Bus Services Bill

North East Buses Local Bus Scene Operations, Management & Infrastructure Bus Services Bill

Bus Services Bill

Print Thread

1 Vote(s) - 5 Average

Pages (10) Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 10 Next

Andreos1

14,218

12 Nov 2016, 9:43 pm #61

I was debating whether or not to put this in the Press Cuttings thread, but plumped for the more political thread.

There has been mention in the media over the last few days about how cuts to subsidies (and the failure of operators to fill the gaps commercially), have left communities isolated.

Links to an article will follow, but I found this excellent interactive info graphic relating to the cuts by authority.

http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-bu...-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror....-orange-gb

This report comes barely days after figures showing passenger numbers are dropping.
Whilst the two may be connected, I wonder what will be or could be done, to reverse these trends?

Edited 12 Nov 2016, 9:45 pm by Andreos1.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

12 Nov 2016, 9:43 pm #61

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider

266

13 Nov 2016, 9:45 pm #62

(12 Nov 2016, 9:43 pm)Andreos1 I was debating whether or not to put this in the Press Cuttings thread, but plumped for the more political thread.

There has been mention in the media over the last few days about how cuts to subsidies (and the failure of operators to fill the gaps commercially), have left communities isolated.

Links to an article will follow, but I found this excellent interactive info graphic relating to the cuts by authority.

http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-bu...-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror....-orange-gb

This report comes barely days after figures showing passenger numbers are dropping.
Whilst the two may be connected, I wonder what will be or could be done, to reverse these trends?

In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

Tamesider

13 Nov 2016, 9:45 pm #62

(12 Nov 2016, 9:43 pm)Andreos1 I was debating whether or not to put this in the Press Cuttings thread, but plumped for the more political thread.

There has been mention in the media over the last few days about how cuts to subsidies (and the failure of operators to fill the gaps commercially), have left communities isolated.

Links to an article will follow, but I found this excellent interactive info graphic relating to the cuts by authority.

http://bettertransportmaps.org.uk/map-bu...-2015.html

Https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror....-orange-gb

This report comes barely days after figures showing passenger numbers are dropping.
Whilst the two may be connected, I wonder what will be or could be done, to reverse these trends?

In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

Andreos1

14,218

15 Nov 2016, 9:45 pm #63

In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

Your reply ended up in my post, so I've had to quote it like this.

It is interesting to see a number of areas reducing funding in part or in whole.
However, you also have the likes of Nexus seeing their spending increase! That's despite previously tendered routes suddenly becoming viable when the incumbent loses a tender...

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

15 Nov 2016, 9:45 pm #63

In truth - very little. You'll note it shows TFGM as accelerating cuts in Gtr. Manchester, with 26 services withdrawn in 6 financial years. Since then a further 14 were withdrawn this Summer - albeit 5 were commercial, with another 9 (mostly commercial) a fortnight ago. For (supposedly) legal reasons, there are only two aspects of TFGM's budget that can be cut, and that's staff costs (ie. jobs) and subsidised bus services. With 6% of the total budget to be cut every year until 2020/21, that means much deeper service cuts to come. Extra money was found in the early years of this decade to fund replacements for commercial withdrawals (mainly by First), but these eased between 2012 & 2014. Unfortunately, the trend has now been reversed and notably, its not just First withdrawing services.

In theory, the Bus Services Bill is one of the few hopes, not least because it will allow cross-subsidy. Even then, it will need both the money and the political will to say that non-motorists are equal to motorists, and so buses should not be abandoned in favour of rail. Some of the most recent commercial withdrawals are not being considered for even partial replacement because there are Metrolink lines nearby......which is the main reason for the services being de-registered in the first place!

Of course, the problem gets progressively worse as other public services (not least Health) are also cutback and concentrated in areas remote to the patient/end user. The cost (in time as much as fares) of accessing these services is yet another reason for the vicious circle of increased car ownership/usage and bus patronage reduction.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

14,218

22 Dec 2016, 9:06 am #64

Tees Valley Connect's consultation has just over 4 weeks left to run.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport-i...port-plan/

I ends 31st Jan and invites people to share their thoughts on plans and priorities, ahead of the report being published later in 2017.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

22 Dec 2016, 9:06 am #64

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider

266

22 Dec 2016, 10:02 pm #65

(22 Dec 2016, 9:06 am)Andreos1 Tees Valley Connect's consultation has just over 4 weeks left to run.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport-i...port-plan/

I ends 31st Jan and invites people to share their thoughts on plans and priorities, ahead of the report being published later in 2017.

