age passengers making that journey can't just buy a return ticket and catch the next bus, it has to be the next bus operated by the same operator.

It's also important to realise that a facility like a hospital, health centre, job centre, library etc. closing or opening can result in what are essential services changing. Local authorities are usually quick to realise when a service is no longer required but the same isn't true of where new services need to be provided.

 

[pemma]

Not: Venezuela ?! :roll: :razz:

Someone originally from Venezuela used to commute on the 88 bus when GHA operated it. He said the GHA Gold buses were the best he had ever travelled on but the battered Cheshire Connect vehicles which filled in for them were worse than what is used in Venezuela!

 

[daodao]

I think both the examples you've given are routes which are currently subsided but operators have attempted to run commercially in the past. In the case of the former it provides a service to Macclesfield Hospital, while the 130 also provides a service between Macclesfield town centre and Macclesfield Hospital - a problem with the current system is working age passengers making that journey can't just buy a return ticket and catch the next bus, it has to be the next bus operated by the same operator.

It's also important to realise that a facility like a hospital, health centre, job centre, library etc. closing or opening can result in what are essential services changing. Local authorities are usually quick to realise when a service is no longer required but the same isn't true of where new services need to be provided.

It's only a 15 minute walk between Macclesfield Hospital and town centre; most working people wouldn't use the bus.

 

[HSTEd]

There is a fundamental contradiction between the concept of a structured/planned integrated "public" service and the free market economy. Competition depends on different providers jostling to provide services to the customer, who makes a choice as to which provider to use for the service he/she requires.

Consensus in this country has accepted the free market philosophy for providing many services since the 1980s (in the case of buses since October 1986), and there is no good reason to revert back to inefficient socialist state planning.

There may be a need for the state (directly or via local government) to subsidise a few key (but uneconomic) bus services in rural areas (local examples would be Macclesfield-Knutsford and Altrincham-Dunham-Warrington). There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations and little need for subsidies where population density is high, i.e. most (but not all) parts of metropolitan counties.

Putting it bluntly, bus franchising is a step in the wrong direction.

The state still has a role in regulating privately provided services to ensure that they are safe, in the case of buses via the Traffic Commissioners, and prohibit unsafe operators.

Which is why patronage on free market buses has fallen drastically in the last 30 years, whilst socialist state planning, as seen in London Buses, has performed far better?

Additionally if such a consensus has ever existed, amongst the general population rather than the political class, I believe it has certainly collapsed now.

 

[daodao]

Which is why patronage on free market buses has fallen drastically in the last 30 years, whilst socialist state planning, as seen in London Buses, has performed far better?

Additionally if such a consensus has ever existed, amongst the general population rather than the political class, I believe it has certainly collapsed now.

Inner London and most of the rest of the UK are like chalk and cheese. There are big sticks in London, in particular lack of car parking and car parking charges, and congestion and the congestion charge, which tilt the balance in favour of public transport. This is re-inforced by the increased frequency of services which demand for them justifies.

The converse applies in rural counties and outer metropolitan areas.

Market towns such as Shrewsbury or Macclesfield are in-between, with Mon-Fri 8-6 (Sat 9-5) reasonable town services (and in some cases park and ride services), and little if any public transport in the evenings and on Sundays.

 

[pemma]

It's only a 15 minute walk between Macclesfield Hospital and town centre; most working people wouldn't use the bus.

If you're going to the hospital for an appointment you're probably not currently in good health whatever your age is! Also worth remembering some people might have to walk in the town centre and then back out to the hospital meaning it could be 30 minutes walk.

 

[radamfi]

Competition depends on different providers jostling to provide services to the customer, who makes a choice as to which provider to use for the service he/she requires.

In that case you should prefer the tendered system used in London and for national rail as the current system has led to monopolies where the barrier to entry for competitors is too high.

Inner London and most of the rest of the UK are like chalk and cheese. There are big sticks in London, in particular lack of car parking and car parking charges, and congestion and the congestion charge, which tilt the balance in favour of public transport. This is re-inforced by the increased frequency of services which demand for them justifies.

But earlier on you said "There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations". So surely you must advocate deregulation for London?

 

[pemma]

Market towns such as Shrewsbury or Macclesfield are in-between, with Mon-Fri 8-6 (Sat 9-5) park-and-ride services and reasonable town services, and little if any public transport in the evenings and on Sundays.

What Macclesfield Park & Ride?

Currently Macclesfield does have Sunday services to Manchester via Wilmslow, Weston & Upton Priory, Buxton/Chatsworth House and Nantwich via Congleton, Sandbach and Crewe even if it might not have any Sunday buses in 12 months time.

I think the Friday/Saturday evening only buses (which exist on two Macclesfield routes) are a good idea and should be expanded to more routes.

 

[daodao]

In that case you should prefer the tendered system used in London and for national rail as the current system has led to monopolies where the barrier to entry for competitors is too high.



But earlier on you said "There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations". So surely you must advocate deregulation for London?

Exempting London from deregulation was a political decision, possibly influenced by the possibility of excessive competition causing congestion problems in the inner area. That was one of the reasons why the LPTB was created in 1933.

 

[radamfi]

Exempting London from deregulation was a political decision, possibly influenced by the possibility of excessive competition causing congestion problems in the inner area. That was one of the reasons why the LPTB was created in 1933.

Should London be deregulated now?