West Yorkshire "Enhanced Partnership Plus" proposal

[domcoop7]

The ownership model is the problem, though.

We see it time and time again in the bus industry that the private operators will take the money from the core daytime service on a route then dump the ‘marginal’ early/late/Sunday service on a route on the taxpayer. Look in Bradford, First have pretty much packed up and gone home by 9pm, the only later buses you’ll see now are on WYPTE tenders, or Transdev Keighley.

But ownership doesn't change under Franchising. The entire burden of everything falls on the taxpayer and the operator is guaranteed a profit win, lose or draw. We've heard that the Manchester rounds have had significant underbidding by operators, although whether that's to get a foot in the door or test the market or reflective of lower costs it's too early to say.

Of course there isn't just one model of Franchising, but we all know that the TfGM model is the one that is going to be adopted by all Labour authorities (i.e. all of them), which involves the taxpayer both specifying and picking up the revenue risk. If it were me, I'd do franchising more like on the railways in OPRAF days, i.e. say "our core budget is £x, we may also be able to get extra funding of £y - tell us what you can guarantee for that price, what you think you'll also be able to achieve in an ideal world, and what enhancements the extra funding might bring and the operator whose core service provides the best coverage to the most people wins"

 

[Tetchytyke]

But ownership doesn't change under Franchising. The entire burden of everything falls on the taxpayer and the operator is guaranteed a profit win, lose or draw

I don’t have an issue with the operators making a profit on a contract. Yes, the revenue risk does fall on the taxpayer, but I wouldn’t expect a network to be significantly different to what it is now- just more co-ordinated. And with things like ENCTS the authorities already have the data to know what is happening.

I don’t think revenue sharing would work on buses for a similar reason why it never truly worked on the railways, especially at TOCs like Northern. In Serco days there were a lot of shenanigans.

We've heard that the Manchester rounds have had significant underbidding by operators, although whether that's to get a foot in the door or test the market or reflective of lower costs it's too early to say.

It’ll certainly be interesting.

I continue to suspect that most bus companies’ underlying profitability is higher than the accounts would superficially indicate. Both at a subsidiary and national level it’s easy enough to make your company appear less profitable than it is if you want to.

 

[TUC]

I attended a consultation meeting about the proposals this week. It was clear from the information given that the franchising option will cost around five times more than the partnership. It was stated that Metro can afford this, but that is still around £12m that could instead be used to expand services.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I attended a consultation meeting about the proposals this week. It was clear from the information given that the franchising option will cost around five times more than the partnership

I’m interested, were these WYCA’s figures or the bus industry’s figures? And is it a like-for-like comparison, or does the franchise model include increased service provision.

I don’t see how the additional WYCA staff costs would get anywhere near £12m, so I’m curious what else might be accounting for what appears to be a large cost increase.

ETA the figure appears to be the one-off transition costs of £15.1m (which are spread over four years), net of additional revenue, rather than a long-term additional cost. Long-term franchising after transition would have a staff cost to WYCA of £3m a year compared with £1.7m a year WYCA staff costs under a partnership.

£3m a year for four years isn’t that much when you look at the WYCA’s transport budget. Concessionary rebates and contract subsidy costs WYCA around about £80m a year.

 

[TUC]

I’m interested, were these WYCA’s figures or the bus industry’s figures? And is it a like-for-like comparison, or does the franchise model include increased service provision.

I don’t see how the additional WYCA staff costs would get anywhere near £12m, so I’m curious what else might be accounting for what appears to be a large cost increase.

ETA the figure appears to be the one-off transition costs of £15.1m (which are spread over four years), net of additional revenue, rather than a long-term additional cost. Long-term franchising after transition would have a staff cost to WYCA of £3m a year compared with £1.7m a year WYCA staff costs under a partnership.

£3m a year for four years isn’t that much when you look at the WYCA’s transport budget. Concessionary rebates and contract subsidy costs WYCA around about £80m a year.

The figures were those that WYCA said had been formally assessed as a like for like comparison.

In a situation where there are too many unmet needs through Metro having insufficient funding for services even £3m makes a significant difference.

 

[Deerfold]

Are there any service guarantees under a partnership?

I remember all the promises of better services First made if the tram didn't happen. There's been severe service cuts along those corridors since.

 

[WAB]

Are there any service guarantees under a partnership?

I remember all the promises of better services First made if the tram didn't happen. There's been severe service cuts along those corridors since.

Haven’t services along the Headingley Lane halved since around 2010? And yes, I’d be very interested to know how strong the partnership enforcement mechanisms are - my gut instinct is that it’s a case of “give us more money and we promise we’ll make improvements”.

