... OR : We Got It Wrong In '86
Nick Ridley had this delightful vision of a deregulated bus service whereby small independent local bus operators would run a bus route into town matching the needs of residents and providing a profitable service adapted perfectly to local requirements.
Wikipedia's brief comment on Nick's time in the Ministry of Transport role sort of says it all.
He oversaw bus deregulation with the Transport Act 1985 as a precursor to privatisation of bus services. This led to a period of intense competition between rival bus companies, known at the time as the bus wars and the dramatic subsequent growth of Stagecoach Group, FirstGroup and the other major bus operators.
Rural buses have continued to decline despite the noble Nick's vision! Passenger numbers have continued to decline almost everywhere else with evening and Sunday services joining rural routes in reduction or removal.
Although most public comments are "cautiously favourable" towards the Government's plans, fbb has received a number of private responses to his summary of the Press Release in yesterday's blog. Out of respect for these folk's status in todays bus industry, fbb has applied anonymity and expurgation. All comments come from people fully committed to the bus industry, either currently or in the recent past.
How soon will Axe Valley Travel be able to pop to Purfleet to buy some second hand hydrogen fuelled buses that you can ride on with your all Devon travelcard, funded by the oil discovered on Dartmoor?
The Minister for Buses is the less than inspiring Baroness Vere,
Who, you may ask? She serves as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport and was Executive Director of the Girls' Schools Association from 2013 to 2016.
'Nuff said. Another comment on yesterday's blog:-
You cynicism is not misplaced. It looks like a final year student project entitled ‘if you had unlimited money describe your ideal bus service’ Lots of good ideas, wildly ambitious and uncosted . Perfect for Boris Government, they can say they have a plan and when it does not happen they can blame the local authorities and bus companies.
Same as usual then! And there's more rather measured comment.
Yes, a lot of this is regurgitated announcements - but the positives - despite covid, is that the commitments (inc ££££s) are still there!
Not sure Government understands the costs. There is a school of thought that evening services can effectively use redeployed mileage from the peaks with demand at those times reduced - but the effects will be so variable across every network.
All further/new monies are to be enshrined into either enhanced partnerships or franchising - and there is so little time. Existing EP rules require stages of consultation which now looks ambitious. And will all authorities have the skills/resources to really make this work?
The stuff on fares will be a nightmare - political pressure to reduce, but is there the funding to underwrite it all? And public expectations now rising on the back of today's stuff.
Yes, Manchester may turn out not to be the only mess!
Reading through the report yesterday morning, it is clear that, IF IMPLEMENTED, it could be the death of the current "commercial model" for bus operation.
Ironically lots of the examples of "best practice" contained therein are of "commercial" operations ...
... like Stagecoach in Winchester or Bluestar in Southampton. The report does mention the franchised network in Jersey ...
... and the politically motivated Metrobus in Bristol.
Everyone knows that the Bristol scheme was ludicrously expensive and, in terms of benefits delivered, poor value for a lot of money.
There is much emphasis on "emission free" buses which anyone with a working brain cell knows is twaddle! Of course all-electric buses will remove emissions from the streets of Glasgow, Manchester and York (for example) ...
... but the emissions are still emitting at the power stations. Whilst noble in concept "zero emissions" will not improve the bus service. Moreover, are we all really sure that all-electric vehicles are tried and tested for the medium term. The authorities were very keen in Berlin (see April Buses magazine) ...
... but they are not quite so keen now. Apparently in a recent "cold snap" the batteries only lasted for 90 kilometres instead of the planned (and contracted) 130. Some boffins are still worried about battery life and thus replacement cost.
The report does clearly outline the faults of the present "commercial" system which Boris' tory predecessors introduced 35 years ago ...
... but is fairly muted on how this might be achieved.
"We want to see this" is not the same as "It will happen".
Call that a map?
Boris wants to see fares reduced, but here is an example of the challenge that such a policy might face. The Yorkshire Post picks up on the reference to Harrogate's 36 ...
... and there is no doubt that the route has grown magnificently under "the commercial model".
But at least one twitterer is not at all happy with the fares structure at the Leeds end.
Individual fares are not published on line, but fbb guesses that local fares are high to discourage usage for local trips within the city boundaries. A blanket "reduction" might limit space available for longer distance passengers.
Which brings fbb to another salient point. THERE IS NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THE REPORT ABOUT HOW BUS SERVICES ARE PUBLICISED.
... apart from aspirational woolly words of wisdom (or maybe weasel words).
The current situation in Sheffield is a case in point. For six years or more there has been no printed publicity - on occasions no publicity at all - for timetable changes and, inevitably, passenger numbers have continued to fall even before the dreaded Virus!
But, as one of fbb's bus manager chums opined in his comment above - there is a "commitment" and there is "money". Surely that cannot be bad?
It is now nearly April and DaFT includes a brief summary of how you get your hands on the lolly.
By the end of June local authorities MUST apply for franchising powers. Sorry, Boris, that ain't going to happen!
By the end of October they will have to publish a plan. Sorry Boris but that ain't going to happen.
