TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Some fair points there. I'll try to be balanced though I am obviously airing some concerns.
I guess that the fact that people has tended to assume London style operations is that it's what we can see in the industry, and what is proposed for Nexus. The Kernow model may be the franchise to mere run buses in X area with minimum service requirements as you say.
The big thing is that we don't know the detail. £50m is a lot for the initial start up so does that include compensation to operators who may have commercial operations taken from them? Also, they've not said franchising will happen - they will get the powers to allow them to do it though. And what of hypothecation; will the funds raised by public transport be ringfenced for reinvestment? The last thing anyone needs is using buses to cover shortfalls elsewhere in the budget.
Clearly, the term "fiscally neutral" is key and that's the one with the most questions. The model looks like getting more passengers and increasing profit to reinvest. All very laudable. The passenger figures with a bit of working back look like a current 10.5m falling to 9.5m by 2018; they want 13m by 2023. Now, that's a tall order - a increase of 26% over 5 years against a decline of 10% over the previous 3?
Of course, the period 2012-5 is probably the worst period (given WGL's travails) so the "decline" might actually not be so great but if you're taking the CC figures at face value, then that's what it says.
The other area of interest is the idea of returns. Clearly, we don't know if CC will provide buses with an operator merely to operate, a tightly controlled London style network, a looser TOC style operation etc. However, the view would be that an operator would be looking to make c.7%; I wonder how much First are making on their Cornwall network - probably not much more than that and that's with a fairly archaic fleet. Hence why the question of patronage levels is so important.
The other concern is in terms of capability on two levels. Do they have the required skills to run a full network, as opposed to a relatively simple procurement process (as currently)?
The other capability question is on the basis of politics and largesse getting in the way of sensible decision making. I've seen countless examples over the years of some loud mouthed councillor getting buses running to some village or suburb for half a dozen pensioners when other services are getting pulled. That's the politicking; then you have the fanciful schemes that have historically frittered money away.
As an example, Somerset CC got a lot of money for Rural Bus Challenge. They created a huge Sunday network in a county that had hitherto been largely bereft. Some made a lot of sense and indeed, the funds did act as a form of pump priming seeing Sunday buses appearing in places like Wellington and Bridgwater where they had previously not run for years and now operate commercially.
However, such was the attitude, buses were appearing everywhere often with headways better than through the week. Bridgwater to Minehead, Yeovil to Chard, Shepton Mallet to Yeovil, Bath to Bridgwater..... it was madness. Then the money ran out and the services mostly disappeared; a missed chance when what could've happened was the pump priming of better bets and actually creating some sustainable networks.
That's not to say that CC will do that but it is a legitimate concern; for every good council (like Wiltshire, you seem to have a duffer like North Yorkshire). Think we need to understand the proposals in greater detail before we can say if it's a good, bad or indifferent idea
I guess that the fact that people has tended to assume London style operations is that it's what we can see in the industry, and what is proposed for Nexus. The Kernow model may be the franchise to mere run buses in X area with minimum service requirements as you say.
The big thing is that we don't know the detail. £50m is a lot for the initial start up so does that include compensation to operators who may have commercial operations taken from them? Also, they've not said franchising will happen - they will get the powers to allow them to do it though. And what of hypothecation; will the funds raised by public transport be ringfenced for reinvestment? The last thing anyone needs is using buses to cover shortfalls elsewhere in the budget.
Clearly, the term "fiscally neutral" is key and that's the one with the most questions. The model looks like getting more passengers and increasing profit to reinvest. All very laudable. The passenger figures with a bit of working back look like a current 10.5m falling to 9.5m by 2018; they want 13m by 2023. Now, that's a tall order - a increase of 26% over 5 years against a decline of 10% over the previous 3?
Of course, the period 2012-5 is probably the worst period (given WGL's travails) so the "decline" might actually not be so great but if you're taking the CC figures at face value, then that's what it says.
The other area of interest is the idea of returns. Clearly, we don't know if CC will provide buses with an operator merely to operate, a tightly controlled London style network, a looser TOC style operation etc. However, the view would be that an operator would be looking to make c.7%; I wonder how much First are making on their Cornwall network - probably not much more than that and that's with a fairly archaic fleet. Hence why the question of patronage levels is so important.
The other concern is in terms of capability on two levels. Do they have the required skills to run a full network, as opposed to a relatively simple procurement process (as currently)?
The other capability question is on the basis of politics and largesse getting in the way of sensible decision making. I've seen countless examples over the years of some loud mouthed councillor getting buses running to some village or suburb for half a dozen pensioners when other services are getting pulled. That's the politicking; then you have the fanciful schemes that have historically frittered money away.
As an example, Somerset CC got a lot of money for Rural Bus Challenge. They created a huge Sunday network in a county that had hitherto been largely bereft. Some made a lot of sense and indeed, the funds did act as a form of pump priming seeing Sunday buses appearing in places like Wellington and Bridgwater where they had previously not run for years and now operate commercially.
However, such was the attitude, buses were appearing everywhere often with headways better than through the week. Bridgwater to Minehead, Yeovil to Chard, Shepton Mallet to Yeovil, Bath to Bridgwater..... it was madness. Then the money ran out and the services mostly disappeared; a missed chance when what could've happened was the pump priming of better bets and actually creating some sustainable networks.
That's not to say that CC will do that but it is a legitimate concern; for every good council (like Wiltshire, you seem to have a duffer like North Yorkshire). Think we need to understand the proposals in greater detail before we can say if it's a good, bad or indifferent idea
hock: 
Hardly comparable to anything else.
