The city council is to explore the possibility of bringing Brighton and Hove’s buses more closely under its control in a London-style franchising scheme.
The capital’s cheap and frequent bus services are the most popular in the country, with fares and routes set by Transport for London – which uses profits from the tube to subsidise them.
Councillors have approved a feasibility study into how franchising – where the council issues tenders to operate routes throughout the city – could work in Brighton and Hove, which will be presented to them this autumn.
However, it’s not clear this would significantly improve the city’s already popular bus services, and such a move would require special legislation which could take years.
In the meantime, it is pressing ahead with moves for an “enhanced partnership” with existing bus operators, which will help unlock government post-covid transport funding.
At last Tuesday’s environment, transport and sustainability committee, the council’s transport programme manager Owen McElroy told councillors the council already worked closely with operators, and had been cited by the government’s National Bus Strategy as a positive example of this.
In his report, he said the main difference between the existing partnership and an enhanced one would be that commitments to improve services are included in a formal legal agreement.
And in order to access Covid-19 Bus Service Support Grant funding after July – and other future transport funding – the council has to publish an intention to form an enhanced partnership by the end of this month.
A question from Councillor Nancy Platts, read out by Councillor Gary Wilkinson, said: “It’s a consistently good thing that Brighton bucks trend for bus use and highest bus user per head outside London and getting people onto public transport is the only way to tackle carbon emissions and reduce congestion at the same time.
“Is there anything more we can do to improve information about bus routes, ticketing and timetables?
“If we want to encourage more people onto buses people need more information for it to all be in one place so they can plan their journeys and that will make it easier for them to give up their cars.”
Mr McElroy replied: “One of the aims of the enhanced partnership … is to improve the communication of bus services and timetable information.
“Brighton and Hove Buses, the city’s main operator, already publishes all local bus operators in their bus times on the web and in paper format
“The real time information is fairly comprehensive but there have been weaknesses.
“Some of this is due to technology and way systems talk to each other and we are constantly working on this to bring about improvements and there are meetings with the systems providers due to take place soon.”
Following the meeting, Andrew Boag, chair of the Brighton Area Buswatch which represents bus users, told its members there could be many benefits to franchising, including new routes in underserved areas and giving the council an incentive to prioritise buses along busier routes.
However, he added: “Franchising is not without its risks though. A common myth is that it automatically leads to lower fares.
“Around 50% of the cost of running a bus is drivers wages. Add to that fuel, new vehicles and maintenance costs and there isn’t a lot left.
“There is also a risk that private operators applying to run services would submit high bids to protect their profit margins, so savings would be smaller than expected.
“People often refer to the London experience. For many years London’s buses were subsidised by the Government but those subsidies finished in 2016; after that they were accumulating losses which reached £700 million in 2019/20.
“By the time the pandemic began London’s buses were only kept going by a cross subsidy from profitable Underground operations, which of course is not an option here.”
He added: “Councillors considering franchising could do well to visit other towns and cities in England before making a decision. There are plenty of towns, including some not far from here where buses finish by 7pm and are very sparse on Sundays.
“In Worthing some single fares are significantly higher; a day ticket bought on bus costs £6.20 covering a relatively small area.
“We have a lot to be grateful for and a lot of cities are envious of our bus service.
“Fares are on the high side but as London has shown, lower fares do not necessarily lead to more passengers.
“The frequency, reliability and marketing of the service all play a vital role. Our real time information system works well and timetable information is easy to access.”
Enhanced partnerships are a scheme promoted by the government as part of its recently published National Bus Strategy.
The government has said that it will support authorities who wish to pursue franchising but for those without elected mayors, this requires legislation which is likely to take a number of years.
Different franchising models are available which range from the approach used by Transport for London, where the transport authority centrally specifies routes and tenders for each one, to area-based arrangements where the successful operator would have more control in the design of services.
The National Bus Strategy has said that to pursue franchising, authorities would need to demonstrate they have the available skills and resources, including specific funding, and that it would deliver an improvement to bus passengers.
No. No. No.
This council can’t run a bath let alone a bus company.
I wonder if Mr Druitt and his bus ‘connection’ had say in this hare-brained idea???
Yes. Yes. Yes.
This council can run buses.
I wonder if Greens Out is a Tory or even further to the right???
I tend to think if a bus ticket for a small journey is more expensive than a supermarket meal deal something is wrong
The article is wrong “ and such a move would require special legislation which could take years.”
The current framework requires councils to move to a enhanced partnership and all councils must now consider franchising after they have completed the enchanted partnership.
It’s therefore wrong to suggest it requires special legalisation as it’s the current requirement.
It can reduce costs, but as article says not automatic. Some routes are already franchises or subsidised (school services etc). The current model makes it illegal to cooperate on routes and that needs to change.
Hi Lloyd,
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, and I will double check.
That line does refer to franchising, rather than enhanced partnerships. It’s actually a very close rewrite of a paragraph which appeared in a report to this week’s council’s policy and resources report (paragraph 4.2 here: https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/documents/s167721/Covid%2019%20Bus%20Network%20Recovery%20Plan.pdf), which reads:
The government has said that it will support authorities who wish to pursue franchising. For authorities without elected mayors, this requires legislation and is likely to take a number of years. Different franchising models are available which range from the approach used by Transport for London, where the transport authority centrally specifies routes and tenders for each one, to area-based arrangements where the successful operator would have more control in the design of services. The National Bus Strategy has said that to pursue franchising, authorities would need to demonstrate they have the available skills and resources, including specific funding, and that it would deliver an improvement to bus passengers.
It isn’t illegal to co-operate on routes Lloyd. It was at the time of deregulation in 1986 but not anymore. In fact the new National Bus Strategy actively encourages co-operation. Brighton & Hove City Council has had a Quality Bus Partnership for many years which I attend, where bus companies and the Council all meet to agree policies. Places like Oxford have taken this further within a partnership agreement with fully co-ordinated timetables run by different operators with buses evenly spaced. There is a lot that can be achieved by co-operation without the need for franchising.
Do we mean this same council that made a total fiasco of the special needs children transport?? Please, no.
That being said, there does need to be a widespread consultation (meaningful and not totally ignored, Greens/Labour please note) about routes, which are not necessarily what residents want or need, but are what B&H Buses/ Stagecoach and Big Lemon fancy. How’s this for a novelty – just open a meaningful consultation about where residents would like to get to fairly easily, without changing buses, going all round the houses and getting left to walk uphill in what is a very undulating city. The second novel idea is to listen to the results of the consultation and implement appropriate changes.
Some years ago, I took the train to Chichester (no problem), had a nice day there with friends and then tried to get back on the train. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the railway, so had to get the 700 coaster (Stagecoach) back. Not only did it call at every stop between there and Brighton, in very slow and circuitous fashion (including Bognor and maybe even Crewe for all I know), but the driver stopped off for some time to pick up some old ladies with their shopping from the back of a supermarket, which was undoubtedly not on the timetable and they were probably his relatives. When, at long last, we reached B&H, several of us, including a man who had some physical difficulties and was looking distressed, got off with vast relief and I caught a B&H Number 1 home. It all took forever.
Joined-up thinking might be nice!! In particular, a frequent service from the extreme east to the extreme west of the city along the front.
It’s a risk for the council, a huge risk. Yes one off tickets are pricey, (although weekly savers are reasonable), but the bus service in Brighton and Hove is very good. Buses are regular and generally when advertised. I’d rather pay what I do now and have reliability than get cheaper fares and the service falls apart. The Council’s record on franchised services (Home to School Transport springs to mind), is incredibly poor and that franchise system lined the pockets of the consultants, cost £1 million more and destroyed the service.