Miliband pledges London-style bus service across England

[TheGrandWazoo]

In Loughborough, we have a mixture of Arriva and Kinch(A Trent Barton Company)as the majority providers. There are no opportunities for inter operator ticket uses and what Labour is proposing will have no impact on small towns like Loughborough. Indeed one could see Arriva increasingly transfer newer stock to areas where they could have a greater input such as Liverpool. I have already noticed older stock on the 126/127 routes over the past twelve months.
I would even go as far to say that Labours plans are weasel words which have not been fully costed or thought out. This country needs to look to Holland and Germany for ways forward. It can still be Publically Stated but Privately delivered.

Agree with a lot of that. Removing the higher margin areas from businesses affects the whole business.

The Labour plans aren't costed. There's no additional money. We don't spend on public transport in the UK and the burden is increasingly falling on the farebox. The reason why London and other European cities seem so appealing is because they've taken a decision to invest over several decades. We decided not to - simple as that.

Christ, we can't even keep what little supported work going in many parts of the country. I live in a county where there are virtually no evening bus services now.

 

[radamfi]

The thing is, if a more normal level of funding became available to the bus industry, they, especially the big groups, wouldn't want it. They like it the way it is. You could spend some money on supported services but that would just be reinstating what we used to have. Building comprehensive bus priority would be quite expensive, but largely a one-off cost. So inevitably, attention would then focus on how to improve the main, commercial bus network. The big groups would find it hard to justify continuing to run high fare, no subsidy, non-integrated bus services if there was money available to fund cheap fares and European style integration.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The thing is, if a more normal level of funding became available to the bus industry, they, especially the big groups, wouldn't want it. They like it the way it is. You could spend some money on supported services but that would just be reinstating what we used to have. Building comprehensive bus priority would be quite expensive, but largely a one-off cost. So inevitably, attention would then focus on how to improve the main, commercial bus network. The big groups would find it hard to justify continuing to run high fare, no subsidy, non-integrated bus services if there was money available to fund cheap fares and European style integration.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Bus companies want more investment in bus priority - it gives them cost savings, greater reliability and improves the attractiveness of the product. They welcomed Kickstart as a way of pump priming new services whilst sharing the risk. If anything, an extension of this with gainshare mechanism is the way forward

 

[fgwrich]

Here's the Stagecoach Press Release.

News Releases


Stagecoach statement in response to Labour party announcement on plans for bus services in English regions

31 Oct 2014

Martin Griffiths, Stagecoach Group Chief Executive, said: "This uncosted and unnecessary plan would land people in England's biggest city regions overnight with a tax bill running to hundreds of millions of pounds, as well as leading to higher bus fares.

"Britain's bus operators provide extensive, integrated and high quality bus networks which are central to regional economies and local communities in England's biggest city regions.

"It is time politicians stopped peddling the myth that London is best and has a monopoly on good bus services. The truth is that England’s city regions have significantly lower fares and higher customer satisfaction than London, as well as having access to frequent, integrated bus services and smart ticketing. This is despite many environmental factors – such as high population growth, low car ownership, congestion charging and significantly higher per capita public funding – which have all been advantageous to London.

"Stagecoach and other major operators are already working on extensive plans to deliver better buses and stronger city regions. Our plans will provide even better transport integration, more local political engagement and a greater voice for customers. At the same time, they will offer even better taxpayer value.

"To make that happen, we need supportive central and local government policies that make a practical difference for bus passengers, rather than talk about costly and unnecessary structural change."

ENDS

For media enquiries, please contact: Stagecoach Group Communications on 01738 442111 or email: [email protected]

Notes to Editors:
Stagecoach is Britain's biggest bus operator, running 8,000 vehicles across the UK, including in major city regions such as Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield.
Around 1 billion bus journeys a year are made in England’s metropolitan areas outside London.
90% of bus services outside London are delivered commercially with no subsidy; in contrast, fares and other services cover only 75% of operating costs in the London franchised bus market.
Weekly bus travel is around 40% cheaper in the city regions than in London. Weekly bus travel with Stagecoach in Manchester, for example, is £13 compared with £20.20 under Transport for London
Bus satisfaction in every one of England's biggest city regions is higher than in London. Passenger satisfaction in London is 83% compared to an average of 88% for areas outside London.
Britain's five biggest bus operators - Stagecoach, First, Go Ahead, Arriva and National Express - have invested around £1.4 billion in their bus services outside London in the past five years.
Bus services outside London are accessible: there are 67,000 bus stops in English metropolitan areas; Greater Manchester has 25 bus stops for every square mile and twice the number of bus stops per head of population than London
Services in core urban areas in England's city regions are at least every 10 minutes and often more frequent; 98% of households live within 13 minutes’ walk of at least an hourly service

http://stagecoach.com/media/news-releases/2014/2014-10-31.aspx

 

