Speculative : future of the British bus industry

[TheGrandWazoo]

If wages rise as significantly as some of the demands from workers, you'll have no passengers left with the spiral I've mentioned above.


Do First pay money then for access to the university or some kind of exclusivity contract going on? That is what most unis which are off the main road seem to have. Money gets exchanged one way or another in some kind of partnership.

Alternatively, drivers can simply walk and obtain employment elsewhere. How are you tackling this?

First have no contract nor pay access rights. First and Wessex were embroiled in a competitive battle for some years over the main Uni route - First 18 (later U1) vs Wessex U18.

EDIT: Postscript - Wessex had a relationship with both Bath Uni and the Students Union so that they had endorsed by those bodies. However, such were the failings with Wessex (allied to a charm offensive by First) that the endorsement was removed and they instead promoted First based on the student price deals and overall service provision.

 

[507020]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned how Arriva North West drivers remain on strike indefinitely. DB obviously has the money to either offer them a backdated above inflation pay rise, or refuse to and continue to lose revenue, but cannot proceed with the latter and claim it values it’s staff.

I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of holding any meaningful negotiations with the unions, it now decided to split up and sell off the operations out of individual depots e.g. Southport piecemeal to neighbouring operators e.g. Transdev Blazefield, Rotala or even First, (but less likely Stagecoach due to competition in Liverpool) who would all seem to want to expand their operations if they are likely to lose out under Andy Burnham bus franchising in Greater Manchester.

 

[duncombec]

Do First pay money then for access to the university or some kind of exclusivity contract going on? That is what most unis which are off the main road seem to have. Money gets exchanged one way or another in some kind of partnership.

It may depend on ownership of the road layout around the campuses. My university had two private roads, one of which was the main road onto the campus. I can't remember the exact details (I graduated some 14 years ago), but I believe in order to keep them private they had to close them to all traffic for one day a year: they usually chose Christmas Day.

In reality, I think is is quite difficult to restrict access when it is otherwise wide open to all users, whether having university business or not. Mine certainly didn't attempt to restrict the dodgy ex-taxi driver-turned-Metrorider operator that hung around for just under a year on a timetable designed to avoid registration scrutiny (they eventually failed when the local council refused retroactive planning permission for their depot), even though most of the students had Stagecoach passes purchased from the bus that parked on campus during Freshers Week.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of holding any meaningful negotiations with the unions, it now decided to split up and sell off the operations out of individual depots e.g. Southport piecemeal to neighbouring operators e.g. Transdev Blazefield, Rotala or even First, (but less likely Stagecoach due to competition in Liverpool) who would all seem to want to expand their operations if they are likely to lose out under Andy Burnham bus franchising in Greater Manchester.

It that is your theory, why didn't that happen in West Yorkshire where there was also a protracted dispute?

This is BOTH parties playing hardball. Arriva have made an offer; the unions have rejected it without putting it to the members. Who blinks first? Happened in Yorkshire. Happened with Go North West.

 

[RT4038]

If wages rise as significantly as some of the demands from workers, you'll have no passengers left with the spiral I've mentioned above.

No, the comment about higher wages was made in the context of post #21 (Would increased funding provide the answer?).

Higher wages mean higher fares to cover the costs which means less people travel by bus and therefore less buses needed, less drivers needed. Ooop, jobs gone all because people want really high wages, often with conditions which significantly reduce the amount that they work.

You immediately jumped on 'Higher wages mean higher fares' and spirals. . No they wouldn't in this scenario - Higher wages through increased funding. Nothing to do with fares. (Higher taxation, but that affects everyone rather than just the bus travelling public)

 

[d70g]

This is sobering reading:

Bus services in England face cuts as end of Covid funding looms​

Confederation of Passenger Transport says coming week will be ‘critical’ in deciding which services remain viable

Bus services in England face cuts as end of Covid funding looms

Confederation of Passenger Transport says coming week will be ‘critical’ in deciding which services remain viable

www.theguardian.com

A bus in Maidstone, Kent
A bus in Maidstone, Kent. The county council warned last month it would have to cut dozens of routes. Photograph: PjrTravel/Alamy
Gwyn Topham Transport correspondent
@GwynTopham
Sun 14 Aug 2022 11.30 BST
Bus services across England could be axed within days, transport groups have said, as operators decide before a funding deadline whether routes will remain viable.

Services in the north-east and South Yorkshire are known to be at risk, but many more routes could be cut back as Covid grants that propped up routes during the pandemic expire.

Bus operators normally have to give six weeks’ notice before reducing services, and Covid recovery grants run out at the start of October. The Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT), which represents operators, said the coming week would be “critical” in reviewing what would keep running.

Advertisement

The grants were introduced to help sustain routes that had lost passengers during the pandemic. They were extended in the spring for a further six months with £150m to stave off feared widespread cuts to services, but the government warned that no further funding would be available.