So they won't have an "Enhanced Partnership" in place by April 2022. Sorry Boris but that ain't going to happen.
Local authorities, notably the "shire counties" where such plans will be most needed to deliver rural bus improvements, have been so denuded of funding by successive Governments that they are hard-pressed to deliver even essential "social" services. They have opted out of most (or all) supported bus services and so have no bums on seats to even THINK about a plan ready prepared and consulted upon in just 12 short months.
In his "Inside Track" column in the April edition of Buses, Julian Peddle outlines the virtual collapse of bus services between Manchester and |Wilmslow.
One of the contributory factors is that Wilmslow, although obviously a "commuter town" for south Manchester, is in Cheshire. So neither authority is in the slightest bit interested in supporting a through service. Julian poses a worrying question, "Will Wilmslow soon be the largest town in the UK with no bus service at all?" How does that situation fit with Boris' policy of hiding behind the local authorities?
But the report does have lots of pictures of happy bus passengers to cheer us all ...
... so that's all right, then?
It will be interesting to see how this report works out - but fbb is predicting some significant extensions of time scales, for starters.
Somewhat More Encouraging.
How refreshing to see Cardiff Bus updates, not just being Twittered, but right "up front" on the company web site.
Our timetables will be changing from Sunday 21 March to reflect the current ‘stay local’ Welsh Government rule. With more customers returning to work and school we are increasing frequencies and running more routes from this date.
Each service is lister with a clear statement of what IS happening ...
... and a equally clear notice if NOTHING is changing.
There is no clutter and one click goes direct to the timetable in question - no lengthy lists to scroll through to get there. The actual tables are not pretty, being straightforward OmniTimes software output - but they do the job.
In difficult times they keep the passenger informed without requiring protracted mouse clicking. No printed material, sadly, but at least the on-line output is at the right level.
Cardiff bus could (and, indeed SHOULD) offer print-outs of the timetable to those who choose not to go "on-line", who lack the knowledge or who find it too much like hard work.
In passing, fbb note that the he company also has some of the best maps available on-line. Here is the Sports Village section of the cross city 13. None of Intalink's useless Google overlays to make life more difficult and frustrating for enquirers.
First Bus in Sheffield please note: your update information is over complex and, in cases, misleading and many of your maps are out of date!
Dysgu o Gaerdydd -
maen nhw'n ei wneud yn llawer, llawer gwell.
The previously announced blog for today will follow tomorrow.
Next "What Goes Where" blog : Thursday 18th March
I'm going to take issue with fbb about deregulation . . . it actually worked very well for over 20 years, as long as all involved played their proper part.
ReplyDeleteBus companies concentrated on running profitable bus services, whilst local government picked up any "socially necessary" routes and journeys. Overall subsidies dropped considerably; after a dodgy start the industry renewed its fleet (massively improving passenger accessibility along the way); massively improved publicity in all forms, and yes . . . DID INCREASE PASSENGER NUMBERS!!!
And then came G Brown, who gave away a huge amount of income by letting seniors travel free . . . he promised to make up the financial difference, but didn't ring-fence the money.
And then came the recession, and local government finances became very strained. Given a choice between social care and supporting bus services that carried mainly fresh air . . . the obvious happened. The statistics showed that most of the cut mileage was supported bus services; commercial services held up well (as they would do, as they made money!!).
Over the last 10 years, it's all gone a bit wrong, but IT ISN'T ALWAYS THE FAULT OF THE BUS COMPANIES!! Many companies tried to pick up what the LTA's had let go, but surprise surprise . . . because few passengers travelled, they lost money, and so they were withdrawn.
As I've banged on before . . . the way the industry is legislated hasn't changed. Bus companies are still expected to operate only those routes that are commercially viable. Any profits made are invested in new buses . . . and believe me, profits above 5% of turnover are pretty rare nowadays.
Oh, and by the way . . . how DARE you bang on about Intalink!!! The website is probably the best LTA website around . . . very easy to use; always updated, even with special C-19 timetables and with real-time bus information available. True, the timetable books are no longer there, but until C-19, printed countywide bus maps were produced at least twice a year, and widely distributed (libraries, local rail stations and other outlets). Intalink is also the prototype "Enhanced Partnership" . . . again, until C-19 hit, there were plans for investigations into local transport needs, where districts and operators would meet and look at very specific problems and how best to fix them. So - fbb . . . better research in the future, please.
The Intalink website looks as if it uses the same software as Cardiff Bus, albeit in a slightly different way.
DeleteHi Andrew, we use Passenger and it’s the same for a number of other operators.
DeleteAnd now I've got that off my chest . . . will the BorisBusPlan work?? To be fair, the Bus Industry does need a shake-up; the structure isn't really fit for purpose now, especially after Government has told passengers not to travel for 12 months or more. I believe that Enhanced Partnerships are probably the way to go, as it does give operators a far greater say in planning for the future, and also enforces discussions with local Districts as well. The timescales are ridiculously short, even to start the processes off . . . the Intalink EP took almost 12 months for County <> Operator discussions to conclude, and then another 6 months for a statutory consultation, but it started in April 2020 . . . very bad timing!!
