South Yorkshire Bus Service Needs Improvement

[Andy C 86]

3 minutes ago, Resident said:

Trust me, SYPTE is self-serving. They farmed out running of interchanges & stop maintainence to a 3rd party, Noonan. A quick Google into the company does NOT paint a good picture. Claims of under & non payment of wages, lack of training given & poor working conditions/terms. Any organisation worth it's salt would at least look into these claims yet SYPTE simply ignore it. 

 

Interchanges are falling apart, including the recently refurbished Rotherham interchange. Potholes a plenty on the bus runways and showing no interest in repairing them. 

SYPTE even farmed out the replacing and building of bus stops to an advertising company (Alight Media). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a link between AM and the management of SYPTE outside of the contract. 

It all begs the question of what is SYPTE doing with the money they're given by the council, income from bus company levys & the AM contract? 

You mention the bag of cash that central government handed to SYPTE for improvements to services. Where are these improvements? There's not even a plan so where's the cash?

The SYPTE needs disbanding, as I said, it's self-serving and has no interest in managing better or improving public transport. 

The bag of cash isn't bid for yet as far as I know. This is the "building buses back better" post covid announcement from Boris Johnson that has triggered the current debates about bus franchising and partnerships. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-update-national-bus-strategy-for-england-published

 

 

[RollingJ 2,035]

Even if they finally get round to putting in a late bid, I'm fairly convinced SYPTE will splatter the cash up the wall, rather than on an 'improved' service level.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Or get rid of the PTE - other areas seem to manage very well without them - but then they have intelligent administrations that look a bit further than their own backyard.

Every part of the England has to have a body that puts forward the interest of the users.

Over time these bodies focused on running trams and buses instead of the chaos that prevailed.

Over time legislation has required Councils to oversee certain aspects of public transport.

County and Metropolitan Councils were created/recreated in the 70s and included large 'transport departments' covering large areas.

Government policy changed and operating (then privatized)and planning of public transport were split.

The failure of de-regulation to provide better services has meant a very moribund situation.

 

After the creation of Unitary Authorities most new Councils were unable to efficiently support their own transport departments and most Councils have collaborated with neighbouring Councils to set up their own transport departments.

 

The former SYPTE has changed less than most and attracts a considerable amount of criticism, when in fact if it was abolished it would reappear with a different name.

 

What ever name you want to give a "transport department" you still have to have one

 

Rather than splitting up these transport departments 'PTEs' are formed of multiple councils covering hundreds of square miles. Backyard?

 

Have you an example of where "...they have intelligent administrations that look a bit further than their own backyard..."?

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Annie Bynnol

[RollingJ 2,035]

26 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

Have you an example of where "...they have intelligent administrations that look a bit further than their own backyard..."?

 

East/West Sussex/Hampshire/Surrey springs to mind as I have said before - an area I probably know better than Yorkshire/Derbyshire - because the councils/bus operators down there do co-operate much better, and I have able to use almost any operator (bar Stagecoach) on just one ticket.

AND there are no PTEs in the area.

Edited April 8, 2021 by RollingJ

[sheffbag 227]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

Trust me, SYPTE is self-serving. They farmed out running of interchanges & stop maintainence to a 3rd party, Noonan. A quick Google into the company does NOT paint a good picture. Claims of under & non payment of wages, lack of training given & poor working conditions/terms. Any organisation worth it's salt would at least look into these claims yet SYPTE simply ignore it. 

 

Interchanges are falling apart, including the recently refurbished Rotherham interchange. Potholes a plenty on the bus runways and showing no interest in repairing them. 

SYPTE even farmed out the replacing and building of bus stops to an advertising company (Alight Media). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a link between AM and the management of SYPTE outside of the contract. 

It all begs the question of what is SYPTE doing with the money they're given by the council, income from bus company levys & the AM contract? 

You mention the bag of cash that central government handed to SYPTE for improvements to services. Where are these improvements? There's not even a plan so where's the cash?

The SYPTE needs disbanding, as I said, it's self-serving and has no interest in managing better or improving public transport. 

Wait until the Mayoral authority takes over the PTE.......

[Resident 1,189]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

Wait until the Mayoral authority takes over the PTE.......

Well it's gonna be headed by Back-pocket Dan so I won't be surprised...

 

[AKAMD 0]

I thought bus services were currently run by so-called Voluntary Bus Partnerships consisting of local authorities, service providers and the PTE.  The problem with this is that they are dominated by the service providers in that they will only provide the services that makes them money, the exception being subsidised routes, which they show little interest in due to lack of profits.  Take the profit motive out of the equation and we might just get a public transport system that meets the needs of society and encourages people out of their cars and onto buses.  The current modus operandi does the complete opposite.  Whatever we think of politicians, it is only they that can make the changes.

[RollingJ 2,035]

18 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

I thought bus services were currently run by so-called Voluntary Bus Partnerships consisting of local authorities, service providers and the PTE.  The problem with this is that they are dominated by the service providers in that they will only provide the services that makes them money, the exception being subsidised routes, which they show little interest in due to lack of profits.  Take the profit motive out of the equation and we might just get a public transport system that meets the needs of society and encourages people out of their cars and onto buses.  The current modus operandi does the complete opposite.  Whatever we think of politicians, it is only they that can make the changes.

They are - unfortunately, in S.Yorkshire at least, there is no willingness to allow the people that know how to run a service to do so.  There were suggestions (about 18 months back) that Go-Ahead were interested in taking over the majority of the First Group operations in the county, but I heard from a fairly reliable source that G-A backed out when they saw what a calamity they would have to try and get ahold of.

[Guest busdriver1]

5 hours ago, Andy C said:

The bag of cash isn't bid for yet as far as I know. This is the "building buses back better" post covid announcement from Boris Johnson that has triggered the current debates about bus franchising and partnerships. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-update-national-bus-strategy-for-england-published

 

 

The pte are in charge of the "distribution " of the bsog money that has been retained and is getting used for "improvements"  

Seen any?  

[Guest busdriver1]

5 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Every part of the England has to have a body that puts forward the interest of the users.

Over time these bodies focused on running trams and buses instead of the chaos that prevailed.

Over time legislation has required Councils to oversee certain aspects of public transport.

County and Metropolitan Councils were created/recreated in the 70s and included large 'transport departments' covering large areas.

Government policy changed and operating (then privatized)and planning of public transport were split.

The failure of de-regulation to provide better services has meant a very moribund situation.

 

The failure of the deregulation system is fairly and squarely down to the failure of the pte's and local councils who negotiated reductions in their responsibilities and failed for whatever reason to fulfill their responsibilities regarding service provision. The bus companies have maintained their side of the deal, even stagecoach! (Mostly)  

[RollingJ 2,035]

9 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

The pte are in charge of the "distribution " of the bsog money that has been retained and is getting used for "improvements"  

Seen any?  

Nope. 😀

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, AKAMD said:

I thought bus services were currently run by so-called Voluntary Bus Partnerships consisting of local authorities, service providers and the PTE.  The problem with this is that they are dominated by the service providers in that they will only provide the services that makes them money, the exception being subsidised routes, which they show little interest in due to lack of profits.  Take the profit motive out of the equation and we might just get a public transport system that meets the needs of society and encourages people out of their cars and onto buses.  The current modus operandi does the complete opposite.  Whatever we think of politicians, it is only they that can make the changes.

The non profitable services are the responsibilty of the councils and pte s. Both first and stagecoach operate these services (few that there are) .

Innovation in bus services In the last 30 or so years has come from the bus operators. There have been a few local authority ones but they have mostly flopped. 

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

Nope. 😀

I bet there have been a few fact finding visits though.