Personally, as someone who has worked on both sides of the coin (for operators and TfWM), I think several issues around franchising haven't been answered and some of the reasons for franchising being pursued are being presented behind smoke and mirrors.
The franchising assessment indicates that even with franchising, passenger numbers are envisaged to fall. If that is the case, the taxpayer is being asked to 'buy' a system that even with all the money being invested, won't improve and in turn, would probably cost more money to prop up. No one in business rightly buys a business in insolvency so why should the taxpayer be asked to do this with regards to the bus network?
Franchising is meant to improve journey times however TfWM and Local Authorities already control highways and various aspects of the road system, such as parking enforcement so how franchising improves that is something I can't see. If franchising isn't coupled with serious improvements to both parking enforcement and introduction bus priority in areas where it's technically feasible but politically distasteful (such as Soho Road, where it's dual carriageway for the majority of the way but is parked on, in sometimes a haphazard way, impacting the 74's punctuality to name one area) then I can't see how franchising magically speeds up journey times. All I can see is an influx of additional buses into timetables to keep frequencies up, which brings me onto my next point...
Driver shortage. Whilst this may be turning around, under franchising that doesn't magically go away. Coupled with the fact that the West Midlands Combined Authority has some levers it can pull to improve this (employment programs, education etc), it's easy to say 'we control the network so more buses should run' but if you don't address this problem, I can envisage a scenario where the operators are short of drivers and can point to the franchising authority in this case as not creating a system where adequate drivers are available across the network for employment.
The documents to me seem long winded and designed to assure a 'yes' to franchising, regardless of whether this is the best option, solely based on it being a Labour policy and nothing more substantial than that.
The franchising assessment indicates that even with franchising, passenger numbers are envisaged to fall. If that is the case, the taxpayer is being asked to 'buy' a system that even with all the money being invested, won't improve and in turn, would probably cost more money to prop up. No one in business rightly buys a business in insolvency so why should the taxpayer be asked to do this with regards to the bus network?
Franchising is meant to improve journey times however TfWM and Local Authorities already control highways and various aspects of the road system, such as parking enforcement so how franchising improves that is something I can't see. If franchising isn't coupled with serious improvements to both parking enforcement and introduction bus priority in areas where it's technically feasible but politically distasteful (such as Soho Road, where it's dual carriageway for the majority of the way but is parked on, in sometimes a haphazard way, impacting the 74's punctuality to name one area) then I can't see how franchising magically speeds up journey times. All I can see is an influx of additional buses into timetables to keep frequencies up, which brings me onto my next point...
Driver shortage. Whilst this may be turning around, under franchising that doesn't magically go away. Coupled with the fact that the West Midlands Combined Authority has some levers it can pull to improve this (employment programs, education etc), it's easy to say 'we control the network so more buses should run' but if you don't address this problem, I can envisage a scenario where the operators are short of drivers and can point to the franchising authority in this case as not creating a system where adequate drivers are available across the network for employment.
The documents to me seem long winded and designed to assure a 'yes' to franchising, regardless of whether this is the best option, solely based on it being a Labour policy and nothing more substantial than that.