What could a nationalised bus operator look like?

[YorkRailFan]

A few posts ago I asked if you had stats to support your opinions.

If you can't produce any, just tell us about your personal experiences of publicly owned operators and compare them with First in York.

These are just ideas, this will likely never happen as both the Conservatives and Labour have no interest in nationalizing buses.

My experiences with First York have been waiting on the side of the road, every day for over an hour for a bus that is meant to come every 15 minutes, compared to a decent experience with buses in Newport and Cardiff, which were state run.

 

[northrob]

These are just ideas, this will likely never happen as both the Conservatives and Labour have no interest in nationalizing buses.

My experiences with First York has been, waiting on the side of the road, every day for over an hour for a bus that is meant to come every 15 minutes, compared to a decent experience with buses in Newport and Cardiff, which were state ran.

And in comparison, nearly every time I've caught a bus in York (and it's a few times a week) - it's turned up. It's not 100% perfect, however very few operators are.

Most of the problems stem from traffic issues that can plague the city - like York Race Meeting - soem of the streets are too small to cope with it. I'm not sure how a nationalised company will solve the that issue...

 

[YorkRailFan]

And in comparison, nearly every time I've caught a bus in York (and it's a few times a week) - it's turned up. It's not 100% perfect, however very few operators are.

Most of the problems stem from traffic issues that can plague the city - like York Race Meeting - soem of the streets are too small to cope with it. I'm not sure how a nationalised company will solve the that issue...

I would rarely travel when race day was on, I used services 5/5A at peak, and it was a nightmare. I personally think that one bonus of a nationalized bus operator is that profits wouldn't be the main priority, and customer service would be a larger priority.

 

[Dai Corner]

These are just ideas, this will likely never happen as both the Conservatives and Labour have no interest in nationalizing buses.

My experiences with First York has been, waiting on the side of the road, every day for over an hour for a bus that is meant to come every 15 minutes, compared to a decent experience with buses in Newport and Cardiff, which were state ran.

I live in Newport

And in comparison, nearly every time I've caught a bus in York (and it's a few times a week) - it's turned up. It's not 100% perfect, however very few operators are.

Most of the problems stem from traffic issues that can plague the city - like York Race Meeting - soem of the streets are too small to cope with it. I'm not sure how a nationalised company will solve the that issue...

Or indeed when the M4 is closed and Newport becomes one huge traffic jam.

And every day as the school run clogs up the streets and many buses run late.

How would privatisation make that worse?

 

[JonathanH]

These are just ideas, this will likely never happen as both the Conservatives and Labour have no interest in nationalizing buses.

Does any political party have nationalisation of buses in its policy statements?

It seems the Socialist Party has a proposal of nationalisation of all 'public services'.
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/105937/11-01-2023/bus-services-need-change-now/

Bus services need change now
11/01/2023

Charlie Rowland, Oxfordshire bus user

Like many others, I’m no stranger to the state of public transport, primarily bus services. Whether run by Oxford city or Stagecoach, both privatised bus services come with major issues.

Stagecoach has been increasing ticket prices continuously throughout 2022. For example, for me to go from Botley to Eynsham and back – a relatively short journey – costs £4.30. It might not sound much, but as I’m doing this every day, the costs add up scarily quickly!

The government has introduced a temporary £2 cap for all single bus tickets. To put it bluntly, this is completely useless. People bussing around normally get return tickets, and many single tickets don’t reach £2.

Angry about service

Riding the buses, I witness drivers constantly confronted by passengers angry about the quality of service. It’s not surprising bus drivers are scarce, or that many are choosing to strike.

Services are overcrowded and infrequent. My mother gets the 33 home from work every day and when that bus doesn’t come, she is made to wait another hour for the next one.

The companies have offered no insight into how they intend to improve services. The simple reason is they’re too tight to do so. As long as the bus companies make a profit, people suffering in the cold needing to get home is not a factor for the bosses. They want to run fewer services and keep driver wages low to boost profits.

By why should a few very rich individuals profit from our need to get around and to work? Bus services should be brought into democratic public ownership, with no compensation to the existing fat-cat owners. Service users and bus workers could then plan services to meet the needs of communities, and also make transport free.

The country has more billionaires than ever, why not take that wealth and put it to good use by fully funding a free, high-quality public transport system in the interests of people and the planet?

