The city’s Labour administration wants to take over running buses – despite a study five years ago concluding this risked being bad for both passengers and taxpayers.
Leader of Brighton and Hove City Council Bella Sankey said the council would be applying for money to commission a study into whether a franchising model would work here.
An independent report commissioned from consultants Mott McDonald into the same question in 2021 concluded it would risk investment in services, may not increase passenger numbers and expose the council to risky high costs.
It said: “Based on the available evidence, it is recommended that adoption of franchising in Brighton and Hove would be detrimental to bus users and may present risks to Brighton and Hove City Council as the sponsoring authority through anticipated high costs being incurred with no guarantee that its objectives would be addressed.”
The timescale for introducing franchising means any decision would most likely be taken by a future Mayor of Sussex, who is set to take on responsibility for transport across the county from 2028.
The report was commissioned in June 2021 when the council was considering either entering into what’s known as an enhanced partnership or taking it one step further to introduce franchising.
At the time, franchising would have required the approval of the government and special legislation – but since last year, all local authorities have been given the power to introduce this.
After the report was published in November 2021, the council decided to enter into the enhanced partnership and not pursue franchising. This model allows bus companies to continue to set its own routes, prices and timetables. Most routes here are run by Brighton and Hove Buses, a subsidiary of Go Ahead Travel.
It said that the city had the highest use of buses per head outside London, and ticket prices were broadly comparable with other areas.
The report said that inviting other operators to bid for franchises risked losing the economies of scale which Brighton and Hove Buses currently benefits from, e.g. the use of its established central depots.
It says introducing new routes and increased frequencies was unlikely to increase passenger numbers enough to cover the costs immediately, so would necessitate substantial short term subsidies with no guarantee of long-term success.
It said: “While the opportunity for bus franchising could be made available to local transport authorities, it also presents considerable risks. There is a trade-off between then extent of control over bus services exerted by local authorities and the liabilities that it takes on from operators.
“The success of Brighton and Hove’s buses over many years suggests that the current arrangements could translate well to an enhanced partnership but would incur numerous problems in a franchised scenario.
“Apart from diluting the benefits achieved by Brighton and Hove Buses, new or expanded operators would face practical problems of establishing a larger presence locally to fulfil franchise requirements.”
A spokesman for Brighton Buswatch said: “Brighton Buswatch understands the implications of bus franchising and how this is likely to work in Brighton and especially over a much wider area.
“However, with the enhanced partnership approach, it is our view that we seek further cooperation with all parties to further the excellent work already being done for passengers outside of a franchising model.
“This includes ticket integration and simplification, wayfinding and image.”
Rupert Cox, interim managing director of Brighton and Hove Buses said: “We recognise it is Brighton and Hove City Council’s right to explore franchising.
“Our long-established partnership and joint working has resulted in the highest bus use in the country outside London per head of the population delivering consistent growth over many years.
“We’ve invested £50 million over the past three years in bus infrastructure in the city and strongly believe that a continued approach of partnership working is the best way forward to deliver further benefits to local people.”
Brighton and Hove Labour’s transport lead Trevor Muten said: “The 2021 report considered bus franchising under a very different national framework, one that was far more restrictive and largely designed around mayoral authorities rather than councils like Brighton and Hove.
“What has changed is that the new government is opening up those powers, making franchising more accessible and more workable for local transport authorities. That creates a very different context from the one the council was operating in when the earlier assessment was carried out.
“So this is not a case of revisiting exactly the same proposal on exactly the same terms. It is about looking again at the options in light of a major shift in government policy and asking whether stronger local control could now help us deliver better bus services for residents.
“Given the importance of bus services to people in Brighton and Hove, it is entirely right that we review those new opportunities properly.”
Please leave it alone !!!
Absolutely, please leave it alone. It works really well and one of the few things Brighton can be proud of.
Who has asked them to do this? No one. They need to stop interfering in what few things still work in this city and start fixing everything which doesn’t. Start doing what they were elected to do. Haven’t they done enough damage moving bus stops around and scrapping them, turning bus pull ins into dangerous islands so traffic can’t pass including emergency vehicles and wasting nearly £7m on new illuminated signs which only work to tell passengers to consult the paper timetables?? Messing up the bus network as well will be the final nail in the coffin of any re-election hopes next year.
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport/bus-franchising/
Is there a reason why this could not happen here?
Yes, Greater Manchester has a population of about 3 million, Brighton and Hove about 280,000. The numbers simply do not stack up as previously pointed out in the councils own independently commisioned report.
In Manchester people said ‘Manchester is not London’
Greater Manchester has about 25% the population of London, Brighton barely 10% the population of Manchester – we are talking about a greatly reduced economy of scale – one that did not even stack up only a few years ago according to the Mott Mcdonald report
Er, Brighton and Hove is not greater Manchester, Gabe. And Sankey is no Burnham, much as she’d like to be, the same as Starmer is no Churchill.
