TfGM Bus franchising

[Goldfish62]

See Manchester Airport, owned by the local councils, is a great example of organising a transport system. Should be fun when they get hold of local bus services. Booze ups and breweries spring to mind!!

MAG operates on a commercial basis at arm's length from its public owners who only take a dividend from profits.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

See Manchester Airport, owned by the local councils.

MAG operates on a commercial basis at arm's length from its public owners who only take a dividend from profits.

Just to clarify that while the district councils of Greater Manchester do all have a stake in Manchester Airport it should be noted that Australian investment fund IFM Investors have a 35.5% stake hence the arm's length operation.

 

[Volvodart]

Date for buses in Bolton to be brought under public control announced - as Metro Mayor warns services could get worse before they get better

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/new...ro-mayor-warns-services-get-worse-get-better/

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has warned that bus services could get worse before they get better as Greater Manchester gets half of the funding for running costs requested.

The Labour mayor welcomed the news that the city-region would receive £1.07bn for one-off infrastructure costs to improve the transport network.

This funding will help pay for a new transport interchange in Bury, a new train station in Golborne and new zero emission buses, bus stops and road repairs.

Greater Manchester will also get £94.8m for ongoing costs to run the bus network and a one-off £20.5m in emergency funding for Metrolink services.

However, the £94.8m for the Bus Service Improvement Plan is half of what is needed to guarantee the £1.50 hopper fares, 70 new routes with 10-minute-services and ‘24 hour services’ on up to 20 routes previously proposed.

Mr Burnham also said there could soon be fewer bus services running in the city-region as further details of the Covid recovery funding are yet to be confirmed.

He said: “Bus services could get worse before they get better because if the funding’s not there to help the bus system recover from the pandemic, we could see loss of services or loss of frequency and that will mean that the foundations upon which the improved services are being built are going to get shakier and not the solid foundation that we would want.”

Responding to the funding announcement, Burnham revealed the new regulated bus system will launch in Wigan and Bolton on September 17, 2023 and that at least 50 new zero emission buses will be introduced then.

It comes after a judge ruled in favour of Burnham bringing buses back under public control following a judicial review brought by two bus operators.

Rotala – one of the bus firms – has now appealed this decision, but Greater Manchester is sticking to the same timetable for the new franchising system.

The mayor committed again to capping bus fares for single journeys at £2 for adults and £1 for children – but he couLd not guarantee a £1.50 hopper fare.

He said: “We are going to have to make some choices.

“We won’t be able to do everything because we put forward a plan for lower fares, more frequent services, later running services and clearly, we’re not going to be in a position to do everything that we wanted to do.

“However, we are going to be in a position to improve services.

“I think the key thing will be, a mixture of making a move on fares and increasing frequency.

“It’s exactly what we can do on both of those things that we’ll have to judge.”

 

[domcoop7]

Date for buses in Bolton to be brought under public control announced - as Metro Mayor warns services could get worse before they get better

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/new...ro-mayor-warns-services-get-worse-get-better/

Who'd a thunk it?

At least he's not increasing his share of Council Tax by 13.5% a year (on top of pouring 95 million quid down the drain) in order for buses to get worse? Oh, wait. He is!

And when the narrative changes from "they'll get worse before they get better", to "they've got worse, and they'll continue to get worse. But we're doing our best and it would have worked out fine if it wasn't for those pesky kids [the Tories]!" (see a similar volte face from Mr Burnham over the Clean Air Zone), I wonder whether he'll acknowledge that it was well-known that even Greater Manchester Combined Authority business case showed a continual decline in bus passenger numbers year on year with Franchising?

I suspect, however, that this will form part of the "grievance politics" that will keep him (and his successor, possibly Gary Neville) in power? It's all Westminster's fault our ideas aren't up to scratch and don't work!

 

[johncrossley]

Date for buses in Bolton to be brought under public control announced - as Metro Mayor warns services could get worse before they get better

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/new...ro-mayor-warns-services-get-worse-get-better/

I presume this is mostly about the cut to funding happening nationwide in the near future. So this concerns services operating under the current deregulated system (albeit one propped up by subsidy).

