Its a hard one because the council have to balance there books , unfortunately tendered bus work is very low on the agenda these days .
With tendered bus work its a case of use it or lose it by the sounds of it .
Lancashire County Council are running a survey about the withdrawal of services, which runs until 27 March 2016.
On their website, they say the following:
Quote:Whilst many of these bus service contracts are not commercially viable, bus operators are considering whether they could provide some service level in the area, without any level of subsidy. Where this is not possible bus operators will deregister the service with the Traffic Commissioner from 2 April 2016. We have asked operators if they could confirm their intentions as soon as possible on this matter.
When information about potential service coverage is known, we will forward details of those services, whole or sections, which we are anticipating not to be provided, to other operators to establish if there are alternative commercial opportunities to maintain some level of service in an area.
Following these discussions with bus operators, we would then be in a position to advise residents/local communities where conventional bus services would no longer operate and what, if any, mitigating action can be taken.
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/...asp?ID=283
(20/01/2016 20:50)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]In theory, "Use it or lose it" goes for commercial services as well.
In the case of subsidised services it's not quite the case. I can think if several services that were 'well used' and were either cut or dropped altogether.
(20/01/2016 22:33)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]Seems ridiculously tight. Anything deregistered would have to be done so by 7th February, and surely as they are already tendered, the assumption is they would not be commercial, and Operators would have communicated any exceptions to that presumption by now anyway. As regards the consultation being open until Easter Sunday. How are they going to collate responses, change plans, draw up and award contracts and get Operators to register and schedule services, all in four working days. This is appalling organisation!
Because you know as well as I do that the decisions have already been made regardless of what a few disgruntled bus passengers say.
Sad to say it was the same here in Manchester when TFGM were first planning to slash evening services in Tameside. Yes, they were quick to acknowledge my email and were very understanding of mine and others situation but completly white washed the point I was making - because the decision had already been made and no amount of public consultation will change that.
(20/01/2016 20:46)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]Whilst its difficult to argue with this, I don't think the "other lot" would do much difference in 21st century Britain. I see their new leader has put out another PPB tonight, promising to take the Railways back into public control, but no mention of Buses. Whether Buses would be better under public control (and the argument for that is not as clear cut as it was 25-30 years ago), the point is, Politicians of ALL parties seem to deny the existance of buses - or more to the point, Bus passengers.
Then there is the question of which budgets have been cut the most and which are "protected", either legally or politically?
We are now living in the year 2016. "The other lot", as you put, were voted out in 2010. The cuts in grants to local authorities for supported/tendered services, a reduction in BSOG and a reduction in how much is reimbursed for concessionary pass all came into play AFTER 2010. I really don't see how the current situation (the withdrawal of rural bus services) is any way the responsibility of the bearded bogey man.
We live in the fifth richest country in the world and, if there was the political will to do it by the government of the day, the whole of the UK could have a first-class bus service.
Well put Barney. This government needs to create opportunity so as to create wealth.
Spoken to a few people who will be affected by the loss of the 3A and 347 routes and they are very worried. These are people who have worked hard all they're lives and paid into the system. Now they feel let down and abandoned. Most surprisingly as Lancs pulled figures for the 3A, £100k subsidy with£40k taken in fares, they said why couldn't they be charged a mere 50p per trip with their ENCTS passes and the service would make a profit. These are Conservative voters as well!!!.
(21/01/2016 12:23)B10B6514 Wrote: [ -> ]Well put Barney. This government needs to create opportunity so as to create wealth.
Spoken to a few people who will be affected by the loss of the 3A and 347 routes and they are very worried. These are people who have worked hard all they're lives and paid into the system. Now they feel let down and abandoned. Most surprisingly as Lancs pulled figures for the 3A, £100k subsidy with£40k taken in fares, they said why couldn't they be charged a mere 50p per trip with their ENCTS passes and the service would make a profit. These are Conservative voters as well!!!.
The issue of the ENCTS passes is not relevant. In London, as in Merseyside, people are eligible for the concessionary bus pass at 60 years of age and the ENCTS upon reaching state pensionable age. Pensioners in these areas are not required to contribute to the running of these bus services so why should pensioners in the shire counties?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...regulation
By coincidence, there is a really good piece by Owen Jones (a fully paid up member of the 'looney left' and a political ally of the bearded bogey man) in this morning's Guardian on the whole issue of bus services in the UK since deregulation. It's certainly worth a read.
(21/01/2016 14:01)Barney Wrote: [ -> ]The issue of the ENCTS passes is not relevant. In London, as in Merseyside, people are eligible for the concessionary bus pass at 60 years of age and the ENCTS upon reaching state pensionable age. Pensioners in these areas are not required to contribute to the running of these bus services so why should pensioners in the shire counties?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...regulation
By coincidence, there is a really good piece by Owen Jones (a fully paid up member of the 'looney left' and a political ally of the bearded bogey man) in this morning's Guardian on the whole issue of bus services in the UK since deregulation. It's certainly worth a read.
Barney I agree with you totally. But when you have people who vote for the Cons turn around and say they are left in the myre because of these daft savage cuts and come out with basic economics by saying that they would pay a nominal fee to preserve their service. What is thepoint of having the much fluted Buses Bill that this parliament is trying to push through?
It's ok for people in metropolises but about their voters in the country vilages?
Think Cameron and his his college boy chums get real and realise theyarenot playing a game of monopoly and with people's lives who feed the Treasury through Tax and National Insurance. Buses are thetip of the iceberg.
Sorry admin people if I am get a bit too political because we shouldn't have to sink to spoil our forum discussing our most dreadful government on our forum here. Terry Morris for Prime Mininster LOL
(21/01/2016 15:09)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe its because I have always lived in the south of Tameside, where the vast majority of bus services are fully commercial, but I'm not aware of any occasion where GMPTA/TFGMC have undertaken any "public" consultation about service cuts. Similarly, Stagecoach with commercial cuts, although I believe First DO occasional consult their passengers. I always assumed thatany consultation was very localised within the communities likely to be hit. Mind you, if look at the attendees of Bus sub committee meetings (see TFGMC website), you will notice that Tameside Member's attendance is amongst the worst in the county - no surprise, there.
Also, and I believe this follows "representations" from TFGM themselves, TFGMC do at least consider cuts/changes to Contracted services months in advance nowadays, and only "emergency" issues involving the odd service or part therof, would be left to the last minute.
By publishing the agenda's for forthcoming meetings does that mean that people can raise concerns regarding changing it cuts to subsidised services.
Or perhaps that's just it, plan and agree it all behind closed doors then force it on the actual people that reley and need the services once it's too late to do anything about it.