The Urban Transport Group (UTG), a network of city region transport authorities, has highlighted “particularly drastic” cuts now expected in South Yorkshire, where 120 routes, one in three, are about to be reduced, and 51 could be axed altogether.

 

[station_road]

I think the BSIP (Bus service improvement plan) funding not being allowed to protect existing services is odd - for example, Derby city received several million pounds for their improvement plan (although not the full amount, and no announcement yet on what it will be spent on) while at the same time long established services have been withdrawn or reduced in frequency. I imagine the same is being repeated across the country.

We could end up with a shiny new multi operator ticket and branding, better bus shelters and information but no actual buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think the BSIP funding not being allowed to protect existing services is odd - for example, Derby city received several million pounds for their improvement plan (although not the full amount, and no announcement yet on what it will be spent on) while at the same time long established services have been withdrawn or reduced in frequency. I imagine the same is being repeated across the country.

We could end up with a shiny new multi operator ticket and branding, better bus shelters and information but no actual buses.

This is the stupidity of when politics comes into play. The government announce a bus strategy review and lots of new money to improve things. The world changes because of Covid. However, they can't change tack as that would be framed as a U turn, and you don't get any credit in just maintaining things when "new, innovative, transformational" is more newsworthy.

So yeah, you can have existing demand and travel patterns being eroded/lost whilst bold but non viable initiatives (like Demand Responsive Transport schemes) come in.

 

[RT4038]

This is the stupidity of when politics comes into play. The government announce a bus strategy review and lots of new money to improve things. The world changes because of Covid. However, they can't change tack as that would be framed as a U turn, and you don't get any credit in just maintaining things when "new, innovative, transformational" is more newsworthy.

So yeah, you can have existing demand and travel patterns being eroded/lost whilst bold but non viable initiatives (like Demand Responsive Transport schemes) come in.

The BSIP (Bus service improvement plan) funding is a carrot for local politicians to sign up to bus priority measures, which central government is prepared to pay for (to speed up buses thereby making them attractive and profitable) but doesn't want to take the political flak. It also favours 'one off' Capital expenditure schemes, rather than 'ongoing' revenue expenditure on subsidies. Central Government knows that bus priority is a hot potato with the electorate, and local politicians have the tendency to back down (see Liverpool, Coventry and various other examples) to the motorists lobby, which is unsurprising as a majority of voters already own, or aspire to own, private transport and don't want that freedom emasculated. Politicians may well know bus priority and increased public transport use is the way forward, but they like getting re-elected even more!

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) schemes are just a flash in the pan [cooking these carrots and potatoes?]. They sound good to politicians and voters (only run buses when and where people really want them - what is not to like?), but in practice many are hugely expensive to run taxi services, their complication and availability seriously reducing demand. The cost per passenger journey is horrendous and likely to be unaffordable in the future, but Central Government is hoping one scheme or another is going to find the Valhalla. There is a good reason why bus timetables are like they are in rural areas - one trip to take in all the shoppers, not giving virtually unlimited choice of departure times, which actually goes to the first booker. The software systems don't really offer what is really needed - take all the requests and at a cut off time then allocate the departure times and loadings. When the Govt. grants run out, they'll be back to basically fixed route services.

 

[anthony263]

Higher wages and better treatment of drivers by management and customers would be a start.

 

[RT4038]

Higher wages better treatment of drivers by management and customers would be a start

The start of what?

 

[duncombec]

This is sobering reading:

Bus services in England face cuts as end of Covid funding looms​

Confederation of Passenger Transport says coming week will be ‘critical’ in deciding which services remain viable

Bus services in England face cuts as end of Covid funding looms

Confederation of Passenger Transport says coming week will be ‘critical’ in deciding which services remain viable

www.theguardian.com

Deftly illustrated with a picture of a bus taken in Kent, but which moved from Kent to Merseyside in 2017. I wonder how many operators might like to be back in 2017 now...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There’s a good quote today from Stockport councillor and Greater Manchester Transport Committee member David Meller:
“By not supporting bus routes fully, and effectively asking operators to ‘pick and choose’ the routes they can operate for profit, it not only makes a mockery of this government’s plans to boost buses nationally but, during this cost of living crisis, means people will be forced into cars many are struggling to fill with petrol.”

Can GB learn anything from the funding models and organisation of bus networks in any other European nations? Serious question.

What transport company in its right mind that made no profit could expect to carry on without contravening the law that covers "trading whilst insolvent"?

I’m surprised no one has mentioned how Arriva North West drivers remain on strike indefinitely. DB obviously has the money to either offer them a backdated above inflation pay rise, or refuse to and continue to lose revenue, but cannot proceed with the latter and claim it values it’s staff.

