West Yorkshire Bus Franchising to go ahead

[Bletchleyite]

C'mon - you know the difference as we've discussed this at length elsewhere

• Manchester scheme has service permits whereby commercial services across the border are allowed as long as certain criteria are met
  • For example, the Preston - Chorley - Bolton service will carry on with Stagecoach, accepting Bee Network passes etc.
• Liverpool scheme is based on full control of all services - no commercial services are allowed
  • For example, the Chester - Ellesmere Port - Liverpool service will be truncated at EP. EP to Liverpool will be directly under the Liverpool scheme. Chester to EP is not a consideration to Liverpool region so "stuff 'em"

So bringing it back to West Yorkshire, if the latter path was followed, you could have the 36 Leeds to Ripon being truncated at Harrogate, which would be farcical. Hence when they go to franchising, the Manchester solution would be better.

Thanks. I'd genuinely lost track of where each was up to.

I'd agree the Manchester model would make more sense than the Liverpool one for West Yorkshire, simply because it doesn't exist on an island. I don't overly agree with the Liverpool idea even for Liverpool, and Liverpool didn't even have that pre-1985 - from the Old Roan if the trains were off we'd have the choice of the green Merseyside bus or the red Ribble one - but as often comes up when discussing why it has a vastly inferior London service than Manchester and always likely will have, Merseyside is on a pair of "peninsulas" which are almost completely cut off from the area around it on three sides, and as such the need for through bus services into that area are reduced, though there are some e.g. the Chester example noted, Preston and Wigan. West Yorkshire by contrast is inland and has potentially useful destinations in all directions, so that model doesn't really suit.

The other possible model would be (as you sometimes did get in the "olden days") that services into the area are allowed but cannot carry passengers on journeys wholly within it, but that is just wasteful of capacity for ideological reasons unless there's another reason to do it (e.g. capacity) in which case the commercial operators would already be doing it anyway.

 

[Deerfold]

I assume by that, that you mean that First would likely win such a contract.

As has been pointed out, there will be 10 contracts. First will likely win some. It's very unlikely they'll win them all.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Would First buying Arriva like they have been rumored to, affect the sale? Absolutely yes.

Affect what sale?

The rumour (as that's all it is) relates to First buying Arriva's European operations, not UK.

Franchising will take place irrespective of ownership of the operations - that's the point

 

[Deerfold]

In recent months Arriva have taken on more "local" services in areas they previously only did longer "inter-town" (for want of a better word) work- for example the 377/378 in Huddersfield. I don't think we can draw any conclusions about who will bid for what, or who will gain the various franchises, until we know a bit more about how it'll be set up. Growing up in Huddersfield I always thought of Arriva (and their predecessor operator Yorkshire/West Riding) as being a longer-distance firm as they only did routes to Leeds along the A62 corridor. In Wakefield or Dewsbury though, they do the locals too.

For several years they left that sort of thing to Centrbus Holdings/Yorkshire Tiger until they sold them off.

What can they all learn from London about cross-boundary routes? Many cross-boundary routes have already been lost and others broken at boundaries which, in traffic terms, are artificial. Rochdale - Blackburn, Oldham - Halifax and Barnsley - Manchester are examples.

Oldham - Halifax disappearing was, at least in part, due to the two-stage introduction of the ENCTS pass. There was a long standing agreement that Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire passes were accepted in each county for the appropriate fare (15p in West Yorkshire, 30p in Greater Manchester) with both being payable on a cross-border bus (but 45p instead of £2 or more. The first stage of ENTCS abolished all the boundary agreements giving free travel within your local council area. First decided at this point that there was little traffic on the 562 and withdrew it. The countrywide free ENTCS then came in, but too late to save it. Replacement services now run a long way from the boundary - I used to catch the service for 10 weeks every day in 1997 - I was the only one on the bus at the boundary 75% of the morning journeys and there were usually 3 or 4 of us in an evening.

As for cross-boundary travel, that is already rather variable, and you would hope that the Manchester approach (i.e. permitting services to run in as long as they meet certain criteria) would be adopted rather than the short-sighted, parochial Liverpool City proposal. It should be pointed out that services from West to South Yorkshire are already considerably poorer than they were 20-30 years ago so it's hardly brilliant now.

The cross boundary routes used to be popular enough that West and South Yorkshire cooperated on a bus ticket valid on the buses in both counties (the MetroMaster, coming a MetroCard and a TravelMaster) - I doubt many people used it deep into the two counties beyond those routes.

West and North Yorkshire are currently fairly well linked (past my house there's 4 buses an hour that link the two with two of them continuing to Lancashire).

 

[WAB]

As has been pointed out, there will be 10 contracts. First will likely win some. It's very unlikely they'll win them all.

No, there will be several lots within ten different areas.

 

[Delenn]

Same here, along with Coastliner.

Coastliner is different from the 36 though. Coastliner takes few people for Leeds to Leeds journeys. The 36 does loads.

 

[WAB]

The cross boundary routes used to be popular enough that West and South Yorkshire cooperated on a bus ticket valid on the buses in both counties (the MetroMaster, coming a MetroCard and a TravelMaster) - I doubt may people used it deep into the two counties beyond those routes.

