Are Nexus (Tyne and Wear) about to introduce a Quality Bus Contract Scheme? (October

[TheGrandWazoo]

Surely that's a chicken and egg situation? At the moment, Nexus is only involved in procurement of subsidised bus services so won't currently have someone of that nature. They can't just have someone twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the QC to be approved.

It would appear using the QC route to franchising is a dead end, given that it will always end up being thrown out by the committee as the conditions are clearly too onerous, despite allegedly being made less so in 2008. Better to wait for devolution, like what Greater Manchester has. As part of the deal with the government to impose an elected mayor, that area has been given permission to take control of transport like TfL so it need not pass near-impossible QC-type tests.

There would have been no problem in recruiting someone with the relevant background to head this project up even on a consultancy basis. However, they didn't.

 

[radamfi]

There would have been no problem in recruiting someone with the relevant background to head this project up even on a consultancy basis. However, they didn't.

But they didn't need someone like that until the QC had been approved. Certainly if it was obvious that they would lose unless they had someone in place then they would have got someone. Therefore it probably wasn't obvious.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've taken time to read the summary of the report and its damning to NEXUS.

You should read the whole report.

By its very nature, virtually everything that Nexus was trying to assess was a novel intervention. There was little, if any, truly relevant research for them to draw upon. It is the Board’s view that they have done exceptionally well to get where they have got to today

It's clear when you read Appendix 3 that it is fundamentally impossible for any local authority to meet the criteria to establish a QCS.

 

[radamfi]

By its very nature, virtually everything that Nexus was trying to assess was a novel intervention.

On the contrary, deregulation is extremely "novel". In developed countries, direct state running or franchising is the norm. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country that has deregulation where the transport authority has no right to run its own buses or to pay someone to do it for them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We therefore find Nexus’s central case that bus fares are likely to rise at bus costs +2% is not made out. Including all the available years and excluding the 2010 increase, for example, gives an average of bus costs + 1.05%

So the panel arbritrarily decided to ignore the one year where bus prices rose at 8.5% above costs, in order to decide that the QCS was unaffordable.

Right you are.

The more I read of this report, the more I think it stinks...

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the contrary, deregulation is extremely "novel". In developed countries, direct state running or franchising is the norm. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country that has deregulation where the transport authority has no right to run its own buses or to pay someone to do it for them.

Quite. And what I think is madness is *not* trying that in the UK (other than London, which is a very different ball game to provincial cities) just to see if it might possibly be better.

If it turns out it isn't, we can then give it up as a bad job, but ignoring the practice of just about every other European country is to me a very strange approach, particularly given that our rail network is run on that basis. Particularly if it's only being ignored because Brian Souter happens to think it's a bad idea because it might just cut his profits a bit because it would become more viable for smaller operators with lower costs to bid, as he would lose his ability to run them off the road if they try at present.

That said, maybe we do already have de-facto examples. Aylesbury has an almost fully tendered local bus network, for instance, not because of legal constraints but because it isn't a profitable market. So that could be used as an example of how it might work in a typical small British town.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So the panel arbritrarily decided to ignore the one year where bus prices rose at 8.5% above costs, in order to decide that the QCS was unaffordable.

Right you are.

The more I read of this report, the more I think it stinks...

No, they recognised that the costs rose for a specific reason. Also, they did point out that Nexus had arbitrarily missed out two years.....

"Predicting future price rises is clearly a complex matter. Historical price progression is an obvious potential indicator. Nexus contends that the eight-year period from 2006 to 2014 is representative of longer term fare price trends in the bus market. Nexus had originally used a period of 2004 to 2012 but updated its model to include the latest two years data which became available. It has now discounted the years 2004 and 2005 from its analysis. It is notable that those years were years of below bus cost fare price rises. Nexus’s argument for this is that periods of low or no increases in fares are followed by periods of higher increases in fares. They argue that prices are cyclical"

Now given that these were originally in the reference period, and were then removed by Nexus, why would that be? Clearly, the 2010 uplift was an anomaly given the figures for the years 2004-14 were basically constant (reflecting the halving of BSOG). Over a longer reference period, that's fine but not in a relatively narrow period and that's why it was excluded.