Is the latest offer from Arriva North West due to be subject to a ballot in the next few days?

 

[Deerfold]

What transport company in its right mind that made no profit could expect to carry on without contravening the law that covers "trading whilst insolvent"?

You appear to have only read part of what you quoted. If existing routes were funded the company would not be trading whilst insolvent or losing money. You can't just look at one clause in a sentence and ignore the rest of the sentence.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You appear to have only read part of what you quoted. If existing routes were funded the company would not be trading whilst insolvent or losing money. You can't just look at one clause in a sentence and ignore the rest of the sentence.

No, that was not the point that I sought to clarify, but that of the legal matter of trading when insolvent, which can occur when companies continue to trade at a loss with no remaining assets.

 

[RT4038]

No, that was not the point that I sought to clarify, but that of the legal matter of trading when insolvent, which can occur when companies continue to trade at a loss with no remaining assets.

I am unsure of the relevance though in the context of a Councillor from Stockport saying 'By not supporting bus routes fully, and effectively asking operators to ‘pick and choose’ the routes they can operate for profit, it not only makes a mockery of this government’s plans to boost buses nationally but, during this cost of living crisis, means people will be forced into cars many are struggling to fill with petrol.”

It doesn't appear that the Councillor is criticising the bus company's actions, or suggesting they should be trading insolvently - more that TfGM should be financially supporting all bus services.

 

[Deerfold]

No, that was not the point that I sought to clarify, but that of the legal matter of trading when insolvent, which can occur when companies continue to trade at a loss with no remaining assets.

I understood that. But if you look at the whole sentence there's no suggestion of the bus companies trading at a loss. The whole point of the suggestion was to fund them so that they weren't.

I am unsure of the relevance though in the context of a Councillor from Stockport saying 'By not supporting bus routes fully, and effectively asking operators to ‘pick and choose’ the routes they can operate for profit, it not only makes a mockery of this government’s plans to boost buses nationally but, during this cost of living crisis, means people will be forced into cars many are struggling to fill with petrol.”

It doesn't appear that the Councillor is criticising the bus company's actions, or suggesting they should be trading insolvently - more that TfGM should be financially supporting all bus services.

The government, rather than TfGM.

 

[507020]

Is the latest offer from Arriva North West due to be subject to a ballot in the next few days?

I’ve got no idea unfortunately, although I would be interested in watching the outcome if Arriva was to divest any of it’s north west operations after this.

 

[dvfmlfc]

Bus deregulation has run its course - some people made out of it, others didn't - and it seems obvious to me that the "wonderful" Tory model of a bus service justifying itself through its profitability rather than its' social need has come to an abrupt end - COVID has put the final nail in the coffin.

The sooner all bus services are back under State control and regulated to protect the public's interests, the better. I'm sure some of us could argue until the cows come home about the merits or lack of concerning deregulation. The thing about deregulation is it was a political decision, and one that being a Socialist I can't personally agree with, just as there are those out there who think re-regulation will be disastrous too.

 

[Stan Drews]

The whole deregulation/re-regulation/franchising debate doesn’t really address the two major problems affecting bus services.
1) There is no political desire to fully fund a quality public transport system in the UK.
2) There is no political desire to provide significantly improved bus priority measures in the UK.

Unless those two areas are addressed, who own the bus operators becomes largely irrelevant, and is unfortunately diverting a lot of attention away from the real issues.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The whole deregulation/re-regulation/franchising debate doesn’t really address the two major problems affecting bus services.
1) There is no political desire to fully fund a quality public transport system in the UK.
2) There is no political desire to provide significantly improved bus priority measures in the UK.

Unless those two areas are addressed, who own the bus operators becomes largely irrelevant, and is unfortunately diverting a lot of attention away from the real issues.

Absolutely bang on @Stan Drews

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

The whole deregulation/re-regulation/franchising debate doesn’t really address the two major problems affecting bus services.
1) There is no political desire to fully fund a quality public transport system in the UK.
2) There is no political desire to provide significantly improved bus priority measures in the UK.

Unless those two areas are addressed, who own the bus operators becomes largely irrelevant, and is unfortunately diverting a lot of attention away from the real issues.

Absolutely true.

Do you know why?

Because not only are these politicians like every other person where it pertains to private car usage they know fine well that fewer cars on the roads equals less fuel purchased, and therefore less fuel duty taxes for the government, therefore putting further financial strain on the much larger picture financially. These things amongst of issues with society like the general laziness found throughout, the perception of public buses and easily available online shopping, even things groceries now.

Why else don’t they prioritise public transport, especially buses? Because currently the government's very indirect priority to motoring offers those motorists/voters near absolute right of way and convenience.

It also over the years allow our government to decentralise and remove more publicly funded buildings and operations like schools, local HMRC offices or DVLA offices for example thus relying on the private car to do more of the work of moving us around.