I'm guessing this is included in the Buses Bill thread, due to the comment near the end, that suggests "continuing" work with Operators. As such, Partnerships rather than an assumption of Franchising is still a possibility.

Tamesider

22 Dec 2016, 10:02 pm #65

(22 Dec 2016, 9:06 am)Andreos1 Tees Valley Connect's consultation has just over 4 weeks left to run.

https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/transport-i...port-plan/

I ends 31st Jan and invites people to share their thoughts on plans and priorities, ahead of the report being published later in 2017.

Andreos1

14,218

18 Jan 2017, 8:34 pm #66

Just thought I would share a few links that are maybe worth having a look at.
There are some interesting comments and perspectives on the first link.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1093898464053160

The second link, takes you to 'Platform', a new page organised by the Newcastle branch of PTUG.
https://m.facebook.com/PlatformNewcastle/?refid=13&__tn__=R#!/story.php?story_fbid=1078295195630453&id=815686291891346
Quite quiet there at the moment, but maybe worth keeping an eye on.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

18 Jan 2017, 8:34 pm #66

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider

266

18 Jan 2017, 9:42 pm #67

(18 Jan 2017, 8:34 pm)Andreos1 Just thought I would share a few links that are maybe worth having a look at.
There are some interesting comments and perspectives on the first link.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1093898464053160

The second link, takes you to 'Platform', a new page organised by the Newcastle branch of PTUG.
https://m.facebook.com/PlatformNewcastle/?refid=13&__tn__=R#!/story.php?story_fbid=1078295195630453&id=815686291891346
Quite quiet there at the moment, but maybe worth keeping an eye on.

Not being local, I can't judge the comments in detail (eg. All buses should stop at the Metro), but its certainly a broader range (and less insulting/abusive) than you normally see on social media. Interesting to see comments about cyclists sticking to the roads instead of using cycle lanes. Here in GM, vulnerable pedestrians would love it if cyclists used either general road space or cycle lanes instead of pavements and footbridges! I suppose it does highlight the desire for a form of "Re-regulation", whilst still including an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some existing non-motorists.

As regards PTUG; as you may know, there are no Public Transport User Groups in GM, although Rail Users interests are looked after by various lobbies (TravelWatch, Transport Focus etc), but if there were, it would be the interests of those in the suburbs rather than the city (sorry, "Regional Centre"), that would be more vital.

Finally, it is a bit of a shame such things are on subscription based insecure media such as Facebook, Twitter etc, so many (including me) would be excluded anyway.

Tamesider

18 Jan 2017, 9:42 pm #67

(18 Jan 2017, 8:34 pm)Andreos1 Just thought I would share a few links that are maybe worth having a look at.
There are some interesting comments and perspectives on the first link.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1093898464053160

The second link, takes you to 'Platform', a new page organised by the Newcastle branch of PTUG.
https://m.facebook.com/PlatformNewcastle/?refid=13&__tn__=R#!/story.php?story_fbid=1078295195630453&id=815686291891346
Quite quiet there at the moment, but maybe worth keeping an eye on.

Andreos1

14,218

19 Jan 2017, 7:21 pm #68

(18 Jan 2017, 9:42 pm)Tamesider Not being local, I can't judge the comments in detail (eg. All buses should stop at the Metro), but its certainly a broader range (and less insulting/abusive) than you normally see on social media. Interesting to see comments about cyclists sticking to the roads instead of using cycle lanes. Here in GM, vulnerable pedestrians would love it if cyclists used either general road space or cycle lanes instead of pavements and footbridges! I suppose it does highlight the desire for a form of "Re-regulation", whilst still including an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some existing non-motorists.

As regards PTUG; as you may know, there are no Public Transport User Groups in GM, although Rail Users interests are looked after by various lobbies (TravelWatch, Transport Focus etc), but if there were, it would be the interests of those in the suburbs rather than the city (sorry, "Regional Centre"), that would be more vital.

Finally, it is a bit of a shame such things are on subscription based insecure media such as Facebook, Twitter etc, so many (including me) would be excluded anyway.

I put a link regarding new MetroLink tender in the relevant thread. Theres some interesting comments from a big boss at RATP regarding bus services in Manchester.

