Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

[CX06 EBK (Administrator)]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
What competition on Merseyside? Since Arriva and Stagecoach operate QBPs there is no competition on main corridors - most passengers get whatever bus turns up first. The only thing that really needs improving there is the more even spacing of departure times on some services and bringing all ticket types in line with being valid on these services. For the most part what the LCR say is just fluff, the current stock on the 10A is not the problem with the route - the new buses will not solve the issues that exist. Liverpool City Centre is an absolute mess for buses which has not been oversaw by the private operators but rather your very bus unfriendly local council which will not change any time soon since this city is rooted in voting for a labour council which has been wholly inadequate for years.

[Barney]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 10:39)CUL 73V Wrote:  So we should remove private sector competition, which doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny, at the expense of the taxpayer? I don't see your logic there.


I'm afraid fares won't be cheaper than they are now. As I and others have said, council tax will be higher, making it a complete false economy. In addition, the huge sum of money LCR have admitted they'd need to borrow for startup costs will have to be repaid. They won't be able to afford to set cheaper fares. It's just spin to make people buy into this utterly ridiculous idea which benefits nobody.

I'll also have to pay towards a service I don't have to pay for as a benefit of my employment. I don't see the logic or fairness in that one.


Council tax will have to be increased to pay for franchising. I don't know how many times you need to be told.

In case it's escaped you, we're in a cost of living crisis. The city region quite obviously can't afford this system, otherwise they wouldn't have borrow the money which the taxpayer will have to pay back. You might have money to waste, but a large number of people in this region, including my partner and I who have to provide for our children, don't.

The alternate model of enhanced partnership leaves the financial burden with the private sector. That's the best place for it.

The fact a Conservative Government was prepared to undo the 1985 Transport Act that led to deregulation and the privatisation of the bus industry must tell you something: it hasn't worked.

These private operators were given tens of millions during the pandemic and were not obliged to pay a penny back. Essentially, the taxpayer (you and I) picked up the tab though the shareholders still received their dividends.

The franchising model as envisaged does not remove private sector competition: it increases it. As can be seen in Manchester, the incumbent operator in Wigan with a virtual monopoly which, incidentally, fought and lost this move to franchising in the High Court, submitted a bid that was unacceptable to TfGM. Clearly it has learned its lesson as it has just won the second tranche in Oldham and Middleton at the expense of First and GNW.

It is little wonder that you are opposed to any increase in council tax as you and your family already receive free - not discounted - bus travel.

I could argue but I won't, though many childless (I have several children) people do, that I should not have to pay income tax to educate your children or provide them with free health care.

The enhanced partnership model is an option but it still leaves bus services and fares at the discretion of the operator not the travelling public and that it why the franchising model is favoured across Europe and around the world, including the USA.

Outside of London and NI, the UK has endured deregulated bus services for almost forty years and I would suggest that you would need to have been born before 1970 to have any appreciation of the benefits of a regulated one. My understanding is that the TfGM franchises are awarded for five years and I don't think it unreasonable to at least give it this amount of time before any judgement is made on its merits or otherwise.

[Steve440]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  The fact a Conservative government was prepared to undo the 1985 Transport Act that led to deregulation and the privatisation of the bus industry must tell you something: it hasn't worked.

These private operators were given tens of millions during the pandemic and were not obliged to pay a penny back. Essentially, the taxpayer (you and I) picked up the tab though the shareholders still received their dividends.

The franchising model as envisaged does not remove private sector competition: it increases it. As can be seen in Manchester, the incumbent operator in Wigan with a virtual monopoly which, incidentally, fought and lost this move to franchising in the High Court, submitted a bid that was unacceptable to TfGM. Clearly it has learned its lesson as it has just won the second tranche in Oldham and Middleton at the expense of First and GNW.

It is little wonder that you are opposed to any increase in council tax as you and your family already receive free - not discounted - bus travel.

I could argue but I won't, though many childless (I have several children) people do, that I should not have to pay income tax to educate your children or provide them with free health care.

The enhanced partnership model is an option but it still leaves bus services and fares at the discretion of the operator not the travelling public and that it why the franchising model is favoured across Europe and around the world, including the USA.

Outside of London and NI, the UK has endured deregulated bus services for almost forty years and I would suggest that you would need to have been born before 1970 to have any appreciation of the benefits of a regulated one. My understanding is that the TfGM franchises are awarded for five years and I don't think it unreasonable to at least give it this amount of time before any judgement is made on its merits or otherwise.

None of the privatised bus companies paid any dividend whilst they were receiving COVID payments.

[Barney]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 13:46)Steve440 Wrote:  None of the privatised bus companies paid any dividend whilst they were receiving COVID payments.

Yes, that is true but they are paying dividends now without having repaid taxpayers' millions they received during the pandemic.

[CUL 73V]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  These private operators were given tens of millions during the pandemic and were not obliged to pay a penny back. Essentially, the taxpayer (you and I) picked up the tab though the shareholders still received their dividends.

Without that money, many bus operators would have gone bust. It wasn't a freebie either, the money is gradually being repaid through taxation. Granted, over a long period of time. If vast sums of taxpayers money going to the private sector and not being repaid annoys you so much, I suggest you aim your annoyance at those responsible for the billions given to those who weren't entitled to it during the pandemic, not private sector bus operators which actually needed the money.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  The franchising model as envisaged does not remove private sector competition: it increases it. As can be seen in Manchester, the incumbent operator in Wigan with a virtual monopoly which, incidentally, fought and lost this move to franchising in the High Court, submitted a bid that was unacceptable to TfGM. Clearly it has learned its lesson as it has just won the second tranche in Oldham and Middleton at the expense of First and GNW.