[radamfi]

The Stagecoach press release says that the plans are 'uncosted', even though we don't actually know what the plans are. Even so, if they are 'uncosted', as there is no money, why would there be a tax bill? It sounds like they are admitting that the authorities concerned could raise taxes locally to pay for it.

They are also very economical with the truth with their comparison of Manchester and London.

They don't mention that their single fares in Manchester are extortionate, way more than the £1.45 single fare in London (although of course, even that isn't a real single fare as it doesn't allow interchange).

They only operate in very profitable parts of Greater Manchester. They don't run in the less profitable areas, notably much of Trafford borough, which they have left to Arriva.

There is, of course, traffic congestion in Manchester, but they don't have to contend with the extreme traffic congestion endured by London buses despite Congestion Charging, which only covers a small part of the conurbation. TfL now pour significantly more money into reliability measures compared to when London buses ran at near break even. They have increased the PVR on many routes so that there is more recovery time at termini. Since the expansion of the TfL bus network around 12 years ago, services now run frequently from first thing in the morning to last thing at night on most routes, 7 days a week. Apart from major corridors, Stagecoach's evening and Sunday services in Greater Manchester are drastically reduced compared to the weekday daytime service, and of course many are tendered.

Where is the evidence that Stagecoach and co are improving integration? They are as determined as ever to maintain their single company tickets and co-ordination with other operators, other routes or other modes is still extremely limited.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Bus companies want more investment in bus priority - it gives them cost savings, greater reliability and improves the attractiveness of the product. They welcomed Kickstart as a way of pump priming new services whilst sharing the risk. If anything, an extension of this with gainshare mechanism is the way forward

I didn't say they didn't want bus priority.

I was pointing out what proper funding would be spent on. When I say *proper funding*, I don't mean what they get in London. I mean what they get in say the Netherlands or Switzerland where you have state of the art services. Or in Belgium where services are not quite as good, but where fares are absurdly cheap.

If you had proper funding, you would ensure everywhere had a proper service level. Then you would put in bus priority everywhere you could. But if you had *proper funding* (defined above), you would still have plenty of money left over. If you had *proper funding* you would be able to afford cheap fares and integrated services. Pump-priming is only appropriate when you are spending small amounts of money to encourage a commercial operator to run a high fare, UK-style commercial service. If you start directly subsidising commercial services to make fares cheap and improve operational/vehicles standards up to the Dutch standard (for example by paying drivers decent wages like in the Netherlands, having comprehensive training programmes like they get in the Netherlands (so it is many months before they even start driving in service) and by using a complete fleet of expensive buses like Citaros) when does that becoming state aid?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They are also very economical with the truth with their comparison of Manchester and London.

QUOTE]

Of course, unlike your balanced view, where you've decided not to even read the press as it doesn't tally with what you believe.....

I might add that Nexus have been guilty of news management that Alastair Campbell would blush at!

 

[radamfi]

Of course, unlike your balanced view, where you've decided not to even read the press as it doesn't tally with what you believe.....

OK, where are my inaccuracies?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

OK, where are my inaccuracies?

How can you have a balanced, informed view if, by your own admission, you don't want to read views that are contrary to your beliefs?

That just taints your view and you then don't consider other contributory factors. For instance, you say....

Since the expansion of the TfL bus network around 12 years ago, services now run frequently from first thing in the morning to last thing at night on most routes, 7 days a week. Apart from major corridors, Stagecoach's evening and Sunday services in Greater Manchester are drastically reduced compared to the weekday daytime service, and of course many are tendered.

So you mention evening services in GM compared to London. That naturally misses the massive disparity in funding. Where is the subsidy to provide a TfL type of coverage? Or indeed anywhere else?

And yes, evening services have receded. Why is that? Are there external reasons, like the reduction in evening economy that shows itself in the decline in on-trade drinking as people eshew pubs in favour of drinking at home? Buses don't operate in a vacuum but reflect the social trends of the day.

