Our Buses? Our Say.

Right now, our local buses put profit before passengers. And South Yorkshire’s leaders are trying to keep it that way.

They've launched a consultation asking YOU to let them set up an 'Enhanced Partnership'.

According to the Centre for Cities, Enhanced Partnerships are a “fudge.” That’s because they leave private companies with the final say over YOUR buses.

Please respond to the consultation and tell them you don't agree with the plans.

The Combined Authority might ignore responses to the consultation that look too similar. So your response needs to be in your own words wherever possible.

Don’t worry, this page will help you make the case against partnerships. If you don't have time for a full response, use our quick guide (3 minutes) to make your objection known.

Start your response to the consultation now

Start by filling in the first three questions about yourself.

Please be aware that the following questions consist of one multiple-choice question (compulsory, to what extent do you agree?) and one open text box (optional, why do you say this?). The open text allows only 255 characters (roughly 50 words). Please include examples of your passenger experience to support your points.

4. To what extent, if at all, do you support the vision and ambition set out in the Plan for how we want to transform the bus network in South Yorkshire?

Answer:            Neither Agree Nor Disagree

5. Why do you say this?             

Please consider adapting one of the following reasons in your explanation:

1. Change must be transformative. This vision tinkers at the edges, and would leave the network shrinking, inaccessible, and disintegrated. Buses must be run as a green public service that meets local aims of social inclusion, economic recovery (after forced deindustrialisation/disinvestment), and climate and ecological protection.

2. Change must be faster. The ambition is low. We are living through a climate crisis. One-third of local emissions come from transport, with over 70% of commuter journeys by car. The UK Government has found that only franchising will deliver a “significant increase in patronage,” much more than partnerships. If we are to reduce emissions, without pushing the costs on to working people, we must provide a public transport system that is so convenient and affordable that using a car is a rare choice.  The actions laid out in the plan are a welcome start, but the progress towards this goal outlined in this plan is far too slow. 

6. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with our long term focus being on improvements to improve bus reliability, to make sure that the buses, bus stops and our interchanges offer a better experience to users and that we should move towards a cleaner and greener fleet?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

7. Why do you say this?

Please consider adapting one of the following reasons in your explanation:

1. No plans for network expansion. The limited frequency and destinations of current bus networks are the top two reasons more people don't use the bus (TransportFocus). Only public control allows the mayor to expand the network by using the profits from the busiest routes to cross-subsidise services that are currently quieter.

2. Where's the partnership? A limited vision. This vision is not about passengers' needs and aims. It clearly follows the limited powers available to local authorities under partnerships, mainly: (1) investing in changes to public roads, such as bus priority measures (e.g., smart junctions to prioritise buses) and bus lanes; (2) publicly-owned waiting infrastructure, like shelters and interchanges; (3) using the Government's zero-emissions funding (ZEBRA) to buy new vehicles for private bus companies. What improvements are being made by the operators? Where is the partnership?

8. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to making bus fares and ticketing more simple and more affordable?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

9. Why do you say this?

Here are three reasons we disagree with this approach. Please pick one and write it in your own words.

• A partnership can't deliver this vision. As pointed out by the Centre for Cities: "only franchising lets metro mayors set fares. Under an EPS, operators and mayors can work together to decide how multi-operator tickets are priced. But this is ultimately dependent on operators." As seen in June 2021, as soon as cheaper fares aren't in their interests, private companies will hike prices, despite already being in a partnership.

• If it's good enough for London, it's good enough for us. These piecemeal changes don't deliver the simple, integrated, and best-value ticketing offer seen in London. It does not create the easy to understand fares you deserve. Commitments to "review" removing single-operator fares are pathetic. Tickets that work smoothly on all services are only guaranteed under public control.

• Bad value-for-money. As seen in West Yorkshire, the partnerships' cheaper fares are only possible if the public takes on the financial risk of lowering the tickets (by increasing the subsidy paid to operators — at a rate they set). Cheaper fares encourage more people to use the bus, increasing the number of tickets sold and the bus company revenue. Under a partnership, the return on the public's investment would be used to pay dividends, rather than being reinvested into the service.

10. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with the our proposed approach to creating more frequent and reliable bus services?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

11. Why do you say this?

While bus priority measures are welcome, this approach completely ignores the following factors which are crucial to delivering more frequent and reliable services. Pick one and describe it in your own words.

• Evening, Weekend, & Rural Services. Congestion causes unreliability at peak times. Any regular bus user knows that areas and times unaffected by heavy traffic still suffer significant delays and cancellations. You could add your personal experiences here if possible. The proposed approach is naive and barely scratches the surface of the change needed; no doubt because the partnership could not deliver on these larger ambitions.

• Driver Pay & Conditions. South Yorkshire's buses face a reliability crisis. Why? Because there aren't enough drivers to run the advertised services. Drivers leave over poor pay and conditions — which are still controlled by private operators in partnerships. Public control guarantees a minimum employment standard (see the Employment Charter in Manchester).

• Vehicle Quality & Maintenance. Private companies have underinvested in the bus fleet which is now older than the UK average. These old buses are more likely to break down and cause delays. Under partnerships, operators have a veto on vehicle improvements. Only public control can guarantee vehicle standards that will deliver a reliable service.

• Spare Capacity. According to drivers, before privatisation "more drivers were kept on standby to take over a route if necessary and guarantee reliability" if breakdowns or congestion delayed services. Without gaining control of employment terms and the bus fleet, the Authority cannot guarantee a reliable network.

• Vehicle Design & Ticketing. London's younger bus fleet (partly built by Yorkshire manufacturers) commonly have two doors to allow faster boarding and alighting, reducing journey times and increasing reliability (TransportFocus). This is also supported by simple, best-value, all-operator tickets that reduce the time drivers spend explaining ticket options to passengers.

12. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to delivering a better bus experience?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

13. Why do you say this?

Pick one option and describe it in your own words.

1. The competing aims of different companies undermine public trust. Under the partnership, different operators will continue to compete with each other on a few, highly profitable routes ('overbussing'). Attempts to introduce common branding and information will not change passengers’ daily experience of conflicting service providers, undermining faith in the bus as a mode of travel and limiting passenger growth. As happens elsewhere, individual operators will offer perks for using their individual apps/websites and shift the blame for incorrect information onto the Combined Authority, undermining accountability.

2. Low ambition on technology. South Yorkshire deserves a world-class app, integrating information across different transport modes. The publicly-owned Reading Buses has a very well regarded app that could serve as a template.

3. Low ambition on safety. Accurate ETAs are important for making everyone, but especially women in our region, feel safe when travelling by bus. A pledge of just 240 new real-time displays, even if a minimum, is too little in a large city region. Furthermore, many of the information boards already in use simply resort to showing scheduled times as too few buses are fitted with location technology. Without franchising, retrofitting location tracking equipment progresses at the rate of the slowest operators.

4. Limited scope. Many other features affect customer experience. Most importantly, frequency, reliability and cost. However, no mention of vehicle cleanliness, audio announcements, heating, or modern conveniences (e.g., charging ports) is made. If the Combined Authority wishes to go beyond managing decline, it must offer a true public service.

    

14. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with our focus on delivering a net zero-emission bus fleet by 2040?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

15. Why do you say this?

Pick one and describe it in your own words.

1. Concentrate on cars. Most emissions come from cars. Buses lower emissions best by providing a convenient and affordable alternative as a full bus can take up to 75 cars off the road. The UK Government has found that only franchising will deliver a “significant increase in patronage,” much more than partnerships.

2. Lack of ambition. Clearly, cleaner and less carbon-intensive buses are desirable. However, compared to Authorities that are using publicly controlled networks, the ambition of this target is woeful. Greater Manchester aims to introduce 800 electric vehicles in the next five years (50% of the fleet) and have a fully electric network by 2032.

