(05/02/2023 11:52)KXW212 Wrote: [ -> ]The two are very much linked. Franchising is being sold as an 'improvement'. Sitting in the same traffic being delayed certainly isn't. One must accompany the other. The CAZ rejection was the right decision if it takes in the whole of GM. It should have applied to the city centre and Town Centres only. It may well be that there are plans for some bus priority, but there is no detail and it's years away, if it happens at all. The livery is indeed insipid, even Burnham's best mate on Merseyside has at least developed a scheme that is bright and welcoming, whatever your views are, that does encourage use.
The whole thing is driven by political dogma and soundbites, and ill thought out by amateurs. It's interesting to see how much the London model is admired, but conveniently forgotten what a total financial basket case TfL has become (an inconvenient truth). That will be the inevitable result for GM. But, by that time Burnham will be chasing further political ambitions and be long gone. A true 'seagull manager'.
Thank god! Someone speaking sense.
The 10 labour councils got very greedy and made the chargeable area as big as they did, and didn’t expect the back lash they got. Had they gone for smaller areas in each town centre or the most polluted areas it would probably be up and running.
(05/02/2023 16:33)Mrboo Wrote: [ -> ]That the Danger of hop type of fares as. So long as you can get on every bus within the hour.
There is no issue with cutting routes as no one is unable to travel. just like the 163 most of the trips can be made with a single change of bus. How many people are not within 1 mile of a bus route? May not be going the way you want it but there are always options once on a network of routes.
I can think of a number of routes that could be removed. As you feed into tram or train not run along side
The capped fares are only in place for 12 months. Again another smoke screen as many assume these fares are the start of franchising. It’s going to be discussed in April/May I believe on whether to extend it, raise capped fares or return to standard fares. Any extension would require central government agreeing to continue subsidising it all.
Again another smoke screen as most people don’t even realise the bus company’s get a subsidy for every capped fare they sell/carry.
TfGM will be subsidising all the routes to be withdrawn by both Diamond Bus North West & Vision Bus, no confirmation of who will be operating them yet though. The DBNW 163 will continue on a reduced 15min frequency, 21 will also continue by DBNW.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/...r-26269668
Hang on so DNW has been given more money. So they found the drivers mmmmm. they should have been a thing they would be banned from tenders if they drop services before handover.
(20/02/2023 11:43)Mrboo Wrote: [ -> ]Hang on so DNW has been given more money. So they found the drivers mmmmm. they should have been a thing they would be banned from tenders if they drop services before handover.
DBNW are at liberty to do exactly what they want with a commercial service. It's a business driven decision. That should have been a foreseen consequence by TfGM, it wasn't (and it won't be the last time either, as franchising progresses). So that's £2.5m added to the bill, so far.
You can't ban somebody from submitting a legal and compliant bid, because it upsets a poorly thought
out politically motivated scheme.
It will be interesting to see if, when franchising begins, whether frequencies will be restored to their previous levels, or if TfGM just carries on, and makes a saving it wasn't expecting, if the hope by that time the average punter will have forgotten what they were pre April..
(20/02/2023 11:43)Mrboo Wrote: [ -> ]Hang on so DNW has been given more money. So they found the drivers mmmmm. they should have been a thing they would be banned from tenders if they drop services before handover.
It’s effectively paying Peter to rob Paul. They withdraw a commercial service due to the potential lack of drivers, TFGM then step in and pay them to continue to run the service under contract to them, so they have to operate every journey, so drivers simply get taken off other services to drive this one. There’s only so many drivers!
(20/02/2023 16:06)KXW212 Wrote: [ -> ]You can't ban somebody from submitting a legal and compliant bid, because it upsets a poorly thought
out politically motivated scheme.
To which scheme and which political party are you referring? Is it the Conservative government that passed the Transport Act of 1985 that introduced bus deregulation or the Labour controlled Greater Manchester Combined Authority that has decided to use the Bus Services Act of 2017 legislation - also passed by a Conservative government - to introduce franchising?
(20/02/2023 17:28)Barney Wrote: [ -> ]To which scheme and which political party are you referring? Is it the Conservative government that passed the Transport Act of 1985 that introduced bus deregulation or the Labour controlled Greater Manchester Combined Authority that has decided to use the Bus Services Act of 2017 legislation - also passed by a Conservative government - to introduce franchising?
it's utterly bizarre that those two pieces of legislation exist together. You either have dereg or you don't. It certainly demonstrates that politicians shouldn't be anywhere near public transport (and many other things). But Burnham is taking advantage of the latter, to further his 'public ownership' agenda, so it's perfectly understandable. That wouldn't be too bad, however anybody having any dealings with a local/transport authority will know all too well what a nightmare that is. These authorities unfortunately are devoid of any transport professionals who understand the industry and that's without doubt showing here, to the tune of £2.5m and ultimately much much more.
(20/02/2023 19:41)KXW212 Wrote: [ -> ]it's utterly bizarre that those two pieces of legislation exist together. You either have dereg or you don't. It certainly demonstrates that politicians shouldn't be anywhere near public transport (and many other things).
I'm not sure where you are going with this. Which two pieces of legislation? Are you suggesting that the change from deregulation to a franchising model in the whole of Manchester should happen instantaneously without any interim period for planning and preparation?
Also, the 1985 Transport Act specifically exempted two areas from bus deregulation, London and Northern Ireland, so even back then there were three systems operating in tandem: franchising in the TfL area, full state control in NI and deregulation in the rest of the UK.
As for your ludicrous assertion that politicians shouldn't be anywhere public transport, acts of parliament relating to public transport have been on the statute books since the days of Stephenson's Rocket and horse-drawn trams. Are you suggesting that there is no need for any public transport legislation in the UK? I have just Googled the ten best public transport systems in the world and surprise, surprise they are all funded by the state and highly regulated (by elected politicians).
Finally, I would love to know which "other things" you think politicians should not be involved in. Health care, education, social services, policing, the emergency services, housing, planning, the environment?
(21/02/2023 10:11)Barney Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure where you are going with this. Which two pieces of legislation? Are you suggesting that the change from deregulation to a franchising model in the whole of Manchester should happen instantaneously without any interim period for planning and preparation?
Also, the 1985 Transport Act specifically exempted two areas from bus deregulation, London and Northern Ireland, so even back then there were three systems operating in tandem: franchising in the TfL area, full state control in NI and deregulation in the rest of the UK.
As for your ludicrous assertion that politicians shouldn't be anywhere public transport, acts of parliament relating to public transport have been on the statute books since the days of Stephenson's Rocket and horse-drawn trams. Are you suggesting that there is no need for any public transport legislation in the UK? I have just Googled the ten best public transport systems in the world and surprise, surprise they are all funded by the state and highly regulated (by elected politicians).
Finally, I would love to know which "other things" you think politicians should not be involved in. Health care, education, social services, policing, the emergency services, housing, planning, the environment?
It's quite clear that 'planning and preparation' in GM has been pretty dire from the outset and a lack of foresight into any consequences has been clear to see, an excess £2.5m so far.
As for exempting TfL from dereg, if there was a belief it was the way forward, why was it left out ?. Precious London too good for that obviously, although it's current dire state financially speaks volumes about the direction it went in.
As for politicians (local and national), they have certainly demonstrated abject failure, but that's the ridiculous two party 'system' we are lumbered with. There is a need for quality legislation, but that's currently impossible. If only we had politicians that acted to benefit the people and not in their own self interest, the services you quote, wouldn't all be in such a parlous state.
I doubt the next 'unexpected' financial hit for the GM ratepayer, won't be too far away.