I know of routes that used to be heaving last thing in a evening but have now dwindled in patronage. Not a reflection on the service provision as the timetable and operator is the same since 1990. Very much an echo of the impact of TV on evening services in the 1950s when cinemas began closing in their droves.

What you run the risk is having not even half a story? All well and good, describing the "what" but not the "why"?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The truth is that England’s city regions have significantly lower fares and higher customer satisfaction than London

He can't seriously be deluded enough to think that Stagecoach bus fares in the provinces are all under £1.45...

 

[radamfi]

Of course services in GM are bound to be worse than in London because GM has less funding. There's no debate about that, and I don't think we are disagreeing about that either. But Stagecoach are basically saying, despite the hype, buses are actually cheaper and better in GM, so there is no point in setting up a London-style regulated bus network, even if generous funding became available.

London's evening buses weren't that great before TfL, with frequencies often as low as half hourly even on quite major routes. The reason why London's evening buses became frequent was straight down to funding. Of course nowadays it is common to be on an overcrowded London bus in the evening and even overnight.

My point was that London IS better than GM. The main reason it is better in London is that funding is better. Stagecoach are saying that GM is better DESPITE London getting such good funding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He can't seriously be deluded enough to think that Stagecoach bus fares in the provinces are all under £1.45...

Of course it is true that Megariders are cheaper than the TfL weekly bus pass, but I don't think such a comparison is fair given that the London service is far more expensive to provide because of worse traffic congestion, higher wage costs, higher quality requirements, good frequencies even on quiet suburban routes at off-peak times, probably the most comprehensive night bus network in the world etc. etc.

I also think the passenger satisfaction survey is flawed given that it only surveys current passengers. I expect bus passengers in London would be dissatisfied with delays caused by traffic and overcrowding, issues that are nowhere near as acute outside London.

 

[deltic]

Osbourne seems to have delivered Labour's policy already with regard to Manchester.

New Greater Manchester mayor will have powers over transport - according to the extract in the Manchester Evening News

"Responsibility for local transport, with government providing a longer-term budget to enable better planning and a more co-ordinated transport strategy. Subject to local consultation, there will also be franchising of bus services – in a similar model to London – with Greater Manchester controlling franchises, service routes and frequencies and fares."

while the major bus operators have at last decided to do something on multi-operator smartcards with a joint initiative between Stagecoach, First, Arriva, Go Ahead and National Express

Independent newspaper extract
"In a joint statement the chief executives of the companies involved said: “Millions of people in our biggest city regions will benefit from this transformational initiative to provide London-style smart ticketing. It will deliver an even bigger programme and wider benefit than the capital's Oyster system."

Be interesting to understand exactly what is meant by this

 

[radamfi]

Something here sounds too good to be true.

GM has not been one of the main authorities asking for bus powers in recent years. Probably because they are concentrating on delivering the Metrolink expansion. Out of the ex-PTE areas in England, only West Midlands has been less interested.

I was wondering why Stagecoach had focussed on GM in their press release despite the relative lack of enthusiasm from the authorities in that part of the world. This may explain it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course services in GM are bound to be worse than in London because GM has less funding. There's no debate about that, and I don't think we are disagreeing about that either. But Stagecoach are basically saying, despite the hype, buses are actually cheaper and better in GM, so there is no point in setting up a London-style regulated bus network, even if generous funding became available.

London's evening buses weren't that great before TfL, with frequencies often as low as half hourly even on quite major routes. The reason why London's evening buses became frequent was straight down to funding. Of course nowadays it is common to be on an overcrowded London bus in the evening and even overnight.

My point was that London IS better than GM. The main reason it is better in London is that funding is better. Stagecoach are saying that GM is better DESPITE London getting such good funding.

Look at what is said specifically. That

"90% of bus services outside London are delivered commercially with no subsidy; in contrast, fares and other services cover only 75% of operating costs in the London franchised bus market." Is that not correct?

The point is that currently you get the service you do WITHOUT a large amount of money. To get a TfL style service, you NEED a large amount of money. Is there a commitment to have a large amount of money - no, there is no additional funding commitment from the Labour Party. Miliband has said you can have a TfL style service without the expenditure - sorry, that's up there with magic beans.

So when you say "My point was that London IS better than GM. The main reason it is better in London is that funding is better. Stagecoach are saying that GM is better DESPITE London getting such good funding" - what they are saying is that for pound for pound, you're getting a more efficient service. That is what they're saying.

