Some good stuff in here so here we go.... (ps I come in peace)
a) I would sincerely venture that some people are indeed inferring that there is something untoward about the relationship between Conserv and Go Ahead. Put bluntly, I'd ask this
- Is there any evidence that Corserv are undercutting commercial operators?
- Is there any evidence that Go Ahead are paying below the market rate and have so gained an unfair commercial advantage?
- Is there any evidence that Go Ahead have benefited in the scoring of the bid from the relationship with Corserv (i.e. CC have a vested interest in awarding to Go Ahead)?
- If the answer is No, then I'd suggest the inference and suggestion stops, not least because we start to get into legal territory!
I would highlight that in private industry, it is commonplace NOT to allocate overheads to fledgling operations until they are up and running. This may seem like creative accountancy but it is often done as a priming exercise as these businesses become established. That is what seems to be happening here. NOTE: for those who decry such accountancy methods, you could point to First moving their depreciation terms in order to artificially inflate the health of the business a couple of years ago!
b) I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst I've mentioned some of the most glaring examples, you have provided many more. It's the area that annoys me most. There is a real opportunity to make some fundamental improvements to bus services, and to move people out of their cars and onto public transport, with funding that could only have been dreamed about.
As you say, it seems that they have made decisions based on no empirical evidence on demand. If they have undertaken research, I would really like to see the methodology employed. I cited the new routes that look like someone has simply looked at a map and seen a gap, rather than assessing why the gap might exist. In terms of the enhancements, I question if there is much scope to grow patronage. For instance, you mention the doubling of the 16 - do we think that there is going to be some great improvement in ridership, or will it merely dilute the patronage that is already there, so we get a 5% growth for 100% additional cost?? I know where my money is at
c) I appreciate exactly where you're coming from. Of course, the tie up between Go Ahead, and people like OTS and Hopleys, was a smart move by GA. It derisked the exercise to an extent and probably sold their bid better. That was GA's decision and, of course, they weren't going to approach their only serious competitor.
The issue here surrounds the council again. First of all, they should have ensured that there was an all operator ticket that firms were signed up to (a bus only Ride Cornwall), but also it is entirely within the gift of the council to have specified inter-availabiity of First tickets on those tendered journeys on the A17 or T1/T2 et al. Similarly, it would have been sensible for the creation of joint timetabling; I know this was touched on in the past and that FK asked for details of journeys so they could be shown in their booklet.
Unless their is actual evidence on a), then really it is nothing more than innuendo. If anyone does have evidence, then I'd suggest they take your scoop to the press.
However, in terms of b) and c), then I am fully on board. It's classic "playing at buses" by CC and, I fear, a waste of money and the opportunity to have really made some fundamental change. Instead, they have said "this is how it's going to be" rather than entering into meaningful partnership with FK, PCB and for that matter, Stagecoach and a host of smaller operators. They could have, and should have, had a vision ahead of award as to how get more people on buses. That's what the operators would have wanted. Instead, you've got a worse situation on the routes mentioned, and PCB getting paid to run empty buses.
As regards the sense of awarding a single supplier on a short time scale, it would seem they have learnt nothing from similar issues at Powys and Dorset. In the case of the latter, I might suggest a wry smile appeared on Alex Carter's face! And yes, I agree with others in that the Covid 19 outbreak has proven to be a benefit to both PCB and CC. Had it been a full timetable, the ludicrous timescale and approach would have been highlighted so that the mess isn't over the press is down to good fortune, if you can call a deadly bat virus that. Doubtless, CC would've been placing the blame squarely on the operator had it been a full "go live".