 

[mattb7tl]

Haven’t services along the Headingley Lane halved since around 2010? And yes, I’d be very interested to know how strong the partnership enforcement mechanisms are - my gut instinct is that it’s a case of “give us more money and we promise we’ll make improvements”.

Despite the area becoming even more student infested which is extremely great for buses as we see in Manchester, and beyond.
McGills did some mental improvements to a student route in one of their first bus takeovers.

 

[noddingdonkey]

I don’t have an issue with the operators making a profit on a contract. Yes, the revenue risk does fall on the taxpayer, but I wouldn’t expect a network to be significantly different to what it is now- just more co-ordinated. And with things like ENCTS the authorities already have the data to know what is happening.

Making a profit is one thing, but a look at First West Yorkshire's submission to Companies House suggests that passengers (and by extension tax payers) are being taken for mugs.

FWY is extremely profitable, and profits in the previous year show significant recovery after COVID. Compared with First South Yorkshire which was loss making before COVID and makes a profit now only because of the bus operators grant, it feels like First are slashing services in WY to subsidise other parts of First.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are there any service guarantees under a partnership?

No.

It is telling that they repeatedly mention this in the consultation, that any improvements under partnership working would be entirely reliant on the co-operation of the operators.

It’s why I don’t have an issue with the transition costs. I agree with WYCA’s assessment that partnership working might be very slightly cheaper in the short term but isn’t a sustainable long-term solution.

What’s even more interesting is that WYCA are forecasting reducing passenger numbers even with franchising. Sensible financial forecasting by the looks of it.

 

[WAB]

Despite the area becoming even more student infested which is extremely great for buses as we see in Manchester, and beyond.
McGills did some mental improvements to a student route in one of their first bus takeovers.

The 56 is a pretty grim service during the day - a 15-minute headway which quickly turns into 45-minutes given the slightest traffic. At least if the headway was closer and curtailments were put in where needed, the service would be a bit better.

In the evening, it's only every 30 minutes despite going through prime student territory.

If they can't offer a decent service on one of the most lucrative corridors in the city, that says it all.

 

[TUC]

The 56 is a pretty grim service during the day - a 15-minute headway which quickly turns into 45-minutes given the slightest traffic. At least if the headway was closer and curtailments were put in where needed, the service would be a bit better.

In the evening, it's only every 30 minutes despite going through prime student territory.

If they can't offer a decent service on one of the most lucrative corridors in the city, that says it all.

15 minutes daytime and 30 minute evenings is not a poor level of service. Many parts of the country would be very happy with that.

 

[WAB]

15 minutes daytime and 30 minute evenings is not a poor level of service. Many parts of the country would be very happy with that.

For a student route. This is where the money is to be made, but no student is going to wait 30+ minutes for a bus when an Uber arrives within two or three minutes. A fleet of Ubers flooding the city is not a good thing.

 

[TUC]

For a student route. This is where the money is to be made, but no student is going to wait 30+ minutes for a bus when an Uber arrives within two or three minutes. A fleet of Ubers flooding the city is not a good thing.

That may well be, but it is no reason to divert additional resources onto the route unless there is sufficient additional demand for an impr frequency.

 

[mattb7tl]

That may well be, but it is no reason to divert additional resources onto the route unless there is sufficient additional demand for an impr frequency.

Do you think other companies only do frequency increases when demand is sufficient? No. They take the risk with routes that are close enough and hope enough people begin to use the bus to make the changes sustainable.
The Stirling Unilink, a route previously ran by First, had a decent chunk of journeys added after the takeover. McGills have paid a bunch of attention to this very route, branding, promotion, and they have achieved a 38% increase in patronage.
First's management look at everything as doom and gloom even when they have thriving profitable bus routes. They don't experiment, they don't reinvest in services, they let stuff rot and that includes when you build them bus priority, buy their buses for them with taxpayer money, you name it. Nothing changes that attitude, and obviously why an enhanced partnership would never work, especially after the BSIP funds run dry.
That random Scottish city (Stirling), with less of a night life, student life, and basically everything which would affect bus usage. Has a more frequent day service, and night service, than the student areas in Leeds!

 

[WAB]

That may well be, but it is no reason to divert additional resources onto the route unless there is sufficient additional demand for an impr frequency.

Well there'll never be a decent bus network in Leeds if that's the attitude taken. As far as service enhancements go, according to WYMetro notices this year, the enhancements have been as follows:

• Around five extended or additional trips
• A few additional Saturday services (mostly restoring some pandemic cuts)
• Enhanced Leeds-Bradford services (mostly restoring some pandemic cuts)
• Slightly reduced headways on certain routes

This is across West Yorkshire, more than balanced by some pretty considerable cuts. Has First actually substantially improved any services in Leeds in the last few years? There is a newer fleet, sure, but that is less of a priority to customers than an actually usable service.