 

[WatcherZero]

The 'They will get worse before they get better' refers to no new revenue support being offered for commercial bus operators to help with Co-vid related downturn. GM has received £94.8m against the £134.5m they requested in BSIP funding to increase public services and frequency.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The 'They will get worse before they get better' refers to no new revenue support being offered for commercial bus operators to help with Co-vid related downturn. GM has received £94.8m against the £134.5m they requested in BSIP funding to increase public services and frequency.

£94.8m is still a sizable amount of money in these days when the Treasury has its hands on the purse strings.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, I wasn't saying it was small; my point was that while there is money for new services, existing services are facing a crunch and hence the 'They will get worse before they get better' phrase.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, I wasn't saying it was small; my point was that while there is money for new services, existing services are facing a crunch and hence the 'They will get worse before they get better' phrase.

Yes. It's happening all over the country as the reduction in Covid and local government funding starts to bite. Note also that BSIP money is not to be used to subsidise socially necessary services. That has to be done through the normal council budgets.

Come the autumn passengers are going to be very bewildered when their services are cut while being told all this funding has been dished out to improve services.

 

[Rod Harrison]

Bus ridership has been on a downward trajectory for years, and will continue. with the car and trams scooping up passengers and the permanent increase in home working. Taking that into account, and the Mayor promising huge increases in bus services’ frequencies and reductions in fares, someone will have to pay for it. Given the huge fuss over the NI increases for the NHS, the cost of his dreams will increase substantially over the coming years and tax payers are at breaking point, so it seems 2 + 2 makes 44 now. I think it is a nice thought but totally unrealistic to achieve all the objectives and they will almost certainly have to be revised downwards. Relaxing the straight jacket of existing competition rules in the meantime may well improve services anyway.

 

[GusB]

An update on Rotala's legal action:

Rotala to appeal GM franchising Judicial Review claim rejection - routeone

Rotala has gained leave to appeal a rejection of its application for Judicial Review of elements of bus franchising in Greater Manchester.

www.route-one.net

Rotala has been granted leave to appeal the decision of Mr Justice Julian Knowles to reject its application for Judicial Review of elements of the process surrounding the franchising of bus services in Greater Manchester.

Following the decision made by Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham in March 2021 to proceed with reregulation, Rotala and Stagecoach each submitted Judicial Review claims on the grounds that the second consultation into franchising conducted by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority did not meet legally required standards. Rotala additionally sought to challenge Mr Burnham’s decision. The operators’ claims were rejected by Mr Justice Knowles on 9 March, but Rotala immediately signalled its intention to appeal.

In rejecting the claims, Mr Justice Knowles found that all aspects of the reregulation process had been carried out lawfully by GMCA. He also refused leave to appeal. Now that the latter decision has been overturned, Rotala’s appeal hearing is expected to take place before August.

Writing in Rotala’s annual report for 2021, and after Mr Justice Knowles’ decision had been published, Non-Executive Chairman John Gunn underlined the group’s ongoing belief that the elements with which it disagrees are “irrational and/or unlawful.”

Mr Gunn continues: “As an operator in Greater Manchester, the company has acted to attempt to protect its business from a decision that is not only detrimental to Rotala’s future prospects, but also potentially detrimental to the citizens of Greater Manchester in imposing upon them the financial burden of a franchising scheme that the board believes has not been properly assessed in line with the relevant legislation.”

Despite Rotala’s opposition to bus reregulation in Greater Manchester, Mr Gunn notes that if it is required to sell its Bolton depot and bus assets to GMCA, the capital invested there “would be realised into cash and be available for reinvestment or redeployment elsewhere in the group.”

Stagecoach accepted Mr Justice Knowles’ decision and has not sought leave to appeal.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

An update on Rotala's legal action:

Rotala to appeal GM franchising Judicial Review claim rejection - routeone

Rotala has gained leave to appeal a rejection of its application for Judicial Review of elements of bus franchising in Greater Manchester.

www.route-one.net

Were you surprised that Rotala have been granted leave to appeal against the decision that took so very long to be reached by Mr Justice Knowles?

 

[GusB]

Were you surprised that Rotala have been granted leave to appeal against the decision that took so very long to be reached?

It's not my area of interest, I'm afraid. On this occasion I'm just the messenger!