If South Yorkshire goes down the franchised route as well, it might be worth having a joint coordinating committee to specify services, including perhaps some joint running and ticketing arrangements?

Coastliner is different from the 36 though. Coastliner takes few people for Leeds to Leeds journeys. The 36 does loads.

Yes, and Harrogate is far more within the catchment of West Yorkshire than the substantial portion of Coastliner's mileage east of York.

 

[Deerfold]

No, there will be several lots within ten different areas.

Yes, quite correct - even more lots than the 1 contract @YorkRailFan was referencing.

 

[markymark2000]

Why is everyone still going for this down right stupid model of giving away large franchises. As is evident with Manchester, upon takeover it causes HUGE amounts of issues as many employees end up being forced to change operator (a model which is not popular amongst bus staff. We have a shortage of them already in some cases, why willingly make that worse?). The tenders are also awful for independents and in some cases mean there is much more dead mileage than if it was ran by independents. There are very few examples where routes should be grouped, those examples mostly being little town routes or routes which need to interwork due to inefficiencies.

Everyone got promised London Style and now everyone is going against that and not following the tendering system which clearly works and instead is forcing on this new stupid style of franchising which as Manchester is proving, is rife with issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everyone got promised London Style and now everyone is going against that and not following the tendering system which clearly works and instead is forcing on this new stupid style of franchising which as Manchester is proving, is rife with issues.

I am very, very surprised that these schemes are going to all manner of expense in buying depots and vehicles when the London model could just have been copied verbatim, yes. Unless of course the long term plan is to revert to municipal ownership and operation as soon as allowed, by not renewing the "franchises", just as several TOCs have been.

 

[WAB]

I am very, very surprised that these schemes are going to all manner of expense in buying depots and vehicles when the London model could just have been copied verbatim, yes. Unless of course the long term plan is to revert to municipal ownership and operation as soon as allowed, by not renewing the "franchises", just as several TOCs have been.

Depots are a pretty big barrier to entry. In Leeds, there's only the two existing major depots, both belonging to First. It would be a big outlay for another operator to get enough space to win one of the larger lots (with no guarantee of a win), and it's not like London where all sorts of operators have existing depots all over the place to bid for the various routes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Everyone got promised London Style and now everyone is going against that and not following the tendering system which clearly works and instead is forcing on this new stupid style of franchising which as Manchester is proving, is rife with issues.

I am very, very surprised that these schemes are going to all manner of expense in buying depots and vehicles when the London model could just have been copied verbatim, yes. Unless of course the long term plan is to revert to municipal ownership and operation as soon as allowed, by not renewing the "franchises", just as several TOCs have been.

Depots are a pretty big barrier to entry. In Leeds, there's only the two existing major depots, both belonging to First. It would be a big outlay for another operator to get enough space to win one of the larger lots (with no guarantee of a win), and it's not like London where all sorts of operators have existing depots all over the place to bid for the various routes.

To respond to these....

The London-style that has been promised didn't relate to the procurement exercise but the outcome in having a publicly controlled and planned transport network, with integrated ticketing and all that jazz.

The word "procurement" is THE most important element. If you take the depots into public ownership, it does two things. It levels the playing field so that you a) you remove barriers to entry/remove the advantages of operators as @LatymerKing rightly points out, whilst it also removes cost lines (that a business would otherwise charge a management fee on).

However, there is also the suspicion (and this is perhaps pertinent with Liverpool and Manchester more than West Yorkshire) that it then allows them to take in-house at some point and get rid of the "evil bus barons", once and for all.

 

[AndyHudds]

I'm dead against this franchising thing for West Yorkshire as it'll affect the smaller operators (e.g. E Stott & Son), prevent any further potential startups (e.g. South Pennine CT and Yorkshire Buses) and what will happen with cross boundary travel?

Bear in mind that there will be a Mayoral election next year to decide who will be the new West Yorkshire Metro Mayor, and it certainly won't be Brabin (unless the people of West Yorkshire would like to destroy the county some more). I say this as I cannot see what the issue is with the current enhanced partnership.

The issue is that the West Yorkshire bus network is at an all time low, lowest passenger numbers ever,lowest route miles ever. After 6pm services are scarce finish at ridiculously early, I can't even get home from a midweek football match given the last bus home is at 21.45pm. Something has to change.

 

[markymark2000]

Depots are a pretty big barrier to entry. In Leeds, there's only the two existing major depots, both belonging to First. It would be a big outlay for another operator to get enough space to win one of the larger lots (with no guarantee of a win), and it's not like London where all sorts of operators have existing depots all over the place to bid for the various routes.

For any operator to make use of the 2 large First depots though, you'd have to give the operator significant amounts of work. I'd argue as well that because the depots are owned by the LA, it prevents operators taking on other work from the local area and expanding their business in other ways because they may have a depot and then in a few years, they lose the whole depot and could have to move or lose the rest of their business. Now I am not saying it is happening but if Joe Bloggs wanted to run National Express out of Hunslet Road alongside his franchised buses, come 3 years down the line, if he doesn't win Hunslet Road depot again, he then has to move his whole business just because he lost one small contract. Local authorities should not own the depots at all, the only reason that they are going after depot is because they want control. They want to be the all high and mighty and so they can turn us into another country where state owns and runs everything (I'm not naming countries for obvious reasons but you can come to easy conclusions)

The word "procurement" is THE most important element. If you take the depots into public ownership, it does two things. It levels the playing field so that you a) you remove barriers to entry/remove the advantages of operators as @LatymerKing rightly points out, whilst it also removes cost lines (that a business would otherwise charge a management fee on).

