Buses Bill

[wirralbus]

RE: Buses Bill

(19/05/2016 19:13)Dentonian Wrote:  *If* it happens. Don't forget that franchising will be the choice of the Elected Mayor. He/She may decide to continue with a deregulated environment. Speaking purely for GM (I don't know what Merseyside's - or Greater Liverpool? - perceived timeline is), but it almost certainly won't happen at all before the next general election, and it will not be a "big bang" like De-reg.

Can only see the status quo happening if you manage to get a conservative mayor in GM , I know for one Liverpool City Region wouldn't be electing a conservative mayor .

The next question does Tyne and Wear still go it alone with there proposals though.

[Barney]

RE: Buses Bill

(19/05/2016 19:13)Dentonian Wrote:  *If* it happens. Don't forget that franchising will be the choice of the Elected Mayor. He/She may decide to continue with a deregulated environment. Speaking purely for GM (I don't know what Merseyside's - or Greater Liverpool? - perceived timeline is), but it almost certainly won't happen at all before the next general election, and it will not be a "big bang" like De-reg.

The next general election is exactly four years away and the mayoral elections next year. Personally, I can see some radical changes to bus provision sooner than 2020.

[wirralbus]

RE: Buses Bill
Then you'll probably have the likes of TfGM wanting to stagger the franchises so they don't all fall for renewal at the same time , much as you have now for the tendered work.

[kuyoyo]

RE: Buses Bill

(19/05/2016 20:35)Dentonian Wrote:  I'm not sure Tyne & Wear would go it alone in any context. I've just been reading that the "NECA" will now include County Durham and presumably Tees-side, so a much bigger area than that covered by the current T&W PTE. Also, the Buses Bill would make their Quality Contract concept redundant anyway. Add to that, the fact that (at least) Sheffield City Region will also be getting an Elected Mayor, and such as Bristol already has one, and discussing Tyne & Wear in isolation is no longer relevent.

Teessside and Darlington are a separate Authority to the North East one (the Tees Valley Region) while the North East Combined Authority is Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Northumberland. However, Gateshead Council have voted against the elected Mayor so that will be a spanner in the works. As for the QCS, it was dropped officially by the NECA and NEXUS a few weeks ago.

[knutstransport]

RE: Buses Bill

(18/05/2016 17:17)Barney Wrote:  As I understand it, as in London, any operator could bid to run a route but the hours of operation, fares, frequency and vehicle type would be determined by the mayor's office. The successful bidder would have exclusive rights to run the service so QBP's such as 10, 14, 82, 86 etc. will be a thing of the past.

What about routes which are partly in one mayor's area and partly in another mayor's area? For instance, currently the 88, 200 and 289 routes which run in to Greater Manchester are Cheshire East contracts.

[wirralbus]

RE: Buses Bill
It will be the lead contracting organisation for the route that will have responsibility i reckon , with the other area just doing and a check and balance exercise to ensure everything is above board.

[Barney]

RE: Buses Bill

(19/05/2016 21:07)Dentonian Wrote:  The Elections may well be next year. However, the Bus Franchising will be one of many things on his/her agenda. In addition, there will be a lot of work to be done by TFGM alongside their existing work (with few additional resources), so it is expected it will take a long time to get a large network organised ready for Franchising, including a revised, simpler and more equitable fares regime. There will then be the process itself, with Operators bidding for the seperate franchises, proper assessments made and Operators given plenty of time to adjust their ops to suit larger or smaller commitments. Plus, current thinking is that franchising would be phased in over a period of a year or two. Presumably, they will start with Districts eg. Bolton/Bury or Tameside/Stockport, on the basis that these networks would be more "self contained" and that the poorer suburbs need improving more urgently. Last estimate I heard was FY "2021/22", but again, I stress this is purely the thinking in GM - Greater Liverpool and other City Regions might have different timelines

The 1985 Transport Act (bus deregulation) was fully implemented on 26th October 1986 across the whole of Great Britain except for London which introduced franchising. This was at a time when computers, spread sheets and data bases were in their infancy and electronic communication in the workplace consisted of a telephone.

In this day and age with modern technology there is no reason why the new mayoral powers re bus services couldn't be implemented within a year of a mayor being elected. After all, everyone in the bus industry has known that this was coming for ages.

[Barney]

RE: Buses Bill

(20/05/2016 19:27)Dentonian Wrote:  At the risk of repeating myself, the Elected Mayors may or may not go ahead with franchising and will have numerous other powers to consider/influence. Also, there is no reason to think there will extra front line staff to process the Franchises, whilst still dealing with existing contracts, commercial withdrawals (one already registered for 24 July, for instance!) and all the other day-to-day tasks.

"Modern technology" is largely irrelevant when thousands of jobs are potentiallly to be affected. Also - and irrlevent of the politics - Deregulation hardly went smoothly, despite those at the sharp end simply needing to evaluate services on a more financial basis. The original De-reg date should have been 26 Jan 1986, but some time in Summer/Autumn 1985 after many service Registrations were already being prepared, Whitehall delayed it by 9 months. Then, it was pretty disasterous from Day one with the travelling public not grasping the concept of services running for profit; understaffing and geberal chaos. Such that a large part of the network was hastily changed again 3 months later.....and again nearly a year after that! It would be foolish to rush such major changes that affect hundreds of thousands of passengers - especially as this time, blaming it on the public sector *would* be justified - unlike 30 years ago.

Just seen on Granada TV news that GM is to push ahead with bringing all bus operations under its control with a standard livery, fare structure and route planning asap.

[Metroline1511]

RE: Buses Bill

(20/05/2016 08:33)knutstransport Wrote:  What about routes which are partly in one mayor's area and partly in another mayor's area? For instance, currently the 88, 200 and 289 routes which run in to Greater Manchester are Cheshire East contracts.

Some interesting routes could include route 34 from Leigh to St Helens - covering Greater Manchester & "Greater Merseyside" - and routes 375 & 385 - covering both counties and also Lancashire in the middle. Who if either could franchise these?

[Barney]

RE: Buses Bill

(21/05/2016 20:19)Dentonian Wrote:  The big problem would be if one Mayor wants to Franchise and the other doesn't. Thinking about it, Wigan-Southport will be a major problem as it passes through West Lancashire which presumably has no plans for Devolution or an Elected Mayor. The Cheshire examples knutstransport mentions shouldn't be much of a problem, as relatively little mileage is in Greater Manchester, so with Cheshire East not being devolved, the status quo will presumably apply. I would think the only likely problem would be with single fares within GM. The 200 is already an administrative nightmare, as it is funded by Cheshire East, National Trust, MAplc and TFGM, albeit I assume the former is the lead authority.

I can't think of any scenario where franchising isn't adopted by any elected mayor once the bill becomes law. It has been put forward by a Tory government as an admission that bus deregulation outside of London hasn't worked and Labour and the Lib Dems have been campaigning for years for a change to the law on bus service provision.

In truth, the number and significance of cross-boundary services is minimal