Login Register
North East Buses Local Bus Scene Bus Operations, Management & Infrastructure
Bus Services Bill
#11
http://tools.euroland.com/tools/Pressrel...e=uk-gog&v=

Go Ahead response to Bus Bill
Reply
#12
Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.
Reply
#13
(24/05/2016, 16:26)Greg in Weardale Wrote: Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.


There should of done this 20+ years ago, should be at least 2 bus operators per route and let passengers decide which company there wish to travel on and not vice versa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm in favour of Bus Bill 
Also out of the EU
Reply
#14
(24/05/2016, 16:39)cbma06 Wrote: There should of done this 20+ years ago, should be at least 2 bus operators per route and let passengers decide which company there wish to travel on and not vice versa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But what if a service struggles to sustain one (commercial) Operator, never mind 2? You can't force Operators to run where they don't want.
Reply
#15
(24/05/2016, 16:26)Greg in Weardale Wrote: Go Ahead have got it right - partnerships are the way forward, not franchising. The local authorities should set specifications (the frequency and start/finish times for various types of services, use of inter-operator tickets, etc) but operators should be able to run services they wish commercially and set the fares for their own routes. However there should be a veto available to authorities to limit unnecessary competition over the same routes so where two operators want to run a particular route the one who offers the best proposal would be the one who gets it.

I must admit, I didn't know "Enhanced" Partnerships were an option, rather than Franchising. The problem is that local circumstances vary so much (hence Devolution), so Deregulation has worked better in some areas than others (mainly medium sized, middle income towns down South), and Enhanced Partnerships might work better in some conurbations than others. Mind you, Partnerships are also subject to changes in policy of both Operators and Authorities/Mayor. For instance, if this Bill had been published a year after the 2010 Election, TFGM/C and the then Management of the "Big Three" would probably have said "Yes, we could make this work". But now..........!

For instance, you mention Operators setting their own fares. Should that include higher fares(per miile) in the poorer, low car ownership suburbs, than in regenerated, "trendy" city areas?
Reply
#16
https://twitter.com/passtrans/status/735775831616692225

Manchester to be the first to take up offer?
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Reply
#17
(26/05/2016, 13:16)Andreos1 Wrote: https://twitter.com/passtrans/status/735775831616692225

Manchester to be the first to take up offer?

And by saying "Manchester" rather than *Greater* Manchester, you have stumbled on one of the main reasons why TFGM/C are pushing for it. Both First and more recently, Stagecoach have become more Manchester-centric, not only with their services, but their bleating to the media about congestion. And now Arriva have started cutting again, only for TFGMC to step in straight away with tax-payers' money to maintain a link to the fast growing Airport. the subsidised services budget is being cut by 12% year on year, so the last thing GM's non motorists need is further cuts in commercial services, whilst millions are being thrown at a futile bus war across the city centre. The catalyst for all this was the sale of Finglands to First.
Reply
#18
I recieved this via email from Bridget Phillipson the other day.
She touches on QCS in the content.I re


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
Reply
#19
(29/05/2016, 20:35)Andreos1 Wrote: I recieved this via email from Bridget Phillipson the other day.
She touches on QCS in the content.I re

Moved to the Bus Service Bill thread, as I'd meant to close the QCS thread off the other day!  Blush
Reply
#20
I'm new to this thread.
I've read (quickly) through.
I couldn't see this:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...erview.pdf

Apologies if it is already available elsewhere.
Reply