I see it as it goes a long way towards getting rid of smaller companies and adding a shed load of costs. Every time the contracts change, that means new staff uniforms, Transferring all staff onto new systems such as HR systems. New pay systems for staff. new ways of working for staff. New policies, new management. Likely issues with drivers as many drivers are loyal to certain firms (like Stagecoach offered shares to employees, there is no potential for that with this model). Revamping the depot each time to fit each operators brand guidelines (unless they go the whole way and just brand everything as their network name and have done with operators branding on and in depots). This is before you then look at the facts that to in West Yorkshires case, to fill these mega depots, means you have to give very large contracts with a high PVR or you have to award multiple contracts to one firm. Either that or you need to work out a way of splitting the depot so that two firms can operate from there. You basically have to create a monopoly by doing things this way and it means that operators don't have a garage which may suit their needs for various things.

Yes keeping depots has some advantages for some operators but it also creates some more competition as they have to fight to keep their depot open whereas if the LA owns the depot, you lose the tender and while yes you lost a big part of your business, it costs you nothing to walk away. That makes it easier for operators to just do one and leave everyone high and dry. In the likely events of strikes as well, if things are more separate such as route by route basic, it means that strikes affect less people (though I know that goes against Labour being hand in hand with unions). Routes done by depot will tend to mean routes are concentrated into a certain area so on strike days, people just can't get about at all rather than in London, most people can still get around but may have to walk a little further or change buses when normally it's a through bus. The impact is nowhere near as big.

Plenty of benefits to

 

[mattb7tl]

The issue is that the West Yorkshire bus network is at an all time low, lowest passenger numbers ever,lowest route miles ever. After 6pm services are scarce finish at ridiculously early, I can't even get home from a midweek football match given the last bus home is at 21.45pm. Something has to change.

372?
An interesting observation with these documents. First almost complete dominates the best performing 'Zones Ranked by Service Commerciality' in Appendix 3.1
All the worst performing areas are dominated by Transdev, or Arriva, and their local services have better running hours as well as more services running without subsidy.

 

[WAB]

In the likely events of strikes as well, if things are more separate such as route by route basic, it means that strikes affect less people (though I know that goes against Labour being hand in hand with unions). Routes done by depot will tend to mean routes are concentrated into a certain area so on strike days, people just can't get about at all rather than in London, most people can still get around but may have to walk a little further or change buses when normally it's a through bus. The impact is nowhere near as big.

Not sure that individual lots being affected is as bad as the current situation where entire districts are left with no meaningful service because of one company going on strike. Most of West Yorkshire is divvied up between First and Arriva; there is not much overlap.

 

[markymark2000]

Not sure that individual lots being affected is as bad as the current situation where entire districts are left with no meaningful service because of one company going on strike. Most of West Yorkshire is divvied up between First and Arriva; there is not much overlap.

Agreed but it's still not the best outcome for passengers either way. My preference would be remain as it is but if it has to change, it should be done London style.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The issue is that the West Yorkshire bus network is at an all time low, lowest passenger numbers ever, lowest route miles ever. After 6pm services are scarce finish at ridiculously early, I can't even get home from a midweek football match given the last bus home is at 21.45pm. Something has to change.

This is down to two things - one is no proper promotion of the services available e.g. a network map complete with frequencies and town maps to entice people out of their cars along with timetables (OK they cost money but the cash spent on producing something that'll get people on board). The second is lack of demand, it'd be pointless running a rural bus service every ten minutes as no one will use it plus its a waste of resources.

What would make more sense would be to revise all evening bus services so that they serve the most populated sections of the route - for example, services 310 and 314 from Huddersfield to Hepworth/Holme, well these could be merged together on an hourly frequency and would serve Honley Bridge, Brockholes, New Mill, Jackson Bridge, Hepworth, Scholes, Holmfirth and Holme and ran as a 315 with a journey time of 52 minutes from one end to the other (the Woodhead Road section could still be served by service 308). Likewise with the 577 (Boulderclough Circular) and 579 (Halifax to Sowerby), I cannot see why these services cannot be simply merged together as a 585 (thus linking it in with the 586 to Rishworth Commons) with an end to end time of 47 minutes.

The Park and Ride in Leeds isn't ran as a park and ride scheme should be, its too focused on commuters, not leisure or day visitors just the suit and tie brigade who sit in an office all day from 9am 'til 5pm. The park and ride should run 7am 'til 7pm Monday to Saturday, 8am to 6pm Sunday with a private contractor running it as they see fit.