We will fight Berkshire bus cuts
Adam Gilman, Reading Socialist Party

Last year, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) started a campaign to stop the bus cuts happening all around Berkshire. Wokingham Borough Council introduced an hourly service to Reading, only after our campaign put pressure on the bus companies and local councils.

Passenger numbers went up by 45% with this new service. It has a lot of flaws, like no Sunday or bank holiday service, but it was something.

A Lib Dem-led coalition won control of Wokingham Council from the Tories last year. The previous Tory administration had left lots of the local bus services with no funding. But now the Lib Dems, with the support of Labour, are making cuts in other areas.

The council recently bid to keep the 600 route to Riseley. But the council put in a low bid, causing the council to lose the contract beyond March. This is being used an excuse to cut the service.

But that’s not all. The Lib Dem, Labour and ‘independent’ coalition council has cut some bin collections. They only just got into power!

These bus cuts are horrific. They will worsen the lives of many people, and affect vulnerable people worst.

We demand:

• All public services to be taken back into public ownership
• For all cuts and austerity measure since 2010 to be reversed
• For local councils to implement legal no-cuts budgets and fight central government for the funding

https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/a...isastrous-buses-are-a-major-gripe-in-bristol/

Overpriced, disastrous buses are a major gripe in Bristol
11/10/2023

Fred Ralston, Bristol North Socialist Party

Socialist Party members joined 150 people on a ‘march for fairer buses’ in Bristol on 9 September.

Bristol buses are privately run by First and Stagecoach. The disastrously bad service they deliver is a major gripe for anyone in the city who uses them.

The march finished at the West of England Combined Authorities headquarters. This is the office of the ‘metro mayor’ covering Bristol and the surrounding local authorities – South Gloucestershire as well as Bath and North East Somerset.

The march was organised and led by XR Youth Bristol, a local Extinction Rebellion group. XR Youth Bristol are campaigning for free, fair and franchised buses that they say is a step towards publicly owned buses. It is calling on the council to implement this model.

A franchised model is where the authority specifies the bus services to be provided, determining the routes, timetables and fares. But services are still operated by a private company making profit. This model is being put into place by Labour’s Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

Publicly owned, direct control
The Socialist Party was campaigning for buses to be publicly owned, and brought directly back into the control of local authorities. Socialist Party member Sheila Caffrey – a member of the National Education Union (NEU) executive – made the case for this in one of a number of rousing speeches at the start of the march.

Members of the public on the sides initially did not understanding why we were marching. However, once the call for free and fairly priced buses was put across to onlookers, they became supportive.

The Socialist Party received a wholly positive to our leaflet – ‘Public transport not private profit’. We met another person on the march who wants to join the Socialist Party.

 

[Mwanesh]

In London there is a base cost for each route. The company is paid a percentage of that with lost mileage removed.

They can then have a bonus or a penalty depending on the reliability of the route.

For Low Frequency routes this is measured by the percentage of buses on time at various points on the route.

For High Frequency routes this is measured by how big gaps are between buses. There is a target for Excess Waiting Time with bonuses or penalties at various figures above and below this. There are also penalties for too many "Long Gaps" - gaps of twice the timetabled time or more between consecutive buses.



No municipal is currently run by councils. They are owned by councils, which is not quite the same.

I know but they are supposed to be local as the op has said. They do report to the council if they need a bailout.

I would rarely travel when race day was on, I used services 5/5A at peak, and it was a nightmare. I personally think that one bonus of a nationalized bus operator is that profits wouldn't be the main priority, and customer service would be a larger priority.

You think there is money in buses. Try running a bus company you will know the real truth. You only need to look at how many small firms are throwing in the towel. Even the big groups have closed depots. If you think there is too much profit in busses buy some shares in transport companies and see the returns.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In London there is a base cost for each route. The company is paid a percentage of that with lost mileage removed.

They can then have a bonus or a penalty depending on the reliability of the route.

For Low Frequency routes this is measured by the percentage of buses on time at various points on the route.

For High Frequency routes this is measured by how big gaps are between buses. There is a target for Excess Waiting Time with bonuses or penalties at various figures above and below this. There are also penalties for too many "Long Gaps" - gaps of twice the timetabled time or more between consecutive buses.

Hi there - I know they operate on gross cost basis and that the farebox revenue is retained by TfL. I'd clearly forgotten about any bonus payments - thanks for correcting me

 

[Man of Kent]

First is a big private company and are a nightmare, and don't even get me started on Go Ahead.