Where it pertains to funding why should public money be used consistently to fund the private sector if there is a better ways to ensure that funding is used most appropriately to support that public service as fully as possible?

 

[Simon75]

I’m surprised no one has mentioned how Arriva North West drivers remain on strike indefinitely. DB obviously has the money to either offer them a backdated above inflation pay rise, or refuse to and continue to lose revenue, but cannot proceed with the latter and claim it values it’s staff.

I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of holding any meaningful negotiations with the unions, it now decided to split up and sell off the operations out of individual depots e.g. Southport piecemeal to neighbouring operators e.g. Transdev Blazefield, Rotala or even First, (but less likely Stagecoach due to competition in Liverpool) who would all seem to want to expand their operations if they are likely to lose out under Andy Burnham bus franchising in Greater Manchester.

Saying that for several years Winsford, Macclesfield and possibly Wythenshawe have had rumours of disposal

 

[507020]

Absolutely true.

Do you know why?

Because not only are these politicians like every other person where it pertains to private car usage they no fine well less cars on the roads equals less fuel purchased therefore less fuel duty taxes for the GOV and therefore putting further financial strain on the much larger picture financially, these things amongst of issues with society like the general laziness found throughout, the perception of public buses and easily available online shopping, even things groceries now.

Why else don’t they prioritise public transport, especially buses? Because currently the governments very indirect priority to motoring offers those motorists/voters near absolute right of way and convenience.

It also over the years allow our government to decentralise and remove more publicly funded buildings and operations like schools, local HMRC offices or DVLA offices for example thus relying on the private car to do more of the work of moving us around.

Where it pertains to funding why should public money be used consistently to fund the private sector if there is a better ways to ensure that funding is used most appropriately to support that public service as fully as possible.

May I point out that with zero private car use and no oil purchase facilities available, municipal electric tramways were profitable enough to subsidise public services?

Bus deregulation has run its' course - some people made out of it, others didn't - and it seems obvious to me that the "wonderful" Tory model of a bus service justifying itself through its' profitability rather than its' social need has come to an abrupt end - COVID has put the final nail in the coffin.

The sooner all bus services are back under State control and regulated to protect the public's interests, the better. I'm sure some of us could argue until the cows come home about the merits or lack of concerning deregulation. The thing about deregulation is it was a political decision, and one that being a Socialist I can't personally agree with, just as there are those out there who think re-regulation will be disastrous too.

The question is really HOW not IF bus services (and also the railway, electricity, gas, water, telecoms, post, NHS and social housing services etc) will be brought back under a proper public ownership model. Only if not properly executed will renationalisation be disastrous and even then only in the very short term, except of course for those who intent to continue leeching copious profits from the taxpayer.

Saying that for several years Winsford, Macclesfield and possibly Wythenshawe have had rumours of disposal

And Yorkshire Tiger was of course actually disposed of only for the network to see improvements as Team Pennine. Judging by how run down my local Arriva bus operation (Southport) is, they clearly have no interest in it in the long term, other than to subsidise the ICE operations of DB.

 

[markymark2000]

Saying that for several years Winsford, Macclesfield and possibly Wythenshawe have had rumours of disposal

Wythenshawe will be offski when franchising comes in. No point in doing anything now. Wait until franchising comes in, then they have to move to the TFGM depots anyway if they choose to bid and they win a group of routes.

Winsford and Macclesfield, I agree has been on the cards for a while.

 

[507020]

Wythenshawe will be offski when franchising comes in. No point in doing anything now. Wait until franchising comes in, then they have to move to the TFGM depots anyway if they choose to bid and they win a group of routes.

Winsford and Macc, I agree has been on the cards for a while.

Franchising i.e. reregulation does seem to be a good middle step to full renationalisation in such a way as to create minimal (but not insignificant) resistance from the private companies, GM does seem to be a good place to start it, from where it can be copied and it does seem to be progressing nicely. I note the decision by whichever court to throw out Rotala’s “technicality” and allow franchising to proceed got very little media coverage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Macclesfield bus station does seem to have a number of its services run by Arriva North West, with many of the local services run by small midi-buses.

 

[Deerfold]

Wythenshawe will be offski when franchising comes in. No point in doing anything now. Wait until franchising comes in, then they have to move to the TFGM depots anyway if they choose to bid and they win a group of routes.

Is there a proposal to force bus operators to use specific depots for their routes?

 

[markymark2000]

Is there a proposal to force bus operators to use specific depots for their routes?

I believe so. The depot will come as part of the contract and TFGM have given up on the idea of buying existing depots and want to built their own.

 

[Deerfold]

I believe so. The depot will come as part of the contract and TFGM have given up on the idea of buying existing depots and want to built their own.

That sounds a slow process. Is there anything in their proposals that says this?