 

[the101]

I am delighted that the QCS board has seen clean through Nexus and irs ill thought out, financially inept charade. Looks like they won't be needing the bus depot they had their name on after all.

 

[ChathillMan]

Surely that's a chicken and egg situation? At the moment, Nexus is only involved in procurement of subsidised bus services so won't currently have someone of that nature. They can't just have someone twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the QC to be approved.

It would appear using the QC route to franchising is a dead end, given that it will always end up being thrown out by the committee as the conditions are clearly too onerous, despite allegedly being made less so in 2008. Better to wait for devolution, like what Greater Manchester has. As part of the deal with the government to impose an elected mayor, that area has been given permission to take control of transport like TfL so it need not pass near-impossible QC-type tests.

Without going in to too much info NEXUS did employ people with commercial experience in the bus industry and they left when NEXUS embarked on QCS.

If they had stayed i imagine NEXUS would have a better idea of how commercial bus operations work.

 

[AB93]

And what I think is madness is *not* trying that in the UK (other than London, which is a very different ball game to provincial cities) just to see if it might possibly be better.

If it turns out it isn't, we can then give it up as a bad job,

What!!!

If we take away the businesses several companies have built over over thirty years, remove stability for several thousand staff, run everything at public risk, it is a complete financial disaster, services are cut, the whole thing collapses into a black hole, and thousands and thousands of passengers are affected... we can simply "give it up as a bad job"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What!!!

If we take away the businesses several companies have built over over thirty years, remove stability for several thousand staff, run everything at public risk, it is a complete financial disaster, services are cut, the whole thing collapses into a black hole, and thousands and thousands of passengers are affected... we can simply "give it up as a bad job"?

That is an absolute disaster scenario, and worldwide experience would suggest it is infinitessimally unlikely to go that way.

A more likely failure scenario would be a controlled closedown and re-deregulation having discovered it to be too expensive, following which Stagecoach etc would I'm sure quickly move back in and restart commercial service and employ any displaced drivers. Why would they not if it was profitable?

 

[Robertj21a]

That is an absolute disaster scenario, and worldwide experience would suggest it is infinitessimally unlikely to go that way.

A more likely failure scenario would be a controlled closedown and re-deregulation having discovered it to be too expensive, following which Stagecoach etc would I'm sure quickly move back in and restart commercial service and employ any displaced drivers. Why would they not if it was profitable?

So Stagecoach are expected to go back into the same market as before, after others have failed, and find new depots (at considerable cost) re-stock a fleet with their preferred vehicles, employ new/better maintenance staff/drivers/admin etc etc (they're hardly likely to willingly accept whatever is left of the regulated mess unless it was at give-away prices).
Why would Stagecoach bother when there's plenty of other business in trains, foreign buses, boats etc etc.
All we end up with is the loss of the most efficient and professional bus operator !

 

[Bletchleyite]

You suggest that they almost won't out of principle. I disagree. They will go where there is profit.

 

[AB93]

You suggest that they almost won't out of principle. I disagree. They will go where there is profit.

So they come back. But only after its gone wrong. So patronage has declined. And Stagecoach then have to build everything back up again, to get back to the level they were at before??

Who knows, they might come back. But that's really no reason to say "ah, let's give it a go, if it all goes horribly wrong, who cares!" is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is an absolute disaster scenario, and worldwide experience would suggest it is infinitessimally unlikely to go that way.

A more likely failure scenario would be a controlled closedown and re-deregulation having discovered it to be too expensive, following which Stagecoach etc would I'm sure quickly move back in and restart commercial service and employ any displaced drivers. Why would they not if it was profitable?

I worded it as the worst case scenario, yes. But in any situation:

-Bus companies have their businesses taken away (and possibly get compensation). Check.

-Thousands of staff loose the security of being employed by one employer. Check.