 

[507020]

Were you surprised that Rotala have been granted leave to appeal against the decision that took so very long to be reached?

Just what is the point? When the decision was “You are no longer welcome to control or profit from our essential public services and admit that Mrs Thatcher had no right to sell the operation to your shareholders in the first place” why can we not simply pass legislation to reregulate the bus network, requiring all services to be directly operated, without having to put up with the delays from these companies who’s involvement is questionable enough as it is, that we already have to put up with on every visit to a bus stop?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just what is the point? When the decision was “You are no longer welcome to control or profit from our essential public services and admit that Mrs Thatcher had no right to sell the operation to your shareholders in the first place” why can we not simply pass legislation to reregulate the bus network, requiring all services to be directly operated, without having to put up with the delays from these companies who’s involvement is questionable enough as it is, that we already have to put up with on every visit to a bus stop?

If the fact is "Essential public services" why were these not run by council-operated fleets and obviating the need for private companies to have been involved?

 

[507020]

If the fact is "Essential public services" why were these not run by council-operated fleets and obviating the need for private companies to have been involved?

They were… see *insert place name here* Corporation Buses for details …until the Iron lady decided purely for her own ideological reasons that they would not be, nor would the private operators be regulated, starting from 1986. In PTE areas they were until then owned by a consortium of several neighbouring councils.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They were… see *insert place name here* Corporation Buses for details …until the Iron lady decided purely for her own ideological reasons that they would not be, nor would the private operators be regulated, starting from 1986. In PTE areas they were until then owned by a consortium of several neighbouring councils.

Did the respective trades unions at that time try to fight against the decision you mention?

 

[johncrossley]

If the fact is "Essential public services" why were these not run by council-operated fleets and obviating the need for private companies to have been involved?

Why can't an essential public service be run by a private company? Don't you consider waste disposal (for example) an essential public service?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why can't an essential public service be run by a private company? Don't you consider waste disposal (for example) an essential public service?

How many times have you heard statements from the more militant trades unions that decry shareholders of such private companies gaining financially from their company's running of such public services.

 

[507020]

Did the respective trades unions at that time try to fight against the decision you mention?

I don’t know. Did they? I assume so. Please tell me deregulation was not forced through simply as an attack on the unions, regardless of its implications for buses and passengers.

Why can't an essential public service be run by a private company? Don't you consider waste disposal (for example) an essential public service?

Well obviously they can. The prerequisite is merely that we have access to these essential public services in a developed country. The question is whether the services provided by private companies are of sufficient quality, or how much they could be further improved if 100% of the money that makes up their profits was reinvested in public services to improve our citizens’ quality of life in this country.

 

[johncrossley]

How many times have you heard statements from the more militant trades unions that decry shareholders of such private companies gaining financially from their company's running of such public services.

Who cares what they think? Thatcher privatised London buses and not many people would want to go back to the state owned days.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Will this latest move to allow Rotala's case cause any delay to the forward planning of the master bus planning for Greater Manchester?

 

[507020]

Waste disposal of course meets this definition of essential public service, as is apparent from the infestations and outbreaks of disease that reduce people’s quality of life whenever this service becomes unavailable for any length of time, as well as the potential of (and strain on the health service due to) simple trips and falls over bags of rubbish in the street. A certain efficiency exists in public ownership, although it’s materialisation relies heavily on the competence of the public sector management.

How many times have you heard statements from the more militant trades unions that decry shareholders of such private companies gaining financially from their company's running of such public services.

There is of course nothing to stop the hard working staff members (at all levels) who are actually doing the work being financially rewarded in the form of an appropriately generous salary, but ask yourself where the money for shareholders’ dividends has to come from.

Who cares what they think? Thatcher privatised London buses and not many people would want to go back to the state owned days.

No she didn’t. The difference was John Major in 1994 privatised, but did not deregulate London buses. With regulation continuing under TfL, the service should in theory be identical to a nationalised operation, except it is more expensive to run.

 

[johncrossley]

No she didn’t. The difference was John Major in 1994 privatised, but did not deregulate London buses. With regulation continuing under TfL, the service should in theory be identical to a nationalised operation, except it is more expensive to run.