Cross boundary routes could also be funded and run by a new organization which could be created.

So another load of administration to be paid for, in addition to the cost of running buses. Far from creating a better network, all the answers given so far will make it more expensive to run buses anywhere. They will be subject to the exact same funding ups and downs as every other public service, so not immune from cuts at any stage. What exactly is it that this theoretical nationalisation will achieve, apart from more bureaucracy?

 

[JKP]

Cross boundary routes would be handled by Westminster.


Remember that this would the nationalisation of buses would only happen under a different Government (I don't say Labour as I doubt Labour will) so Councils will get additional funding.

Transport matters are devolved to the Scottish Government and Welsh Senedd. Westminster only has responsibility for England and given that policies are different in each part of the UK this would not work.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't know about other municipal operators but the majority of the Directors of Newport Transport are Councillors or Council officers.

I'd say that was 'run by the Council' even though the staff aren't Council employees.

Four of the directors are Councillors. Is it public information which are Council officers?

Legally, they have to be held as arms length companies.

I know but they are supposed to be local as the op has said. They do report to the council if they need a bailout.

Any company will go to its shareholders if it needs a bailout.

 

[Dai Corner]

Four of the directors are Councillors. Is it public information which are Council officers?

Legally, they have to be held as arms length companies.

Ok, I should have checked before I posted but the Board is responsible to the sole shareholder which is Newport City Council.

I'm pretty sure that in the recent past the majority of the Board have been politicians rather than bus professionals.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Transport matters are devolved to the Scottish Government and Welsh Senedd. Westminster only has responsibility for England and given that policies are different in each part of the UK this would not work.

Corporation would be necessary for services between England and Wales and England and Scotland.

So another load of administration to be paid for, in addition to the cost of running buses. Far from creating a better network, all the answers given so far will make it more expensive to run buses anywhere. They will be subject to the exact same funding ups and downs as every other public service, so not immune from cuts at any stage. What exactly is it that this theoretical nationalisation will achieve, apart from more bureaucracy?

In theory, it would mean that customer service is at heart, meaning that more reliable and frequent services could be offered, instead of just profits. On the topic of corporation between boundaries, I would argue that corporation between bus companies now is also terrible, for instance, traveling with Stagecoach South West 6 from Okehampton to Bude, one may have to wait up to 2 hours to get a Go Cornwall Bus 95, as the two buses miss each other by 5 minutes.

You think there is money in buses. Try running a bus company you will know the real truth. You only need to look at how many small firms are throwing in the towel. Even the big groups have closed depots. If you think there is too much profit in busses buy some shares in transport companies and see the returns.

But First Group is raking in loads, so is Stagecoach, Go Ahead, National Express; not so much for Arriva.

Does any political party have nationalisation of buses in its policy statements?

It seems the Socialist Party has a proposal of nationalisation of all 'public services'.
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/105937/11-01-2023/bus-services-need-change-now/


https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/a...isastrous-buses-are-a-major-gripe-in-bristol/

I agree with them, they have a great point.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Corporation would be necessary for services between England and Wales and England and Scotland.


In theory, it would mean that customer service is at heart, meaning that more reliable and frequent services could be offered, instead of just profits. On the topic of corporation between boundaries, I would argue that corporation between bus companies now is also terrible, for instance, traveling with Stagecoach South West 6 from Okehampton to Bude, one may have to wait up to 2 hours to get a Go Cornwall Bus 95, as the two buses miss each other by 5 minutes.


But First Group is raking in loads, so is Stagecoach, Go Ahead, National Express; not so much for Arriva.


I agree with them, they have a great point.

Ok... How much is loads that First is raking in? What sort of percentage do you think they are making?

Now as regards the example that you provided of Okehampton to Bude and then onward travel connections:

• How many people are actually going to want to make that journey? I'd suggest very few if any
• The 95 is a Transport for Cornwall service so if they wanted to amend the timetable, that is wholly within the power of Cornwall Council to do that
  • The only instance where the two hour exists is the 1512 from Wadebridge that misses the 1510. All the others have much smaller gaps but then again, the 95 is a two hourly service whereas the 6 is a three hourly headway so you'll have that disconnect
• You haven't mentioned the 218/9 and the 319 linking Bude with Bideford that have the same operators undertaking a kiss and turn in Hartland - fully coordinated timings

The Socialist Party will argue that absolutely everything should be done by the public sector and that the capitalist pigdogs should be made to suffer. However, back in the real world....