-Everything will be at public risk. Check.

Then, if the finances don't stack up (which, although you don't seem to think is a problem, the board certainly seemed to have major issues with Nexus' sums), millions of pounds are wasted. Check.

-Services could be cut. Possibility.

-Passengers are at a disadvantage. Possibility.

None of which make me think we should 'just give it a go', and 'see what happens' as you suggest.

The fact is, they have had a go, but it's been stopped because the sums don't stack up. That's the correct way of doing things. Not doing it anyway, and then discovering afterwards the sums don't stack up. With public money. That's absolutely ridiculous.

You suggest a 'controlled closedown and re-deregulation after discovering it being too expensive'. At what point is that call made. How many millions of taxpayers money will have been wasted by then? It's a complete no brainier.

 

[radamfi]

No consideration of the consequences of deregulation was considered in 1986. There was no "Plan B". If bus patronage plummeted, then so be it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Stagecoach will go where there is profit to be made. They were very vociferous about being glad of being out of London, how it is a disaster for bus operators, right up until it became apparent they could get East London and Selkent back off of Macquarie Bank at a knockdown price. Suddenly they decided they didn't mind the London market so much after all.

I'm sure if regulated bus services became available at a knockdown price they would snap it up, just like they did in the 80s and 90s when bus companies were sold to them for less than the value of the land they owned.

Also, when deregulation was brought in in 1986 nobody seemed to care whether bus usage plummeted. That's why we're in such a mess now, with most commercial networks ending at 7pm.

The panel had misgivings about Nexus' sums, deciding that they needed to put a 40% optimism bias on all their costings, but the board decided to take the bus operators' sums completely at face value. They even disregarded the one year where fares shot up dramatically in order to do so (and yes, I know the bus companies' excuse was BSOG cuts, and that they don't put fares up that much every year, but that doesn't change the fact fares shot up). I think we can safely take that panel's opinions with a huge pinch of salt.

The panel also took all the bus companies' suggestions at improvement at face value, even though NEBOA had made absolutely no attempt to suggest anything or work towards a voluntary scheme until the 11th hour. It'll be fascinating to see how many of these improvements ever actually happen now, that's for certain.

(NB: I still don't think we should have had a QCS, but this report reads very much like a stitch-up).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Stagecoach will go where there is profit to be made. They were very vociferous about being glad of being out of London, how it is a disaster for bus operators, right up until it became apparent they could get East London and Selkent back off of Macquarie Bank at a knockdown price. Suddenly they decided they didn't mind the London market so much after all.

I'm sure if regulated bus services became available at a knockdown price they would snap it up, just like they did in the 80s and 90s when bus companies were sold to them for less than the value of the land they owned.

Also, when deregulation was brought in in 1986 nobody seemed to care whether bus usage plummeted. That's why we're in such a mess now, with most commercial networks ending at 7pm.

The panel had misgivings about Nexus' sums, deciding that they needed to put a 40% optimism bias on all their costings, but the board decided to take the bus operators' sums completely at face value. They even disregarded the one year where fares shot up dramatically in order to do so (and yes, I know the bus companies' excuse was BSOG cuts, and that they don't put fares up that much every year, but that doesn't change the fact fares shot up). I think we can safely take that panel's opinions with a huge pinch of salt.

The panel also took all the bus companies' suggestions at improvement at face value, even though NEBOA had made absolutely no attempt to suggest anything or work towards a voluntary scheme until the 11th hour. It'll be fascinating to see how many of these improvements ever actually happen now, that's for certain.

(NB: I still don't think we should have had a QCS, but this report reads very much like a stitch-up).

You've decided to pick and mix on the report. As was said, the one year when fares "shot up" was clearly an anomaly based on BSOG. Note that they didn't discount 2006 when the other "shock" was there?

However, there's a question as to why Nexus arbitrarily removed 2004/5 from their calculations? Certainly, the panel though that was curious and there seems no logical explanation from Nexus.