OK, private firms were introduced into the London bus market under Thatcher, privatisation of the original bus companies in London came later. Costs were slashed under the new system without losing passengers.

 

[507020]

OK, private firms were introduced into the London bus market under Thatcher, privatisation of the original bus companies in London came later. Costs were slashed under the new system without losing passengers.

Why couldn’t costs have equally been slashed while retaining public ownership. Perhaps destroying the industry structure entirely and replacing it with a new one is easier than ripping the existing one open and trying to make changes from the inside. That’s not to say that any benefit actually came from privatisation itself, or that unexplained costs would rapidly increase if the service were to be renationalised.

How much of the retention of passengers was down to London buses being a captive market and how much was down to the retention of regulation? There simply isn’t the space on London’s roads for all bus passengers to drive instead and how many passengers would have been lost if the deregulated free for all seen outside London had been imposed on the capital?

It seems that both 1980s and current problems with the bus industry can be attributed to simple stagnation, disillusionment and complacency, rather than the particular ownership model.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don’t know. Did they? I assume so. Please tell me deregulation was not forced through simply as an attack on the unions, regardless of its implications for buses and passengers.

It had absolutely nothing to do with attacking the unions, who were not particularly militant in the bus industry at the time anyway. It was all to do with Nick Ridley's obsession that the pure free market could provide something far more effectively than any regulated system could. He was of course wrong.

 

[johncrossley]

Why couldn’t costs have equally been slashed while retaining public ownership. Perhaps destroying the industry structure entirely and replacing it with a new one is easier than ripping the existing one open and trying to make changes from the inside. That’s not to say that any benefit actually came from privatisation itself, or that unexplained costs would rapidly increase if the service were to be renationalised.

How much of the retention of passengers was down to London buses being a captive market and how much was down to the retention of regulation? There simply isn’t the space on London’s roads for all bus passengers to drive instead and how many passengers would have been lost if the deregulated free for all seen outside London had been imposed on the capital?

It seems that both 1980s and current problems with the bus industry can be attributed to simple stagnation, disillusionment and complacency, rather than the particular ownership model.

Even Nordic countries noted for high public spending and high union membership have copied the London privatisation model.

What they do outside London is indeed a peculiarity. By the mid 90s the government had realised it was crazy (although of course they would never admit that publicly) and the new privatised system in London was working well enough so there was no need for subsequent change in London.

 

[Goldfish62]

What they do outside London is indeed a peculiarity. By the mid 90s the government had realised it was crazy (although of course they would never admit that publicly) and the new privatised system in London was working well enough so there was no need for subsequent change in London.

The deregulated system outside London is an aboration whether you consider it the right or wrong way to do things.

 

[507020]

It had absolutely nothing to do with attacking the unions, who were not particularly militant in the bus industry at the time anyway. It was all to do with Nick Ridley's obsession that the pure free market could provide something far more effectively than any regulated system could. He was of course wrong.

It seems that his implacable and frankly irrational objection to public ownership of any kind was motivated solely by the reality that his own family’s coal and steel interests had been nationalised under the Attlee government and that he imposed this view on Thatcher who immediately jumped on it in an attempt to gain power, again to be used solely for her own purposes rather than the benefit of any of the British people.

Notably, he did not even live to see the privatisation of BR for example, so why is it that the ideological obsession of a man who has been dead and buried for almost 30 years with events that inconvenienced his family in the 1940s is allowed to cause people suffering today, e.g. those unable to afford private energy bills? There are similar problems with buses and other privatised industries caused by the way privatisation was approached by the Thatcher government under the direction of Nick Ridley, even if private ownership was ultimately beneficial.

What they do outside London is indeed a peculiarity. By the mid 90s the government had realised it was crazy (although of course they would never admit that publicly) and the new privatised system in London was working well enough so there was no need for subsequent change in London.

It is perhaps true that subsequent change in London is unnecessary at this point.

 

[daodao]

The bus franchise model in Greater Manchester goes further than that in London in that the bus companies' assets in Greater Manchester would be expropriated unilaterally by the Greater Manchester Authority without fair recompense; it is a Marxist approach to seizing private assets. Rotala are right to pursue a judicial review.