 

[YorkRailFan]

• How many people are actually going to want to make that journey? I'd suggest very few if any
• The 95 is a Transport for Cornwall service so if they wanted to amend the timetable, that is wholly within the power of Cornwall Council to do that
  • The only instance where the two hour exists is the 1512 from Wadebridge that misses the 1510. All the others have much smaller gaps but then again, the 95 is a two hourly service whereas the 6 is a three hourly headway so you'll have that disconnect

Quite a few actually, it was once a direct route by Western Greyhound that ended in 2015 (I believe.)

Ok... How much is loads that First is raking in? What sort of percentage do you think they are making?

First's five year financials can be found here: https://www.firstgroupplc.com/investors/information-for-shareholders/five-year-summary.aspx (Not possible to quote as it is in chart form)

 

[Deerfold]

Corporation would be necessary for services between England and Wales and England and Scotland.

In theory, it would mean that customer service is at heart, meaning that more reliable and frequent services could be offered, instead of just profits.

That sounds great. What's the reason for this, once services are all nationalised?

On the topic of corporation between boundaries, I would argue that corporation between bus companies now is also terrible, for instance, traveling with Stagecoach South West 6 from Okehampton to Bude, one may have to wait up to 2 hours to get a Go Cornwall Bus 95, as the two buses miss each other by 5 minutes.


But First Group is raking in loads, so is Stagecoach, Go Ahead, National Express; not so much for Arriva.

I agree with them, they have a great point.

When you say "corporation", repeatedly, do you mean co-operation?

 

[Dai Corner]

Quite a few actually, it was once a direct route by Western Greyhound that ended in 2015 (I believe.)


First's five year financials can be found here: https://www.firstgroupplc.com/investors/information-for-shareholders/five-year-summary.aspx (Not possible to quote as it is in chart form)

Looking at page 172 of the financial statements at https://www.firstgroupplc.com/investors/annual-report-2023.aspx shows a profit before tax of £48.9m on revenue of £902.5m for First Bus in the latest financial year. Do you feel that's excessive?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok... How much is loads that First is raking in? What sort of percentage do you think they are making?

Now as regards the example that you provided of Okehampton to Bude and then onward travel connections:

• How many people are actually going to want to make that journey? I'd suggest very few if any
• The 95 is a Transport for Cornwall service so if they wanted to amend the timetable, that is wholly within the power of Cornwall Council to do that
  • The only instance where the two hour exists is the 1512 from Wadebridge that misses the 1510. All the others have much smaller gaps but then again, the 95 is a two hourly service whereas the 6 is a three hourly headway so you'll have that disconnect
• You haven't mentioned the 218/9 and the 319 linking Bude with Bideford that have the same operators undertaking a kiss and turn in Hartland - fully coordinated timings

The Socialist Party will argue that absolutely everything should be done by the public sector and that the capitalist pigdogs should be made to suffer. However, back in the real world....

Transport for Cornwall just aren't very good at connections. They're nominally there, but they often aren't respected. I agree they need to be due to the low frequency nature of the network (i.e. something needs to be in place to ensure drivers wait, e.g. a need to sign a sheet of paper held by the other driver, with explicit Control permission needed not to do so in the case of very severe delays where Control decides they should not wait), but solving that doesn't have any bearing on who owns the bus or employs the driver.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Quite a few actually, it was once a direct route by Western Greyhound that ended in 2015 (I believe.)

Transport for Cornwall just aren't very good at connections. They're nominally there, but they often aren't respected. I agree they need to be due to the low frequency nature of the network (i.e. something needs to be in place to ensure drivers wait, e.g. a need to sign a sheet of paper held by the other driver, with explicit Control permission needed not to do so in the case of very severe delays where Control decides they should not wait), but solving that doesn't have any bearing on who owns the bus or employs the driver.

Conscious of not upsetting the mods by going too far down the rabbit of rural Cornwall but...

WG ran the 595 to Bude. It didn't run further East. There was the 599 that ran in competition with the First/Stagecoach X9 via Okehampton to Exeter. There was also the 510 that ran Exeter to Okehampton as that was the main corridor (until the train reintroduction). It ran on to Launceston (supported by Devon CC as the current 306 does) and then to Wadebridge. The idea that anyone is spending over 3 hours travelling from Wadebridge to Okehampton is somewhat fanciful.

The Hartland connection is well-established and does work well.