As regards the fare comparison, then yes, single fare comparison is much worse but we all know why single fares have disproportionately increased (because of ENCTS remuneration) and hence why they mentioned weekly fares. You say that's disingenuous. Ok, fair comment.

The same, if not worse, can be said about Nexus who trumpeted about how much public expenditure is made and yet there's no influence on local bus services. Included in their figures were ENCTS and Scholars remuneration - that's actually paying Stagecoach for a service that they've provided in lieu of a passenger doing so - and the expenditure on tendered services that Nexus actually do more than influence!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point is that currently you get the service you do WITHOUT a large amount of money. To get a TfL style service, you NEED a large amount of money.

Are we talking a TfL style service, though, i.e. high frequencies and often excessive capacity at a rather low fare? Or are we talking TfL style in the sense that there would be one co-ordinated network, one fare system, one style of destination blind etc, but frequencies and capacities more like what we have now?

While there would be the cost of running the tendering itself, presumably bus companies could pay a premium for the right to run highly profitable services like the Manchester Oxford Road corridor, money which could be used for cross-subsidy of less profitable services. Just like t'railway (and there's no shortage of bus companies bidding for TOCs). And fares could be a bit higher, more in line with what they are now.

It strikes me that all it would require would be a slight expansion of the existing Council/PTE tendering teams to deal with the additional tenders over and above those already in place for non-remunerative services, plus 3 shifts' worth of operations controllers (if you didn't just leave the bus companies to handle that as part of their bid).

Neil

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Are we talking a TfL style service, though, i.e. high frequencies and often excessive capacity at a rather low fare? Or are we talking TfL style in the sense that there would be one co-ordinated network, one fare system, one style of destination blind etc, but frequencies and capacities more like what we have now?

While there would be the cost of running the tendering itself, presumably bus companies could pay a premium for the right to run highly profitable services like the Manchester Oxford Road corridor, money which could be used for cross-subsidy of less profitable services. Just like t'railway (and there's no shortage of bus companies bidding for TOCs). And fares could be a bit higher, more in line with what they are now.

It strikes me that all it would require would be a slight expansion of the existing Council/PTE tendering teams to deal with the additional tenders over and above those already in place for non-remunerative services, plus 3 shifts' worth of operations controllers (if you didn't just leave the bus companies to handle that as part of their bid).

Neil

Well, based on the Nexus proposals, they were promoting more buses based on cross subsidy and operators working as contractors. The idea was to get them to work for a lower margin for the same work - something that perhaps should be applied to all firms and their employees Something that would also impact on the overall performance of their business and lead to write downs

Fares were to be lower for 78% of people in Nexus land. I wonder what the perception with passengers would be if you increased the fares on the 192 to cross-subsidise a marginal minibus service in Hattersley? That's the age old problem of cross-subsidy - it diverts resources from the areas where you can grow services and uses it to subsidise dead ducks.

The Miliband plan, if you can call it that, is to say you can have London style success. However, that success was based upon massive population growth allied to substantial public investment. When London was self sufficient, without the funding, patronage flatlined.

 

[radamfi]

When London was self sufficient, without the funding, patronage flatlined.

But patronage didn't go down like in the PTE areas.

Even in the late 90s, a lot of people were looking enviously at London, as it looked like they had improved services and cut costs at the same time.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But patronage didn't go down like in the PTE areas.

Even in the late 90s, a lot of people were looking enviously at London, as it looked like they had improved services and cut costs at the same time.

There is no doubt that in PTE areas and elsewhere, the whole upheaval of deregulation had a negative impact on patronage. London didn't have that. Fair comment

However, patronage wasn't the driver behind deregulation though Ridley may well have said that. It was about saving money which when you look at local authority expenditure (in terms of revenue support), fare subsidies (e.g. SYPTE), and capital funding (essentially underwriting of debt). In that respect, it succeeded as London kept a higher cost base and required higher level of support.

I have a lot to thank the National Bus Company for. My dad was a driver and it basically paid for my upbringing. It couldn't continue though - remember that it was haemorraging cash and passenger figures were declining even then.

 

[radamfi]

Was London costing less than elsewhere before TfL started putting in substantial investment?

London Buses was near break even. Outside London most routes were commercial and cost the taxpayers nothing, apart from BSOG, although you could argue against counting that. But tendered services were surely costing taxpayers money? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here. It might not be that fair a comparison if you assume that London should be profitable because it is densely populated and more dependent on buses due to demographics and difficulty of car use etc.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Was London costing less than elsewhere before TfL started putting in substantial investment?