The panel have looked at the Nexus figures and, as I have said all along, they don't hold water. Yes, they'll trumpet (as you do) the +20% figure for Busways profit margin but when you look at the entire network, it's 13%. The idea that they will somehow procure better than TfL who are around the 8% mark is highly dubious as is the idea that the 5% variance will fund the improvements that they claim.

It's no surprise that the panel reached the conclusion that they did. I too noticed that there was implied criticism of the bus operators and the fact that they left everything to the last minute before offering up alternatives, showing that it wasn't some whitewash.

For students of the past, deregulation may have been sold on the promise of better service. The reality was that the a) passenger figures were in sharp decline b) the cost to the public purse was massive in terms of underwriting the NBC etc (plus all the hidden subsidies via rates, NBG, etc). The costs of operation were massively reduced in the aftermath. Some via erosion of driver wages and some via removal of bureaucracy and wasteful practices.

Also, and we've covered this before, buses do not exist in some sort of vacuum. Look at the number of boarded up pubs and ask if the dynamics of evening travelling have changed? That, and the fragmentation of the flows as licensing hours have been changed from a single closing time to a range. Therefore, the evening services have been massively impacted by a) reduced passenger figures that are b) spread over a longer period (i.e. less concentrated).

As for Neil's views that "oh, it can all just go back to as it were".... there are 3 businesses that will be predominantly affected not just 1. Also, the impact on the adjoining areas (always the elephant in the room) in SE Northumberland and Co Durham may be irreparable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, there's a question as to why Nexus arbitrarily removed 2004/5 from their calculations? Certainly, the panel though that was curious and there seems no logical explanation from Nexus.

I think the reason was that they added the later year, but yes, it was unfortunate.

I don't think the bus companies are as good value as NEBOA claim they are and I don't think they're as bad value as Nexus claimed.

The idea that they will somehow procure better than TfL who are around the 8% mark is highly dubious as is the idea that the 5% variance will fund the improvements that they claim.

The panel actually thought 8-10% was realistic, given the market is currently at around 13%. The issue was the 40% optimisation bias that they placed on Nexus, which had the immediate effect of making everything look unaffordable. The idea, put forward by NEBOA, that the existing network would collapse under Nexus control is laughable.

I too noticed that there was implied criticism of the bus operators and the fact that they left everything to the last minute before offering up alternatives, showing that it wasn't some whitewash.

I agree, I highlighted the criticism. The panel did, however, decide to take all these promises at face value, adding them into the value calculation despite the behaviour of NEBOA.

If the promised improvements do actually arrive then I'd say it was a success of Nexus, in that NEBOA had no interest in providing any improvements until they realised Nexus were serious about the QCS. If Nexus hadn't gone down the QCS route I doubt we would have seen the investment, especially from Stagecoach and Arriva (Go, in fairness, were already improving rapidly under Huntley, although they were starting from a very low base).

Also, the impact on the adjoining areas (always the elephant in the room) in SE Northumberland and Co Durham may be irreparable.

I have a vested interest as I live in SE Northumberland and not in Tyne and Wear, but this is the main reason why I was against the QCS. There are many issues for people living where I do- the complete lack of integrated ticketing, for one thing- and I actually think a QCS would have made things worse. I live less than three miles from a Metro station yet cannot buy an integrated Metro and bus pass, and I think the QCS would only have made the situation worse.

As I've said, I don't think we need the rigidity of a QCS, and I think that rigidity would make some parts of the system worse. But the issue was that NEBOA have been completely unwilling to work with Nexus for many years and, certainly in the case of Arriva and Stagecoach, have been happy to massively underinvest in their network whilst creaming the profits off. The threat of a QCS made Stagecoach and Arriva pull their finger out; it'll be interesting to see if they retain that motivation now the threat of a QCS has gone.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think the reason was that they added the later year, but yes, it was unfortunate.

I don't think the bus companies are as good value as NEBOA claim they are and I don't think they're as bad value as Nexus claimed.