Re Gosforth: It's always an interesting area. I dont think I would be too far off, if I say that a number of the people who live there are of educated middle-class, who generally have a lot to say. Buses, bus-lanes, green space, road layouts etc.
The attitudes shown on the facebook page towards bus operators and integration with the metro was interesting.
There's clearly no scycophancy there!

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

19 Jan 2017, 7:21 pm #68

(18 Jan 2017, 9:42 pm)Tamesider Not being local, I can't judge the comments in detail (eg. All buses should stop at the Metro), but its certainly a broader range (and less insulting/abusive) than you normally see on social media. Interesting to see comments about cyclists sticking to the roads instead of using cycle lanes. Here in GM, vulnerable pedestrians would love it if cyclists used either general road space or cycle lanes instead of pavements and footbridges! I suppose it does highlight the desire for a form of "Re-regulation", whilst still including an element of "be careful what you wish for" to some existing non-motorists.

As regards PTUG; as you may know, there are no Public Transport User Groups in GM, although Rail Users interests are looked after by various lobbies (TravelWatch, Transport Focus etc), but if there were, it would be the interests of those in the suburbs rather than the city (sorry, "Regional Centre"), that would be more vital.

Finally, it is a bit of a shame such things are on subscription based insecure media such as Facebook, Twitter etc, so many (including me) would be excluded anyway.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider

266

19 Jan 2017, 9:04 pm #69

(19 Jan 2017, 7:21 pm)Andreos1 I put a link regarding new MetroLink tender in the relevant thread. Theres some interesting comments from a big boss at RATP regarding bus services in Manchester.

Re Gosforth: It's always an interesting area. I dont think I would be too far off, if I say that a number of the people who live there are of educated middle-class, who generally have a lot to say. Buses, bus-lanes, green space, road layouts etc.
The attitudes shown on the facebook page towards bus operators and integration with the metro was interesting.
There's clearly no scycophancy there!

You threw me for a minute because we don't use a capital "L" in Metrolink.............although I'm pretty sure that is a copyrighted name for a public transport franchise somewhere else in the world.

It is a repeated quote in the MEN, and I think they are just getting their name known locally.

Tamesider

19 Jan 2017, 9:04 pm #69

(19 Jan 2017, 7:21 pm)Andreos1 I put a link regarding new MetroLink tender in the relevant thread. Theres some interesting comments from a big boss at RATP regarding bus services in Manchester.

Re Gosforth: It's always an interesting area. I dont think I would be too far off, if I say that a number of the people who live there are of educated middle-class, who generally have a lot to say. Buses, bus-lanes, green space, road layouts etc.
The attitudes shown on the facebook page towards bus operators and integration with the metro was interesting.
There's clearly no scycophancy there!

Andreos1

14,218

19 Jan 2017, 9:56 pm #70

(19 Jan 2017, 9:04 pm)Tamesider You threw me for a minute because we don't use a capital "L" in Metrolink.............although I'm pretty sure that is a copyrighted name for a public transport franchise somewhere else in the world.

It is a repeated quote in the MEN, and I think they are just getting their name known locally.

Didn't think it did (although it's about a year since I used it). Just kept on with the title of the thread.

RAPT have obviously lost Metrolink now (fixed it), but are keen to keep their toes in the city and going by the quote, are keen for the market to open up. They must see some potential there.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

19 Jan 2017, 9:56 pm #70

(19 Jan 2017, 9:04 pm)Tamesider You threw me for a minute because we don't use a capital "L" in Metrolink.............although I'm pretty sure that is a copyrighted name for a public transport franchise somewhere else in the world.

It is a repeated quote in the MEN, and I think they are just getting their name known locally.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

14,218

09 Feb 2017, 10:43 am #71

Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit.
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

09 Feb 2017, 10:43 am #71

Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit.
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Tamesider

266

09 Feb 2017, 9:47 pm #72

(09 Feb 2017, 10:43 am)Andreos1 Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit.
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

How appropriate that any developments would come via Tweets. Giles Fearnley's idea, I suppose (lol).

Tamesider

09 Feb 2017, 9:47 pm #72

(09 Feb 2017, 10:43 am)Andreos1 Although not dominating the day, there has been reference to the Bus Bill by Andrew Jones MP at the UK Bus Summit.
It is also trending on Twitter - #UKBusSummit

How appropriate that any developments would come via Tweets. Giles Fearnley's idea, I suppose (lol).