On top of all of that we need more competition, judging by the questionable timetables on the more Huddersfield urban services e.g the 387 Beaumont Park circular which in itself could be merged with the southern half of the 328, whilst the 356 to Longwood, the 342 to Almondbury and 358 to Ashenhurst could be jettisoned off to a new operator who could if they wanted to, merge the three services together and form a a single Longwood to Ashenhurst service.

I don't believe we'd see any improvements with franchising, I'm seeing it as an excuse to kill off any form of private enterprise in West Yorkshire and turning the local bus network into "Brabingrad Busways" whilst stamping out competition as its not permited, what is this Russia? Belarus? Its certainly not the free market enterprise of England.

There may well be smaller franchises that will be geared towards the smaller operators. However, as we've seen with Greater Manchester, these have instead been taken by Rotala and First. In fact, IIRC, Wigan ended up being folded into the main franchise.

As for cross-boundary travel, that is already rather variable, and you would hope that the Manchester approach (i.e. permitting services to run in as long as they meet certain criteria) would be adopted rather than the short-sighted, parochial Liverpool City proposal. It should be pointed out that services from West to South Yorkshire are already considerably poorer than they were 20-30 years ago so it's hardly brilliant now.

There is also the issue of the Dalesbus services of which some start in other parts of North Yorkshire (one servide started in the East Riding of Yorkshire) enter West Yorkshire before diving back into North Yorkshire. I wouldn't want to see these being curtailed to start from Ilkley. Then there's Transdev's 36, again I wouldn't want to see this City to City service being cut back to Harewood or Alwoodley (where it could turn round). The West to South Yorkshire connections aren't brilliant but I'd rather see what there is being retained especially the 59 between Barnsley and Wakefield and the 28 between Barnsley and Pontefract being the main two, given that the 20 between Holmfirth and Barnsley was lost when the South Yorkshire contracts came up for renewal a decade ago (witht he 20 being replaced with a 25 from Penistone to Holmfirth) ago the 57/57A/X57 services between Holmfirth and Sheffield were also lost a decade ago but there is the one day a week 26A from Holmfirth to Stocksbridge so all is not lost.


The other issue is what will happen to the Holme Valley minibus services (H1/H2 Scholes, H3 Upperthong, H5 Holmbridge, H6 Brockholes and H7 Hepworth - H4 was withdrawn a few years back) as the only operator who could run them would either be E. Stott & Son as they have the proper sized fleet to run them, if First won the services then they'd have to source three Solo's or Strata's as soon as I don't think Stotts would want to sell the fleet.

 

[dodecahedron67]

This is down to two things - one is no proper promotion of the services available e.g. a network map complete with frequencies and town maps to entice people out of their cars along with timetables (OK they cost money but the cash spent on producing something that'll get people on board). The second is lack of demand, it'd be pointless running a rural bus service every ten minutes as no one will use it plus its a waste of resources.

What would make more sense would be to revise all evening bus services so that they serve the most populated sections of the route - for example, services 310 and 314 from Huddersfield to Hepworth/Holme, well these could be merged together on an hourly frequency and would serve Honley Bridge, Brockholes, New Mill, Jackson Bridge, Hepworth, Scholes, Holmfirth and Holme and ran as a 315 with a journey time of 52 minutes from one end to the other (the Woodhead Road section could still be served by service 308). Likewise with the 577 (Boulderclough Circular) and 579 (Halifax to Sowerby), I cannot see why these services cannot be simply merged together as a 585 (thus linking it in with the 586 to Rishworth Commons) with an end to end time of 47 minutes.

The Park and Ride in Leeds isn't ran as a park and ride scheme should be, its too focused on commuters, not leisure or day visitors just the suit and tie brigade who sit in an office all day from 9am 'til 5pm. The park and ride should run 7am 'til 7pm Monday to Saturday, 8am to 6pm Sunday with a private contractor running it as they see fit.

On top of all of that we need more competition, judging by the questionable timetables on the more Huddersfield urban services e.g the 387 Beaumont Park circular which in itself could be merged with the southern half of the 328, whilst the 356 to Longwood, the 342 to Almondbury and 358 to Ashenhurst could be jettisoned off to a new operator who could if they wanted to, merge the three services together and form a a single Longwood to Ashenhurst service.

I don't believe we'd see any improvements with franchising, I'm seeing it as an excuse to kill off any form of private enterprise in West Yorkshire and turning the local bus network into "Brabingrad Busways" whilst stamping out competition as its not permited, what is this Russia? Belarus? Its certainly not the free market enterprise of England.


There is also the issue of the Dalesbus services of which some start in other parts of North Yorkshire (one servide started in the East Riding of Yorkshire) enter West Yorkshire before diving back into North Yorkshire. I wouldn't want to see these being curtailed to start from Ilkley. Then there's Transdev's 36, again I wouldn't want to see this City to City service being cut back to Harewood or Alwoodley (where it could turn round). The West to South Yorkshire connections aren't brilliant but I'd rather see what there is being retained especially the 59 between Barnsley and Wakefield and the 28 between Barnsley and Pontefract being the main two, given that the 20 between Holmfirth and Barnsley was lost when the South Yorkshire contracts came up for renewal a decade ago (witht he 20 being replaced with a 25 from Penistone to Holmfirth) ago the 57/57A/X57 services between Holmfirth and Sheffield were also lost a decade ago but there is the one day a week 26A from Holmfirth to Stocksbridge so all is not lost.