The panel actually thought 8-10% was realistic, given the market is currently at around 13%. The issue was the 40% optimisation bias that they placed on Nexus, which had the immediate effect of making everything look unaffordable. The idea, put forward by NEBOA, that the existing network would collapse under Nexus control is laughable.



I agree, I highlighted the criticism. The panel did, however, decide to take all these promises at face value, adding them into the value calculation despite the behaviour of NEBOA.

If the promised improvements do actually arrive then I'd say it was a success of Nexus, in that NEBOA had no interest in providing any improvements until they realised Nexus were serious about the QCS. If Nexus hadn't gone down the QCS route I doubt we would have seen the investment, especially from Stagecoach and Arriva (Go, in fairness, were already improving rapidly under Huntley, although they were starting from a very low base).



I have a vested interest as I live in SE Northumberland and not in Tyne and Wear, but this is the main reason why I was against the QCS. There are many issues for people living where I do- the complete lack of integrated ticketing, for one thing- and I actually think a QCS would have made things worse. I live less than three miles from a Metro station yet cannot buy an integrated Metro and bus pass, and I think the QCS would only have made the situation worse.

As I've said, I don't think we need the rigidity of a QCS, and I think that rigidity would make some parts of the system worse. But the issue was that NEBOA have been completely unwilling to work with Nexus for many years and, certainly in the case of Arriva and Stagecoach, have been happy to massively underinvest in their network whilst creaming the profits off. The threat of a QCS made Stagecoach and Arriva pull their finger out; it'll be interesting to see if they retain that motivation now the threat of a QCS has gone.

I do know people who have worked for the big 3 up there, and so you'll understand why I going to be a bit nebulous now.

Certain of the bus companies have been poor in their service delivery in the past. No escaping that. There was also some complacency in certain quarters. So did things need to change? Yes though it could be argued that with the departure of certain individuals in certain firms, that change may well have come anyway.

However, in discussions with Nexus regarding partnerships etc, there may have been a impression that what they (Nexus) were asking for was never deliverable and that another agenda was at work.

I've mentioned before that I've found some of the Nexus headlines a little misleading like the £62m of public money that is used for bus services. That sounds like a subsidy but, of course, includes ENCTS remuneration and payment for schools travel. The "losing" of two years may be described as unfortunate but perhaps the suspicion was that it was Nexus "gilding the lily"

That said, I hope that both parties now can work together and formalise the measures in the NEBOA proposal and that complacency isn't then allowed to creep in

 

[Tetchytyke]

though it could be argued that with the departure of certain individuals in certain firms, that change may well have come anyway.

Well I'd certainly agree that one firm in particular has improved dramatically since 2012. I left Newcastle for London in early 2013 so I didn't see much improvement at the time, but my opinion has definitely softened since I came back.

However, in discussions with Nexus regarding partnerships etc, there may have been a impression that what they (Nexus) were asking for was never deliverable and that another agenda was at work.

I've mentioned before that I've found some of the Nexus headlines a little misleading like the £62m of public money that is used for bus services. That sounds like a subsidy but, of course, includes ENCTS remuneration and payment for schools travel. The "losing" of two years may be described as unfortunate but perhaps the suspicion was that it was Nexus "gilding the lily"

Of course Nexus were being hyperbolic, but that's a normal stage of negotiation; I wouldn't say NEBOA were being much more rational. That's why I'm slightly perplexed that Nexus were ripped to shreds for their sums but everything NEBOA put forward was taken at face value. The truth is that Nexus were over-egging it one way and the operators were over-egging it the other.

I'd also agree that there may well have been an agenda at play, especially given the bombastic nature of a certain senior politician.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Well I'd certainly agree that one firm in particular has improved dramatically since 2012. I left Newcastle for London in early 2013 so I didn't see much improvement at the time, but my opinion has definitely softened since I came back.



Of course Nexus were being hyperbolic, but that's a normal stage of negotiation; I wouldn't say NEBOA were being much more rational. That's why I'm slightly perplexed that Nexus were ripped to shreds for their sums but everything NEBOA put forward was taken at face value. The truth is that Nexus were over-egging it one way and the operators were over-egging it the other.