3. Benefits for the whole region. It is important that electric vehicles are not concentrated solely in Sheffield and that benefits come to all parts of the region. Similarly, Yorkshire has electric bus manufacturing plants. These plans must prioritise local procurement to promote green industrial jobs.

16. The main objective of the Enhanced Partnership and Scheme is to secure additional resources and to deliver improvements to bus services across South Yorkshire. Do you agree that the Enhanced Partnership will achieve this?

Answer:           Strongly Disagree

17. Why do you say this?

The main aim of any reform to local buses should be to deliver a green public service that addresses the needs of our communities. Please highlight this point in your own words. Feel free to adapt one of the examples below or adapt earlier points not used already.

1. No action on network expansion. The limited frequency and destinations of current bus networks are the top two reasons more people don't use the bus (TransportFocus). Only public control allows the mayor to expand the network by using the profits from the busiest routes to cross-subsidise services that are currently quieter.

2. Experts agree: a partnership can't deliver the best possible bus network. According to independent researchers at Transport for a Quality Life, 11 out of 16 essential attributes of a 'World-Class Bus System' cannot be achieved under a partnership (the remaining 5 can only be 'partially achieved'). Franchising fully- or partially-achieves them all. The Government's assessment said that partnerships may only "be able to achieve [Local Transport Authority] objective[s] in some circumstances" whereas franchising was "likely to effectively achieve the objective in all circumstances." Finally, the Centre for Cities described enhanced partnership working as a "fudge which stops mayors from delivering the quality bus networks their electorate rightly expect.”

3. Securing additional resources. This enhanced partnership, which leaves private operators in charge of the network, is a political choice, not the only way to secure funding. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority wrote that "The National Bus Strategy sets out two bus reform options; Enhanced Partnership and Franchising, both of which will secure future bus funding." This was confirmed by the Department for Transport which said that "From April 2022, LTAs will need to have an Enhanced Partnership in place, or be following the statutory process to decide whether to implement a franchising scheme, in order to receive the new discretionary schemes of bus funding." Clearly, public control would allow South Yorkshire to gain funding too. Why is it pursuing the inferior partnership option?

4. Partnerships will bleed the region dry. Under partnerships, investment is public but the profits are privatised. This will see any additional funding from Westminster leave the region as dividends. First Bus has already committed to its shareholders that the Government's bus policy, which pushes local councils into partnerships, will "raise [profit] margins to 10%" and "supports regular dividends commencing in 2022 [the year partnerships will be established]." If we are to reap the benefits of improving services, we need a positive cycle where returns on public investment are put back into public services. This only begins to be possible under public control, as the money from ticket sales is in public hands.

18. Finally, are there any comments you would like to make about the proposals set out in the Enhanced Partnership Plan and Scheme, or any other matter raised in this consultation?

1. Our Buses? Our Say. At the end of the day, the final decision about bus services should be with local people, not remote and wealthy shareholders. As highlighted by the Centre for Cities, any positive change that may occur in a partnership is "ultimately dependent on operators" and decisions remain "in the hands of operators." The profit motive will always clash with the public interest. Only public control, and beyond that public ownership, will deliver the green public service run by and for local people.

2. One-Shot Wonder? Partnerships rely on local authorities and national government investing in a small number of service improvements, thus creating a short-term increase in ridership and ticket sales for operators. In return for the profits this generates for their shareholders, private bus operators promise some short-term improvements. Partnerships only last a fixed term. Once the Authority has built a decent network of bus lanes and bus shelters, it will have a weaker hand in future partnership negotiations. When the next lot of route cuts or price hikes are proposed, what will the Authority have to persuade operators to abandon their plans?

3. Bad Track Record. Partnerships have been employed for over 30 years in attempts to improve services. They have consistently failed to deliver long-term improvements in services or ridership. This includes South Yorkshire where bus companies routinely act in bad faith —  to the frustration of local leaders. Former UN Human Rights lawyers have called for them to be "phased out."