London Buses was near break even. Outside London most routes were commercial and cost the taxpayers nothing, apart from BSOG, although you could argue against counting that. But tendered services were surely costing taxpayers money? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here. It might not be that fair a comparison if you assume that London should be profitable because it is densely populated and more dependent on buses due to demographics and difficulty of car use etc.

Bus services in London were at 'break even' for one year but that was only through erosion of driver wages and a partial holiday in depreciation charges as new bus volumes had been much reduced. The consequence was poorer service and a fall (the only fall in several years) in patronage.

What then happened was a substantial increase in funding to try to repair the damage, and this was before TfL when funding then increased massively.

Let's get this back to brass tacks. Miliband has stated London style operations. The success of that is based on investment. That is the correlation. There is no "spending commitment". There is the hope that you can do unimaginable things funded by the 6% gap in what they make in London vs the commercial operations.

 

[deltic]

Look at what is said specifically. That

"90% of bus services outside London are delivered commercially with no subsidy; in contrast, fares and other services cover only 75% of operating costs in the London franchised bus market." Is that not correct?

No its not - under 80% of bus miles outside London are operated commerically but the level of subsidy to even these commercial services is substanial through BSOG and concessionary fares (some 40% of passengers travel free on the bus network)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Concessionary fares are NOT a subsidy. It's payment for goods supplied. Remember, bus companies are supposed to no better, no worse off! You don't work for Nexus do you?

Also, the level of commercial operation is much higher as local authorities cut back. Some facilities are taken on commercially, some lost. All pushing that percentage higher.

 

[6Gman]

The Miliband plan, if you can call it that, is to say you can have London style success. However, that success was based upon massive population growth allied to substantial public investment. When London was self sufficient, without the funding, patronage flatlined.

Very well put.

 

[deltic]

Concessionary fares are NOT a subsidy. It's payment for goods supplied. Remember, bus companies are supposed to no better, no worse off! You don't work for Nexus do you?

Also, the level of commercial operation is much higher as local authorities cut back. Some facilities are taken on commercially, some lost. All pushing that percentage higher.

House of Commons library reseach paper states file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/john/My%20Documents/Downloads/sn01522.pdf

"The overall net level of Government subsidy (i.e. public transport support, BSOG and
concessionary fare reimbursement) for bus services increased dramatically after 1997, rising
from approximately £763,000 in 1997/98 to approximately £2.3 billion in 2011/12. Subsidies
account for around 45 per cent of all bus operators’ revenues."

I agree that concessionary fare is meant to ensure operators are no better/no worse off but if concessionary fares were to be abolished do we really thing the bus network would not contract markedly?

 

[radamfi]

It is very difficult to get reimbursement 'just right' so that neither the taxpayer or bus company loses under deregulation. Operators complain they aren't getting enough and local authorities complain they are paying too much. Operators increase single fares artificially so they get more reimbursement. This problem doesn't arise with gross cost tendering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Concessionary fares are NOT a subsidy. It's payment for goods supplied.

It *is* a subsidy, but it's one paid effectively to certain bus users, not to bus operators, so can't be considered in quite the same way because as you say it doesn't, if calculated correctly, affect the operator's bottom line.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy

Definition #3, whereas the usual concept of public transport subsidy would come under definition #1.

Neil

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It *is* a subsidy, but it's one paid effectively to certain bus users, not to bus operators, so can't be considered in quite the same way because as you say it doesn't, if calculated correctly, affect the operator's bottom line.

Neil

You're right - a subsidy to the individual
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

House of Commons library reseach paper states file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/john/My%20Documents/Downloads/sn01522.pdf

"The overall net level of Government subsidy (i.e. public transport support, BSOG and
concessionary fare reimbursement) for bus services increased dramatically after 1997, rising
from approximately £763,000 in 1997/98 to approximately £2.3 billion in 2011/12. Subsidies
account for around 45 per cent of all bus operators’ revenues."

I agree that concessionary fare is meant to ensure operators are no better/no worse off but if concessionary fares were to be abolished do we really thing the bus network would not contract markedly?

Look at the actual figures for 2009 (Direct subsidy + Concessionary + BSOG = Total)

Total 1072 + 970 + 430 = 2472 of which.....
London 690 + 183 + 112

London got 2/3 of the actual subsidy - go figure