The other issue is what will happen to the Holme Valley minibus services (H1/H2 Scholes, H3 Upperthong, H5 Holmbridge, H6 Brockholes and H7 Hepworth - H4 was withdrawn a few years back) as the only operator who could run them would either be E. Stott & Son as they have the proper sized fleet to run them, if First won the services then they'd have to source three Solo's or Strata's as soon as I don't think Stotts would want to sell the fleet.

There’s a lot to digest here, but I don’t think franchising buses can be compared to “Russia, Belarus or Brabingrad”…

It’s not going to be the immediate end to private involvement (which - along with politics - seems to be your main gripe here, not actually better bus services…), nor has it been the end in London or Manchester. In the long-run, if a private bus company can be out-competed or out-bid by a council or nationally owned one, surely that is free-market economics (letting the best bid win) at its finest?

There is a reason the 310/314, 577/579 are ran semi-subsidised (or not subsidised at all for the 579) as separate services (spoiler: running two semi-supported services is often cheaper than 1 fully subsidised service as it will come closer to covering costs, thus needing less subsidy). What do you propose the residents of the bits of the route(s) that you won’t be serving anymore do if they want to get a bus? Walk? A lot of bus users outside of immediate town centres in WY are elderly people, especially in hilly places like the outskirts of Halifax/Hudds, it might not be viable for them to walk up/down a hill to the nearest bus stop when they previously had one 20 metres away.

By looking at buses as solely profit, people miss the societal benefit to them, one that cannot be measured in economic terms which is why it is often overlooked.

It has also been proven time and time again that in cities/towns that struggle with poorly designed city centres (Huddersfield) or bad congestion (Leeds) that hour-long cross-city routes don’t work. You just have to look at the recent splitting of the north and south sections of the 51/52 in Leeds to see why this happens.

More competition isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but over-competition definitely is. Over-bussing a network can lead to massive economic downfall for ALL operators involved and lead to a worse long-term network (West Lothian being a prime example).

I would hope that cross-boundary services will be treated like Manchester and I think there are far too many of them in West Yorkshire for anything as daft as terminating the 36 at Alwoodley, or the Coastliners at Scarcroft, or the 592 at Todmodern/Portsmouth (to name a few) to be considered…


With regard to the Holme valley H’s - whichever operator theoretically won them would have a transfer period, much like we are seeing in Manchester - First won a small franchise in Rochdale and have accordingly bought some Mellor Stratas that will be delivered in time for the start of the franchise. I imagine whichever operator was to win the H’s would do the same here…

 

[markymark2000]

The Park and Ride in Leeds isn't ran as a park and ride scheme should be, its too focused on commuters, not leisure or day visitors just the suit and tie brigade who sit in an office all day from 9am 'til 5pm. The park and ride should run 7am 'til 7pm Monday to Saturday, 8am to 6pm Sunday with a private contractor running it as they see fit.

What, you mean the exact same market which has pretty much died off through Covid? The issue with the Park and Ride is that Elland Road is none operational on event days, what is the point on a park and ride which doesn't run on some days when an event is on. People will then just drive into town instead of using the P&R and if they are already driving into town, they may as well do that every day.

I'm seeing it as an excuse to kill off any form of private enterprise in West Yorkshire and turning the local bus network into "Brabingrad Busways" whilst stamping out competition as its not permited, what is this Russia? Belarus? Its certainly not the free market enterprise of England.

Welcome to the future under Labour. That seems to be the party line as we are seeing it in Manchester, seeing it in Liverpool, now again on West Yorkshire.

The West to South Yorkshire connections aren't brilliant

Isn't that mostly because historically both authorities have quite liked to enforce county borders for funding routes and therefore buses both terminate on the border rather than link up to create cross border links. For example Ingbirchworth, South Yorkshire fund the 24 to serve there and West Yorkshire run to the border on the D3 but never the two shall meet.

It has also been proven time and time again that in cities/towns that struggle with poorly designed city centres (Huddersfield) or bad congestion (Leeds) that hour-long cross-city routes don’t work. You just have to look at the recent splitting of the north and south sections of the 51/52 in Leeds to see why this happens.

And sadly this is already within the control of public authorities but there is zero ambition to improve these things. Yet they have the audacity to blame operators for longer bus journeys etc. Rip up the guided busways and make them normal busways (given the amount of routes which don't use the busways anyway). The never ending 'Connecting Leeds' project which seems to be making congestion worse for a number of buses. In Bradford, the proposals are to rid buses from the city centre and force everyone onto a silly shuttle bus to connect between bus services. The whole obsession with having a bus station on what seems like every street corner means delays to buses, especially as they are all in a drive on, reverse off format (These stations have their place but like Heckmondwike worked fine as it was, just could have built a decent building around what was there but nope, got to be the stupidly over the top DIRO bus station.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Again, my thoughts on these, and I'll try to maintain the relevance to the subject topic

This is down to two things - one is no proper promotion of the services available e.g. a network map complete with frequencies and town maps to entice people out of their cars along with timetables (OK they cost money but the cash spent on producing something that'll get people on board). The second is lack of demand, it'd be pointless running a rural bus service every ten minutes as no one will use it plus its a waste of resources.