I'd also agree that there may well have been an agenda at play, especially given the bombastic nature of a certain senior politician.

There may be claim and counter-claim and, as you say, that's "normal".

However, two main issues

Credibility

Deliberately removing two years' data to skew things doesn't look good. Similarly, if you "reverse engineer" information to fit a narrative, that is also not clever and it was something that I commented on before that when various calculations were shown to be incorrect, things were merely rejigged to make them fit. There may be claim and counter-claim and that is fair enough and that is what the panel should assess. However, one side looks like they've fudged the figures and the other one doesn't and as the old adage goes, perception is truth.

Robustness

I didn't agree with QCS in the first place but I think Nexus have managed the whole process pretty badly. I mean, such gems as "Nexus admitted that they had not considered the difference between London and the QCS in their assessment of risk and its consequences for bid pricing."

Even stuff like working capital required wasn't calculated or accounted for despite Nexus saying in the first two years, costs would exceed revenue.

When you're trying to argue a point and fundamental things like that come out......It really isn't good...

 

[eezypeazy]

www.route-one.net/industry/qcs-has-cost-nexus-2-4m-so-far-report-admits/

 

[robertclark125]

The fact that Nexus have, apparently, refused to talk to operators about a parternship scheme seems to show, to me anyway, that it's not interested in a partnership, despite the lesser risks as it were, and furthermore, it also says that Nexus are being blatantly ignorant of the judgement.

Of course, if there are to be cuts to subsidised bus service, to plug the £2.5 million cost of the QCS planning, no doubt Nexus will be quick to blame the operators for increasing their tender prices, whilst choosing to ignore their own failures and expenses.

Nexus seem to have adopted the attitude that GMPTE adopted for a while in the mid to late 1980s regards deregulation; instead of accepting it, and trying to give it a go and make it work, it decided not to accept it, and throw imaginary obstacles in the way. Nexus wants to improve the standards of public transport in Tyne and Wear. Perhaps talking to bus operators would be a start. It's decision, so far, to wear a blindfold, ignores what it happening, and what people want and need.

 

[tbtc]

Forgive my ignorance of the T&W scene, but... both Merseyside and South Yorkshire have introduced schemes in recent years to co-ordinate commercial bus services (we have the Sheffield Bus Partnership and Rotherham Bus Partnership, with a Doncaster version currently under consultation - they have the grander sounding Quality Bus Network).

Both have seen services spaced out better, more interchangeable tickets etc. Is there any reason why Nexus can't just do something straightforward like that (without the threat of tendering all services, removing existing operators etc)?

Given the patchwork nature of operations on Tyneside/ Wearside (partly due to historic operations/ where the PTE boundaries applied - e.g. South Shields was Busways but not North Shields), surely that's one part of the country where something simple like the Sheffield model would work?

Why have Nexus gone for the "nuclear" option of threatening to take over and organise everything, rather than at least attempt a system that would co-ordinate services on corridors with multiple operators and push for interchangeable tickets (e.g. I can get a weekly ticket for all Sheffield buses for £14 - a couple of years ago it would have cost me £18.50 just for a First weekly ticket - SYPTE seem to have brought order to the maelstrom of commercial services without needing the kind of "stick" that Nexus are talking about.

Maybe I'm missing something with regard to the legislation, just seems a bit of a sledgehammer tactic, that's all.

 

[radamfi]

Both have seen services spaced out better, more interchangeable tickets etc. Is there any reason why Nexus can't just do something straightforward like that (without the threat of tendering all services, removing existing operators etc)?

Whilst Partnerships have advantages over full deregulation, you still do not get a fully integrated network. The routes and fares are still essentially decided by the operators. The difference is that the operators between themselves decide what the routes, times and fares are, rather than each operator on its own. Yes, the authority may be involved in setting up and policing the Partnership, but the operators would not agree to a Partnership that doesn't give the operators the ability to set fares and routes. Integration between rail/metro/tram and bus is still difficult as you can't force the bus companies to offer integrated fares or co-ordinate routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is interesting to note in this context that the German Verkehrsverbuende, often cited as good examples in this sort of case, didn't come about as Government organisations, but rather as cartels of operators.