Adrian

9,583

02 Mar 2017, 7:44 pm #73

Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Adrian

02 Mar 2017, 7:44 pm #73

Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Tamesider

266

03 Mar 2017, 4:26 pm #74

(02 Mar 2017, 7:44 pm)Adrian Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

Fascinating - absolutely fasciiating. No, I'm not talking about the content, olr even the cross-party support for the basic ethos of the Bill. What is a real eye-opener is the Greater Manchester MPs making accurate observations (apart from Chris Grayling himself) and impassioned arguments for better, more affordable bus services, and yet NEVER use the word BUS in the Media. All you hear from them in the local Media is Metrolink this, and Rail that. I wonder why that is..............?

Can't be sure, but I suspect a big clue can be found in the wording of this week's latest transport story, about the most "Lucrative" bus lane cameras, following an FOI request from the Publicly funded oh so Impartial BBC.

Tamesider

03 Mar 2017, 4:26 pm #74

(02 Mar 2017, 7:44 pm)Adrian Transcript from the 2nd reading of the Bus Services Bill in the Commons is now available on Hansard.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20...ill(Lords)

Andreos1

14,218

04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am #75

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am #75

http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

markydh

258

04 Apr 2017, 10:34 am #76

Where's a like button when you need one? ?

markydh

04 Apr 2017, 10:34 am #76

Where's a like button when you need one? ?

GX03

04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am #77

(04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am)Andreos1 http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

vote grabbing imo.

GX03

04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am #77

(04 Apr 2017, 9:28 am)Andreos1 http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017...egulation/

Burnham to call end of bus de-reg? He is pretty scathing in his assessment of de-reg too.

vote grabbing imo.

Andreos1

14,218

04 Apr 2017, 11:00 am #78

(04 Apr 2017, 10:34 am)markydh Where's a like button when you need one? ?

Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough Wink

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 vote grabbing imo.

You may be right, but if there people losing out because of the failures and he believes that the alternative would work better...
It would certainly backfire on his short and long term ambitions if it didn't work!

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

Andreos1

04 Apr 2017, 11:00 am #78

(04 Apr 2017, 10:34 am)markydh Where's a like button when you need one? ?

Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough Wink

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 vote grabbing imo.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'

GX03

04 Apr 2017, 11:29 am #79

(04 Apr 2017, 11:00 am)Andreos1 Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough

You may be right, but if there people losing out because of the failures and he believes that the alternative would work better...
It would certainly backfire on his short and long term ambitions if it didn't work!

I agree totally and think some cutbacks in this region have failed as we see " new connections " which are simply old routes being reinstated. But taking back control of all buses, trains etc etc when the council have an ever decreasing budget, won't in my opinion solve the problem.

GX03

04 Apr 2017, 11:29 am #79

(04 Apr 2017, 11:00 am)Andreos1 Cutbacks. Wasn't profitable enough

You may be right, but if there people losing out because of the failures and he believes that the alternative would work better...
It would certainly backfire on his short and long term ambitions if it didn't work!

Tamesider

266

04 Apr 2017, 6:42 pm #80

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 vote grabbing imo.

Funny how its vote grabbing if you disagree and democracy if you agree. Unfortunately, deregulation HAS failed the vast majority of bus users in GM, and doubtless most other parts of the UK. Five years ago, things looked reasonably rosy, but today - no chance. Fares up TEN fold (as of 2 days ago) since de-reg, when general inflation has been barely 170%. Service cuts gathering pace especially in low car ownership areas, and punctuality the poorest it has EVER been - certainly regarding a certain company. No names, but I'll give you a clue, Passenger Focus' annual survey has just found them to be rock bottom out of 53 companies in passenger satisfaction rates for "On the bus journey time". Hardly a surprise. I've noticed appalling punctuality on my most frequently used route 7 days a week between 0900 & 1100 hrs. Last Friday, I had to catch the bus at 0652 (not been up that early in yonks). Arrived at my stop on time, but despite a lack off traffic, it was 8 minutes late (more than 50%) reaching its destination.

The question is not whether De-reg has failed, its whether any Mayoral candidate is willing, or indeed, able to turn things round - and its not just a question of (public) money.

Tamesider

04 Apr 2017, 6:42 pm #80

(04 Apr 2017, 10:46 am)GX03 vote grabbing imo.

Pages (10) Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 10 Next

Print Thread

1 Vote(s) - 5 Average