I don't know what the poster that you referenced was talking about but it seemed that they were advocating more evening bus services on existing routes NOT rural bus services. That IS something that they have been doing in Manchester though I do question the justification. The night time economy just isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

On top of all of that we need more competition, judging by the questionable timetables on the more Huddersfield urban services e.g the 387 Beaumont Park circular which in itself could be merged with the southern half of the 328, whilst the 356 to Longwood, the 342 to Almondbury and 358 to Ashenhurst could be jettisoned off to a new operator who could if they wanted to, merge the three services together and form a a single Longwood to Ashenhurst service.

I don't believe we'd see any improvements with franchising, I'm seeing it as an excuse to kill off any form of private enterprise in West Yorkshire and turning the local bus network into "Brabingrad Busways" whilst stamping out competition as its not permited, what is this Russia? Belarus? Its certainly not the free market enterprise of England.

Crikey - you've been on the strong stuff. The hyperbole that this is some state like Belarus... I mean, I'm not convinced that franchising is the way forward but to suggest that it's closer to some autocratic regime rather than how things are done in many Western European democracies is ridiculous.

The fact is that there's not been a huge amount of competition in West Yorkshire. Serious and long-lasting examples have been fairly limited in 30 years - Rhodes, Quickstep, M Travel, Black Prince. Given the level of competition historically, and in the current climate, it's not surprising that the independents are confined to tendered work. It's not as if many have been rushing to fill the void when Arriva or First have withdrawn services.

Welcome to the future under Labour. That seems to be the party line as we are seeing it in Manchester, seeing it in Liverpool, now again on West Yorkshire.

Good lord - this reminds me of the Daily Mail headline a couple of months ago where they were pointing to the future under Labour with immigration blah blah blah, when it's the reality of the Tory administration.

Let us not forget that the enabling legislation for this was not a Labour Party innovation. I mean, you're going to get the more left-wing, Socialist commentators and Corbynistas who will say public ownership is always the solution, irrespective of the question. This legislation was not even rumoured before it was announced by George Osborne. So please spare us placing this as a Labour party "thing" - the Tories brought the legislation to the table and introduced it.

Don't get me wrong - in Liverpool especially, I am fully aware of the rush to franchising as being ideological catnip to those who believe in public control of services, but let's not forget that the Tories brought this in (and it wasn't in their manifesto). You might want to ask WHY a market forces, right-wing administration would seek to return control of bus services to public control?

Isn't that mostly because historically both authorities have quite liked to enforce county borders for funding routes and therefore buses both terminate on the border rather than link up to create cross border links. For example Ingbirchworth, South Yorkshire fund the 24 to serve there and West Yorkshire run to the border on the D3 but never the two shall meet.

This is the problem and it's been exacerbated by the cuts to funding from central government since 2010. Authorities have little money to spend so are they going to spend money on services that have limited benefit for their taxpayers? I mean, it's short-sighted and parochial but it's why it's been happening.

Odd that the area most greatly impacted has been where two PTEs meet though.

And sadly this is already within the control of public authorities but there is zero ambition to improve these things. Yet they have the audacity to blame operators for longer bus journeys etc. Rip up the guided busways and make them normal busways (given the amount of routes which don't use the busways anyway). The never ending 'Connecting Leeds' project which seems to be making congestion worse for a number of buses. In Bradford, the proposals are to rid buses from the city centre and force everyone onto a silly shuttle bus to connect between bus services. The whole obsession with having a bus station on what seems like every street corner means delays to buses, especially as they are all in a drive on, reverse off format (These stations have their place but like Heckmondwike worked fine as it was, just could have built a decent building around what was there but nope, got to be the stupidly over the top DIRO bus station.

Don't know if I agree with all of this; guided busways are a bit old hat. I'd actually say that West Yorkshire (Leeds) has better bus priority than many places but it could be better. The problem is that politicians are loath to upset motorists by removing on-street car parking, introducing bus priority etc. This is something that ALL parties are guilty of (as they don't want to lose votes) and we've already seen that the Tories are now moving into the zone (emboldened by the Uxbridge by-election) of ending the war on the motorist.

Where I do agree with you (and I've espoused this plenty of times) is the obsession with overly specified bus stations across West Yorkshire. Batley's old bus station was horrid, and others like Hemsworth were not that nice. However, the expense of building and maintaining these ones and others is just daft when they could use capital spend on bus priority.

 

[Andyh82]

I wonder what will happen to the small number of commercial ‘nice to haves’ that are currently in operation

Services such as parts of the 29 where Yorkshire Buses have extended it to the White Rose Centre to provide a new link, or the once a week shopper buses that South Pennine CT run.

They aren’t providing a long term social need, they are just a nice link, so would they still end up being incorporated into the publicly controlled network?