You're the one who said franchising removes competition on specific (QBP, which isn't actually competition) bus routes. Make your mind up.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  It is little wonder that you are opposed to any increase in council tax as you and your family already receive free - not discounted - bus travel.

For the job we do, I think we and our families are entitled to that small benefit. I'm not prepared to pay more council tax because my partner and I pay enough already for sub standard public services. Food and utility bills continue to rise, but no, Rotheram wants struggling taxpayers to pay out even more so he and other local politicians can have more control. That's what this is actually about. The sooner he's voted out and replaced by someone who actually has voters' interests front and centre, the better.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  I could argue but I won't, though many childless (I have several children) people do, that I should not have to pay income tax to educate your children or provide them with free health care.

Except the examples you're using are necessary public services, so I have no problem paying towards those for other people. A franchised bus network is not an essential service.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  The enhanced partnership model is an option but it still leaves bus services and fares at the discretion of the operator not the travelling public and that it why the franchising model is favoured across Europe and around the world, including the USA.

The travelling public won't have a say in what the fares are. I'm not sure where you've got that idea from.

An enhanced partnership can still retain the flat fares currently subsidised by LCR.

(25/06/2023 13:05)Barney Wrote:  Outside of London and NI, the UK has endured deregulated bus services for almost forty years and I would suggest that you would need to have been born before 1970 to have any appreciation of the benefits of a regulated one. My understanding is that the TfGM franchises are awarded for five years and I don't think it unreasonable to at least give it this amount of time before any judgement is made on its merits or otherwise.

You only need to look at how much of a financial basket case franchising is in London to form an opinion. I also don't want local politicians getting involved in something they don't have any knowledge of. The fact this city keeps voting for the same politicians who take their job and our votes for granted baffles me.

[wirralbus]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
Bus franchising has to be done in such a way that the franchises dont all finish on the same day , St Helens and Southport could start on the same day , followed by Liverpool North and Wirral followed by Liverpool South.

ThenLCR have to entice more operators to Merseyside , Stagecoach and Arriva , need to know that they are not going to run Merseyside like a cartel.

[Olympian2100]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 14:24)Barney Wrote:  Yes, that is true but they are paying dividends now without having repaid taxpayers' millions they received during the pandemic.

Arriva haven't had shareholders since they were taken over by DB way before Covid and Stagecoach no longer have shareholders either.
Both firms ceased trading on the Stock Market.

[Walton 46]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
Although the proposed franchising scheme is going to cost a few bob in the short run, I think it will be worth it in the long run for the following reasons:

1) At the moment, some parts of the city region only have a bus service every 90 min Monday - Saturday or 2 hourly evenings and Sundays. Under the proposed scheme, all bus routes will have a minimum 1 bus an hour between 5 am and Midnight, a vast improvement on today.

2) At the moment, The LCR doesn't have night buses. There have been calls to reinstate the the ones which where withdrawn when Covid came in, but the bus companies have refused to do so. Night buses are important for two reasons: firstly, supporting the Night Time Economy - giving people more options to get home instead of forking out £20/£30 for taxis. And secondly, breaking down barriers to employment. My brother went to a jobs fair at the airport in February but found he couldn't apply for any of the jobs on offer because they all had morning shifts starting at 3am. My brother doesn't drive so his only of getting to the airport for 3am would be taxis.

So whilst, the franchising scheme will require significant investment in the short term. It will deliver an improved bus service in the long run.

[moreton407]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(26/06/2023 08:50)Walton 46 Wrote:  Although the proposed franchising scheme is going to cost a few bob in the short run, I think it will be worth it in the long run for the following reasons:

1) At the moment, some parts of the city region only have a bus service every 90 min Monday - Saturday or 2 hourly evenings and Sundays. Under the proposed scheme, all bus routes will have a minimum 1 bus an hour between 5 am and Midnight, a vast improvement on today.

2) At the moment, The LCR doesn't have night buses. There have been calls to reinstate the the ones which where withdrawn when Covid came in, but the bus companies have refused to do so. Night buses are important for two reasons: firstly, supporting the Night Time Economy - giving people more options to get home instead of forking out £20/£30 for taxis. And secondly, breaking down barriers to employment. My brother went to a jobs fair at the airport in February but found he couldn't apply for any of the jobs on offer because they all had morning shifts starting at 3am. My brother doesn't drive so his only of getting to the airport for 3am would be taxis.

So whilst, the franchising scheme will require significant investment in the short term. It will deliver an improved bus service in the long run.

1) Services that are run every 90 minutes or two hourly are MErseytravel services, why don't Merseytravel just increase the frequency.

2) I agree that the region needs night services, but again why don't Merseytravel just subsidise these routes?

Surely it would be cheaper for Merseytravel to subsidise increased frequencies or new night time services that to subsidise an entire bus network across Merseyside and Halton?

[Barney]

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising

(25/06/2023 22:14)Olympian2100 Wrote:  Arriva haven't had shareholders since they were taken over by DB way before Covid and Stagecoach no longer have shareholders either.
Both firms ceased trading on the Stock Market.

Arriva is owned by Deutsche Bahn which provides state-owned public transport in Germany. Stagecoach is now owned by Deutsche Bank.

Neither of these two operators provide bus services in the UK for the love of it. If there wasn't a profit to be made they would sell up.

Both Arriva and Stagecoach now transfer their profits made in the UK to Germany - where public transport is valued far more than in the UK - which currently support a nation-wide Deutschland Ticket costing approximately £40 per month that allows unlimited travel on all local bus and train services.