 

[BradK2017]

Do you think other companies only do frequency increases when demand is sufficient? No. They take the risk with routes that are close enough and hope enough people begin to use the bus to make the changes sustainable.
The Stirling Unilink, a route previously ran by First, had a decent chunk of journeys added after the takeover. McGills have paid a bunch of attention to this very route, branding, promotion, and they have achieved a 38% increase in patronage.
First's management look at everything as doom and gloom even when they have thriving profitable bus routes. They don't experiment, they don't reinvest in services, they let stuff rot and that includes when you build them bus priority, buy their buses for them with taxpayer money, you name it. Nothing changes that attitude, and obviously why an enhanced partnership would never work, especially after the BSIP funds run dry.
That random Scottish city (Stirling), with less of a night life, student life, and basically everything which would affect bus usage. Has a more frequent day service, and night service, than the student areas in Leeds!

Wasn't most of the 'enhancements' you mentioned being introduced by McGills simply just restoring stuff First removed at the start of the pandemic/driver shortages, plus as this year has more students returning in person compared to the previous years I'm sceptical over their increase claims are not just people returning that would of probably returned under First.

Getting back to West Yorkshire, Isn't the main student area the Headingley corridor (1/1B/6/8/27/28) what has a day frequency of Every 5ish mins & Half Hourly buses until 2:30am, making it more frequent than Stirling.

 

[Pub146g]

Getting back to West Yorkshire, Isn't the main student area the Headingley corridor (1/1B/6/8/27/28) what has a day frequency of Every 5ish mins & Half Hourly buses until 2:30am, making it more frequent than Stirling.

Indeed! Anybody with any knowledge of the Leeds network knows the 56 isn't the main student route, yes it passes the University so students making the journey from University to Leeds Centre or vice-versa might catch it but as mentioned in the quote - services 1/1B/6/8/27/28 (known as the Headingley corridor routes) also pass the University on their way from Leeds Centre so students will catch any of these along with the 56 whichever arrives at the stop first. They certainly won't be waiting 30+ minutes as implied in an earlier post.

Also, the Headingley corridor routes are the only ones that go to the heart of Headingley which is where many students do their shopping and/or frequent the many bars etc. The N1 runs from Leeds Centre, past the University and on through Headingley from 23:30 every 30 minutes until 02:30 six days a week so again any suggestion students suffer an inferior service is nonsense.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Anybody with any knowledge of the Leeds network knows the 56 isn't the main student route, yes it passes the University so students making the journey from University to Leeds Centre or vice-versa might catch it but as mentioned in the quote

It’s more the fact that the 56 is the one that runs through the middle of Hyde Park, past the Brudenell Social Club and the cricket ground. Those streets are student central and, yes, 4bph is pretty poor for such an area. Yes, there’s also the 3bph on the 19/A from the bottom end of that area for town, but still.

It’s better than you’ll see anywhere in Bradford, though!

Even the Headingley corridor isn’t what it was.

 

[WAB]

Indeed! Anybody with any knowledge of the Leeds network knows the 56 isn't the main student route, yes it passes the University so students making the journey from University to Leeds Centre or vice-versa might catch it but as mentioned in the quote - services 1/1B/6/8/27/28 (known as the Headingley corridor routes) also pass the University on their way from Leeds Centre so students will catch any of these along with the 56 whichever arrives at the stop first. They certainly won't be waiting 30+ minutes as implied in an earlier post.

Also, the Headingley corridor routes are the only ones that go to the heart of Headingley which is where many students do their shopping and/or frequent the many bars etc. The N1 runs from Leeds Centre, past the University and on through Headingley from 23:30 every 30 minutes until 02:30 six days a week so again any suggestion students suffer an inferior service is nonsense.

There are c.70,000 students in the city now, and they have spread further down towards Burley and deeper into Headingley, all of which is quite distant from the Headingley Lane routes.

here’s also the 3bph on the 19/A from the bottom end of that area for town, but still.

But you then end up with people having to make a choice about which stop to go to. Given the rate of cancellations and the traffic delays to the service, it's effectively irrelevant as an option - people need to just turn up and wait so x15 will win out against x20. I'll accept that evening and Sundays will be a little different with the lower frequencies on both routes.

Getting back to West Yorkshire, Isn't the main student area the Headingley corridor (1/1B/6/8/27/28) what has a day frequency of Every 5ish mins & Half Hourly buses until 2:30am, making it more frequent than Stirling.

It's not a 5 minute headway a lot of the time. More like three buses every 10-15 minutes because dwell times and uneven loading are not well controlled on the routes. Even the popular 1900 to 2200 time period has an uneven headway of up to c.20 minutes, more if there are cancellations.

Even the Headingley corridor isn’t what it was.

I make it a 50% reduction in the last ten years or so.