ReplyDeleteFranchising?? Well, I think every operator in the land will NOT want franchising, as it takes away all the planning knowledge accumulated over decades, and allows politicians (who think the know everything, but actually know nothing) to run the show!!
And will 4000 new buses be possible before November 2024, the end of this Parliament? Roundly 1250 buses per year, together with associated infrastructure improvements?? Well, I suppose it is a target after all . . .
What the BorisBusPlan does do is state several general objectives . . . better information for passengers; better network tickets (which may require the repealing of some Competition legislation, by the way); better integration and co-ordination between bus and rail . . . all of which the bus industry will be keen to become involved in, as anything to get extra bums on seats will be better than the 70%-90% drop in passengers over the last 12 months.
So, from me a cautious welcome to parts of the Plan, but concern over how quickly it can be implemented, and whether the LTA's have anybody in post that can play their part.
And now for the Elephant in the Room . . . how do we persuade new passengers to actually jump on the bus?? Fewer people working in offices; car drivers that simply won't give up their cars without a fight; Town Centres that are seemingly withering away . . . there will have to be a lot of incentives to improve passennger numbers, and what if they don't materialise? Will that be the fault of the Bus Industry as well??
Far from being "a final year student project" as one of your industry commentators apparently said, my first thought on reading the National Bus Strategy was that whoever had written it was obviously a bus passenger of long-standing who understood all the problems faced by passengers under the present system: Fragmented and often confusing networks in larger cities, lack of multi-operator ticketing except in a few instances and at a premium price, Operators' timetables and journey planners that ignore other operators' journeys even when these would be useful to their passengers, maps that show large parts of an area apparently unserved because "we don't run there". In short, a system that is designed for operators' commercial benefit and not the travelling public.
ReplyDeleteLocal authorities did have the option of spending money on bus services before the financial crisis hit and many did so who owned their own bus operation. This does not mean that it was wisely spent as the reasons were often political (to gain votes in a specific ward or a change of policy). In those days such costs were 'hidden' within the overall cost of the final tax bill.
ReplyDeleteThe driving force was that they had to be seen to have done something before the next years election - and that line hasn't altered.
Working with fewer resources and budget cuts doesn't stop the demand for service improvements etc. Politicians are very good at dreaming up new ideas (or old ones recycled). Or these days picking up on Government announcements of grants etc that might be obtained for a project in their district.
The problem is getting them to agree the details within any reasonable timescale! There will always be friction where options favouring one part of town over another occurs.
More than that you have the issue of how the authority puts any resource into the project?
Thanks FBB for your kind comments - we will get back to printed material once we get stability, it’s on our agenda to restore. I think that even he would agree the frequent changes, by the time we’d print it - it would be out of date. We have made the effort to update our roadside timetables, even if they are printed in-house for flexibility. You can’t beat a good route map!
ReplyDeleteIntalink website certainly works well for me as an irregular user of services there. Definitely one of the easiest sites to use and timetable easy to read. Also stop information is far more consistent and complete than almost anywhere bar London. If the whole country followed intalinks example on timetable presentation and website consistency that would be a huge step forward. You should be rightly proud of your efforts.
DeleteIn other news, appalling vandalism in Edinburgh: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56430274
ReplyDeleteSome excellent comments here.
ReplyDeleteWhile the strategy has plenty of pie-in-the-sky stuff in it I was impressed with the depth of knowledge the author has.
I cautiously welcome it, not because of the silly promises it makes, but that it seeks to address many of the fundamental problems of current services, principally lack of integration.
It also address the future of Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant (CBSSG) in quite a clever way - you'll continue getting it if you cooperate with our plan. If not you're on your own.
To those who just rubbish the document, what is your preference? The continual managed decline of the industry, significantly hastened by Covid. Remember, the government could have just walked away from the problem as they have done with coaching.
On a cautionary note, the strategy mentions the "Superbus" (oxymoron) network in Cornwall. The council seems to think that red buses with Transport for Cornwall names automatically equals a "London-style" network. Aside from introducing some obscure new routes rather than enhancing existing ones it has funded a huge number of new, minimum specification buses, none of which come with the features that the strategy regards as the base minimum: audio/visual next stop, WiFi and charging. But the worst crime, and in complete contradiction to the strategy, is to completely deny the existence of the 50% of commercial mileage run by First Kernow. No timetables, no maps, no mutual ticket acceptance where routes may have a different operator in the evenings. In fact the council seems to be trying to deliberately undermine the commercial network. Is that even legal?
The start date of the new supported network wasn't exactly ideal - coinciding with the first national lockdown, but it still took over six months for any timetables to be posted and even these are small and hard to read. In contrast First Kernow has posted up-to-date timetables throughout.
I shudder to think how the council is going to implement the low fares pilot. I wouldn't put it past them to try to block First Kernow's participation.
On a positive note the operators' contribution has been positive, particularly the participating independents who have been reinvigorated as a result.
In considering the way forward with the bus strategy Cornwall Council should be held up as an example of how not to do it!