Could a better solution in the UK as it is simply be to rescind all competition-related law applied to registered local bus services, and let the operators sort all that out themselves, as would be in their interest to do?

 

[radamfi]

Could a better solution in the UK as it is simply be to rescind all competition-related law applied to registered local bus services, and let the operators sort all that out themselves, as would be in their interest to do?

That's basically what happens in Partnerships. They are primarily there to enable competing operators to call a truce so that all the operators save money by not running as many buses as before without any of them withdrawing totally from the route. As a side benefit, passengers can join any bus without worrying about which operator runs it and you do not get one company running just in front of another so there is a more even service, albeit with a fewer number of buses being run in total.

Obviously in most places there is only one company or one dominant company, so Partnerships are only really applicable where you have had intense competition between evenly matched companies. That's why talk of Partnerships as an alternative to QCs doesn't make sense.

 

[the101]

That's basically what happens in Partnerships. They are primarily there to enable competing operators to call a truce so that all the operators save money by not running as many buses as before without any of them withdrawing totally from the route.

Don't take this personally but you don't know a lot about bus partnerships if you think that's the only reason for their existence. They are just as much about partnership with the LAs as they are about enabling operators to get their heads together and cut the number of buses they run

The operator(s) may invest in new(er) vehicles, and other things which they pay for, and perhaps take a few formerly tendered journeys on commercially. But there is often a trade-off in that the LA is expected to provide some kind of infrastructure benefit, such as bus lanes/priority, real time and so on.

NXWM's Partnership Plus deal with Centro does not involve any other operator, but it has (and will continue to) see significant improvements to bus services for not a lot of outlay on Centro's part. Certainly nowhere near what it would likely end up spending if it went down the franchise/QPS route where it would end up taking on the financial risk. That's the main issue with QCS: Where does the money come from? Nexus certainly didn't know, and I doubt that any of the other LAs who will eventually find that you can't expect more out but no extra funding go will know either. Now, if there was a huge pot of money for local transport, it may be worthwhile. But there isn't.

 

[radamfi]

The operator(s) may invest in new(er) vehicles, and other things which they pay for, and perhaps take a few formerly tendered journeys on commercially. But there is often a trade-off in that the LA is expected to provide some kind of infrastructure benefit, such as bus lanes/priority, real time and so on.

Obviously we've had these kind of informal "partnerships" for many years, at least since the 90s. New buses, priority and decent roadside infrastructure are basic things that should be happening anyway, regardless of any gentlemen's agreement that may or may not have occurred. The more far reaching Parnerships which permit the existence of cartels have only been legal since Transport Act 2008.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Partnerships are only really applicable where you have had intense competition between evenly matched companies. That's why talk of Partnerships as an alternative to QCs doesn't make sense.

And that is the issue in Tyne and Wear, where there are three big bus companies but each of them operate in their own defined "patch". Indeed, Arriva and Go North East came to a "partnership" a few years ago where Arriva agreed to sell Hexham depot to Go 9and withdraw from the Tyne Valley) in exchange for Go withdrawing from Ashington. This was done as Go threatened to aggressively compete against them until they did so, leading to massive over-bussing on the Tyne Valley from Newcastle to Prudhoe.

Nexus don't think the issue is too much competition, they think the issue is that there isn't enough of it. And I don't see how the bus companies are going to enter into any partnership where they see their market share or profit margins get damaged. The way the bus companies refused to offer alternatives at any stage until immediately before the QCS board hearing speaks volumes IMO.

Partnerships work in places like Oxford, where the partnership managed to get Stagecoach and Go to work together rather than focussing all their resources on clobbering each other around the head. But that isn't the situation up here. Up here the bus companies are in cahoots.