 

[johncrossley]

Why is everyone still going for this down right stupid model of giving away large franchises. As is evident with Manchester, upon takeover it causes HUGE amounts of issues as many employees end up being forced to change operator (a model which is not popular amongst bus staff. We have a shortage of them already in some cases, why willingly make that worse?). The tenders are also awful for independents and in some cases mean there is much more dead mileage than if it was ran by independents. There are very few examples where routes should be grouped, those examples mostly being little town routes or routes which need to interwork due to inefficiencies.

I presume you missed the earlier replies to your same complaint on the other thread. The overriding reason for large franchises is to remove the advantage of incumbency, which hopefully results in more competition for tenders and therefore lower cost. There is one-off disruption at the start of the first franchise, but when it gets retendered there will be little or no disruption. The staff and buses can just stay where they are.

London is relatively unusual in having route by route tendering. Whole depot franchising is more common.

If South Yorkshire goes down the franchised route as well, it might be worth having a joint coordinating committee to specify services, including perhaps some joint running and ticketing arrangements?

Obviously in other countries there are well established rules on cross-boundary services, so it shouldn't be a big deal. In Germany, for example, you have many tariff regions. The normal procedure is to have overlapping zone systems to enable most people to carry out journeys on one ticket. You even have international ticketing arrangements in border areas where you have joint tickets covering two or even three countries.

 

[markymark2000]

the Tories brought the legislation to the table and introduced it.

How much of that was done to try and get/keep votes from Labour though or done in exchange to get Labours help to get some bills through parliament? Yes the enabling blocks were put in place by the Conservatives but it's Labour who are using it. The West Midlands has achieved great things with partnership, as has Leicester. The difference is that their politicians aren't sat bashing private companies for everything that goes wrong in the world and instead is trying to work with the operators to achieve the common goal of more people on public transport.

Odd that the area most greatly impacted has been where two PTEs meet though.

Another example would be South Elmstall to Doncaster. If South Elmstall was in South Yorkshire, it would have at bare minimum an hourly service but as it's in another borough, theres only 3 trips to Doncaster and 2 return trips.
Same with Liverpool/Greater Manchester with the Newton Le Willows situation. Newton being the closest station for Leigh and Ashton but dismal bus links as Manchester won't fund it because it goes the wrong side of the border and the routes wouldn't benefit Merseyside and all of their areas are sufficiently covered. Same as how both Merseyside and Manchester tickets terminate at their borders so anyone making journeys between the two borders needs a single ticket to bridge the gap. That is despite the number of people travelling across these borders. Both Labour areas too and both preaching wanting to improve multi modal travel yet both refuse to work together on tickets. Hypocritical mayors!

Don't know if I agree with all of this; guided busways are a bit old hat. I'd actually say that West Yorkshire (Leeds) has better bus priority than many places but it could be better. The problem is that politicians are loath to upset motorists by removing on-street car parking, introducing bus priority etc. This is something that ALL parties are guilty of (as they don't want to lose votes) and we've already seen that the Tories are now moving into the zone (emboldened by the Uxbridge by-election) of ending the war on the motorist.

There are some good bits of bus priority but it's nowhere near as widerspread as it should be. Plus even if they have bus roads like in Leeds City Centre, yes they are bus roads but they are much more narrow than they were and generally it's more buses along roads with less lanes making it harder for buses to overtake other buses at stops so the bus lanes/gates look good but in practise, they can have big flaws.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Isn't that mostly because historically both authorities have quite liked to enforce county borders for funding routes and therefore buses both terminate on the border rather than link up to create cross border links. For example Ingbirchworth, South Yorkshire fund the 24 to serve there and West Yorkshire run to the border on the D3 but never the two shall meet.

How far back are you looking? In the 1980s and 1990s there were multiple routes between Huddersfield and Barnsley run by Yorkshire Traction, with a minimum of one bus per hour between the two towns pretty much all day. Not sure what killed these off, as I wasn't living in the area at the time. By the time I moved back there was nothing other than the short-lived and useless 85/85a in Centrebus days.

To be honest the big issue at the moment, at least in Arriva territory, is that even the frequent routes (268, 281+283) absolutely fall off a cliff the moment the clock strikes 6pm.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How much of that was done to try and get/keep votes from Labour though or done in exchange to get Labours help to get some bills through parliament? Yes the enabling blocks were put in place by the Conservatives but it's Labour who are using it. The West Midlands has achieved great things with partnership, as has Leicester. The difference is that their politicians aren't sat bashing private companies for everything that goes wrong in the world and instead is trying to work with the operators to achieve the common goal of more people on public transport.

None of it was done to get Labour votes. This was legislation that caught Labour unawares, and they didn't need to do it. Remember that they had a majority in the Commons, and that's before you consider the hidden support of the DUP and that Sinn Fein don't attend. The real reason was, I suspect, that they were going to fully jettison all responsibility for buses from central government e.g. no BSOG but then everything got derailed by the Brexit referendum et al

I agree with the partnership model but that doesn't get away from the fact that a Tory administration brought the enabling legislation forward. I'd much sooner see the approach of West Midlands applied in West Yorkshire and elsewhere.

Another example would be South Elmstall to Doncaster. If South Elmstall was in South Yorkshire, it would have at bare minimum an hourly service but as it's in another borough, theres only 3 trips to Doncaster and 2 return trips.