Manchester has a lot of competing operators. Brighton has one main operator, so there isn’t much duplication and the service seems to be among the best in the country.
Just as Australia provide free public transport for all, to combat the need for private journeys, and to make a better less polluting world in the process.
Would that ever happen here? Of course it wouldn’t.
You’d never hear of any scheme here that isn’t designed to rip-off the public and extract more of the little we have left and drive us to use cars and taxis again, as buses become even more unaffordable.
This is the UK. Broken beyond repair. Can’t even run a bus service.
Sorry you’re so miserable but, fortunately, it’s easy to repair your broken comment. Bus transport in Australia isn’t free for all – only in some places and only for a short while. Outside of London, Brighton has some of the best-value bus tickets in the country. Hope that cheers you up but, somehow, I doubt it.
Not sure where you got the fact about best value bus tickets. This is from a while ago, but they’ve only got more expensive since:
City’s buses rated lowest for value – survey https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqe39r69rn9o
Brighton & Hove Buses don’t like the idea of franchising as it takes planning and operations away from them and lets Brighton & Hove City Council decide what routes it wants, and opens up the city to competitive tendering for routes.
More BS from BS
Brighton is tiny as cities go – just over 150k people – an overgrown seaside town, marginally larger than Eastbourne. – Hove and suburbs add a further 100k but even then it’s just not big enough to roll out the same kind of initiatives as the real cities like Manchester. The council should concentrate on tidying the place up, looking after our heritage and ensuring it has enough appeal for visitors to want to come here. It should also be encouraging larger employers and better paid jobs to ensure people can afford to live here – so many large companies have left (HQs for Alliance & Leicester, Gross Cash Registers, Legal & General, ITT, Kimberley Clark etc etc) that a huge percentage of residents now have to travel elsewhere for work.
Legal and General is still based in Hove.
True but It’s sadly much smaller than it once was when it was on Montefiore Rd.
Population of Brighton and Hove is currently 276,000 and surf the proposed boundary change will increase to about 300,000.
Why would the size of the city impact whether a franchising approach would work or not?
Economies of scale, it can make a huge difference.
Especially so if it’s linked in with a regional transportation plan as part of devolution.
Brighton has one of the best bus networks in the UK, I really hope this doesn’t happen because I honestly do not trust the council to run a bath.
Please leave our buses alone!! – They’re one of the best things about Brighton, they run well, the management is good and the staff are helpful – it ain’t broke & doesn’t need fixing, any attempt to mess around with this valuable service will surely end in tears.
This needs a public referendum as it would affect most residents in Brighton and Hove. Which the council would lose if they cannot demonstrate it would be in the public interest and they are employed/elected to act in the public interest as public servants. what would be the motive for doing this? Where can we see the business plan as stakeholders in such a project?
It’s some fair questions; I think a clearer narrative around why this is being considered now would be extremely helpful.
Labour destroys everything it touches. There is no reason for them to take over the buses, apart from to line their own pockets. The company runs very well as it is. It doesn’t need Labour running it into the ground.
I might as wall use taxi’s.
I have experienced very poor services on Brighton and Hove buses.
We’ve got one of the best, if not the best bus service outside of London in the whole country. There is absolutely no need to change that by involving a council with little or no experience of running a bath, let alone a bus service.
If it ain’t broke, don’t try and fix it!
Also, what is actually wrong with a company making a profit to invest in new buses and technology and pay it’s investors a little reward for investing their money too? It is called growth and prosperity. If the council goes anywhere near it there will never be enough money to improve things and they will be asking for more council tax to pay to cut services because they make a huge loss and they can’t afgford to run them!
The council currently run the bus info displays at bus stops and what an utter shambles they have been and still are since they changed the system!
You really couldn’t make this up!
Well said, many also fail to consider that when shareholders receive some benefit many of us will also benefit with pension schemes based around those shares! Honestly Brighton Buses are brilliant, of course we would all like them cheaper but that is unlikely in the current climate.
It is disturbing how Sankey treats the council as some playhouse where she can just play and tinker with things without solid public consultation, solid business plans and proper oversight, never mind thinking these hare-brained schemes through or consulting those with more experience and knowledge than her. She acts like like an overgrown child who has never heard the word ‘No!’ We should ensure she hears the word ‘No!’ a lot more often.
I think something to consider here as that it’d be a mayoral, and therefore regional, decision around public transport in general in Sussex. I’d like to see more specific information about what the aims and benefits are here, because this exploration does seem to have come out of the blue.
Benjamin, why are you framing this as if it’s all about what you’d like to see? This isn’t just about one person’s preferences—there are wider community needs and perspectives to consider here.:
This is a comment section, James. 🤦🏻
I love the bus service in B&H – please don’t make it worse.