The old 498 was the one I was thinking about. Those links south from West Yorkshire to Doncaster and Barnsley are a shadow of what they were.

Same with Liverpool/Greater Manchester with the Newton Le Willows situation. Newton being the closest station for Leigh and Ashton but dismal bus links as Manchester won't fund it because it goes the wrong side of the border and the routes wouldn't benefit Merseyside and all of their areas are sufficiently covered. Same as how both Merseyside and Manchester tickets terminate at their borders so anyone making journeys between the two borders needs a single ticket to bridge the gap. That is despite the number of people travelling across these borders. Both Labour areas too and both preaching wanting to improve multi modal travel yet both refuse to work together on tickets. Hypocritical mayors!

That may be the case but again, it's hardly a thing that is confined to Labour areas. We've seen it with the Wells to Weston Super Mare service. When it got chopped, North Somerset did nothing except continue a tendered 5 times a day route that happened to serve Winscombe en route to Wrington. Somerset Council tendered a partial replacement from Wells but only to Axbridge on their side of the border. They could have run to Winscombe but no... both councils are Lib Dem.

Or the Tory council in Dorset cutting services in North Dorset that whilst they serve local residents also serve Somerset. It's the approach of the council rather than the political persuasion that is important.

There are some good bits of bus priority but it's nowhere near as widerspread as it should be. Plus even if they have bus roads like in Leeds City Centre, yes they are bus roads but they are much more narrow than they were and generally it's more buses along roads with less lanes making it harder for buses to overtake other buses at stops so the bus lanes/gates look good but in practise, they can have big flaws.

Leeds is still much better than most cities (but of course could be better). Guided bus has pretty much had it's day

 

[GusB]

There has been a "counter proposal" with the Enhanced Partnership Plus. As it's a separate development, the relevant posts have been moved here:

West Yorkshire "Enhanced Partnership Plus" proposal

First, Arriva and Transdev Blazefield are proposing an Enhanced Partnership Plus, as an alternative to full Franchising https://www.route-one.net/news/operators-propose-ep-plus-to-deliver-west-yorkshire-bus-reform/ Operators propose EP Plus to deliver West Yorkshire bus reform A group of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Andyh82]

As per the first post, today is the deadline to take part in the consultation

As of now, You’ve got half an hour!

Will will presumably then see what the public have said in due course, although I’m pretty certain the responses will be overwhelmingly in favour

 

[WAB]

Well here is what the former MD of Stagecoach's UK buses, (previously director of First Scotland) has to say about franchising. Thoughts?

West Yorkshire Bus Franchising Assessment

Having had the ‘pleasure’ of reading the 1,000+ page Bus Franchising Assessment of West Yorkshire Combined Authority, on which consultation closes this weekend, I have come to one very simple conclusion.

Don’t do it!

And for one very good and simple reason.

WYCA have been promised £2.5bn of public money to design and deliver a Mass Transit System across the conurbation. Work is already advanced on the planning with a target date of 2040 and it will certainly cannibalise the existing bus network.

The Franchising Plan has been assessed over a 40 year period from 2026 to 2066 and includes substantial (albeit currently grossly understated) investment in publicly owned depots, zero emission buses and transition costs – much of which will be rendered redundant by the Mass Transit System which may even be bus operated, itself.

Where is the sense in investing scarce public funding and management resource in planning and delivering a transition from the existing bus model to a franchised one only for it to be subject to major change only a third of the way into the Appraisal Period?

Despite it’s gargantuan 1,000+ pages, the Mass Transit System doesn’t even get a mention in the Assessment – as if it doesn’t exist although it will have a material impact on the viability of the Proposal.

This is the third Franchising Assessment we have seen following the Bus Services Act and, whilst the first two seem to exist in some kind of parallel universe where the normal rules of bus economics don’t seem to apply, this one also, sort of, forgets all about the £2.5bn about to be spent on a parallel Mass Transit System.

It also happens to be the one Franchising Proposal where the current private sector operators are collectively offering a bold, compelling Enhanced Partnership offer.

If I were the Mayor, I would accept that Offer and revisit the whole issue of delivering public transport across West Yorkshire holistically as part of the Mass Transit Project.

Do it once and do it properly investing management resource and public money to do a proper job for the people of West Yorkshire in a considered way and stop wasting valuable resources in what will simply be an interim bodge job on the bus network.

UK public debt and the UK tax burden are both at an all time high, we have a 7.5m NHS Waiting List and all sorts of other underfunded public services so now may be a good time to use some common sense and spend money wisely?

I’m sure there are plenty of other needs across West Yorkshire which would make better use of the investment.

Robert Montgomery on LinkedIn: West Yorkshire Bus Franchising Assessment Having had the ‘pleasure’ of… | 16 comments

West Yorkshire Bus Franchising Assessment Having had the ‘pleasure’ of reading the 1,000+ page Bus Franchising Assessment of West Yorkshire Combined… | 16 comments on LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

 

[TUC]

Even allowing for there being specific legal requirement, the consultation paper and the response questionnaire are amongst the most inaccessible documents I have seen in any public consultation. I can't decide whether this is a deliberate tactic to limit responses or whether they were written by people incapable of communicating in an engaging, accessible manner.