First's five year financials can be found here: https://www.firstgroupplc.com/investors/information-for-shareholders/five-year-summary.aspx (Not possible to quote as it is in chart form)

I know what they're making. I was wanting to gauge your understanding and what you consider to be excessive. So what are they making and what would be acceptable?

 

[Dai Corner]

News that Stagecoach East Midlands drivers are to join their Go North East counterparts in striking raises the possibility that a nationalised bus industry could result in a national bus strike with people unable to get to work or education, to shops for food, to medical appointments and so on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

News that Stagecoach East Midlands drivers are to join their Go North East counterparts in striking raises the possibility that a nationalised bus industry could result in a national bus strike with people unable to get to work or education, to shops for food, to medical appointments and so on.

As most areas are served by only one bus company, this is a bit irrelevant. If Arriva Milton Keynes drivers strike, for instance, it's of no relevance to me that I could still take a bus from Llandudno to Betws-y-Coed because they aren't on strike.

 

[Dai Corner]

As most areas are served by only one bus company, this is a bit irrelevant. If Arriva Milton Keynes drivers strike, for instance, it's of no relevance to me that I could still take a bus from Llandudno to Betws-y-Coed because they aren't on strike.

I'm in a an area that does still have a bit of competition though. A national strike would make the national headlines, putting pressure on the Governments to settle (or not, if they took that stance). I'd never have known about Go and Stagecoach if I didn't read these forums.

 

[YorkRailFan]

News that Stagecoach East Midlands drivers are to join their Go North East counterparts in striking raises the possibility that a nationalised bus industry could result in a national bus strike with people unable to get to work or education, to shops for food, to medical appointments and so on.

Started a thread on it earlier.

Conscious of not upsetting the mods by going too far down the rabbit of rural Cornwall but...

WG ran the 595 to Bude. It didn't run further East. There was the 599 that ran in competition with the First/Stagecoach X9 via Okehampton to Exeter. There was also the 510 that ran Exeter to Okehampton as that was the main corridor (until the train reintroduction). It ran on to Launceston (supported by Devon CC as the current 306 does) and then to Wadebridge. The idea that anyone is spending over 3 hours travelling from Wadebridge to Okehampton is somewhat fanciful.

The Hartland connection is well-established and does work well.


I know what they're making. I was wanting to gauge your understanding and what you consider to be excessive. So what are they making and what would be acceptable?

A profit of around £1M is appropriate, with enough cash flow to buy new buses, pay drivers properly, conduct maintenance, etc. Regarding WG, I was talking about the 510 to Wadebridge, I regularly did it, extremely convenient. I thought that the 6/6A and 5A were the only routes between Exeter and Okehampton when the train ran?

That sounds great. What's the reason for this, once services are all nationalised?

So that people use buses more and get out of their cars.

That sounds great. What's the reason for this, once services are all nationalised?


When you say "corporation", repeatedly, do you mean co-operation?

Yes, autocorrect keeps doing it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm in a an area that does still have a bit of competition though. A national strike would make the national headlines, putting pressure on the Governments to settle (or not, if they took that stance). I'd never have known about Go and Stagecoach if I didn't read these forums.

Very few places have competition on single routes even where there are multiple incumbent operators (like e.g. Liverpool), so as I said it's only of real relevance to enthusiasts who just want to ride a bus, not people who want to use their local route into town which almost always has only one operator, or at most has different operators for daytime and evening if evening is tendered.

 

[Dai Corner]

Very few places have competition on single routes even where there are multiple incumbent operators (like e.g. Liverpool), so as I said it's only of real relevance to enthusiasts who just want to ride a bus, not people who want to use their local route into town which almost always has only one operator, or at most has different operators for daytime and evening if evening is tendered.

I'm thinking more about the relevance of a national bus strike to politicians and Union leaders. Could we see the bus industry become more of a political football like the NHS and the railways, for example?

 

[Deerfold]

So that people use buses more and get out of their cars.

I'm not asking why it's a good idea. I'm asking why you think that nationalisation will cause that to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm thinking more about the relevance of a national bus strike to politicians and Union leaders. Could we see the bus industry become more of a political football like the NHS and the railways, for example?

Possible I suppose.

Anyway, I've laid my store out as it were, which is:
- It makes sense for the Combined Authorities and Transport for London to operate directly, plus a few other major cities where it works like Cardiff and Edinburgh, and I'd certainly leave Blackpool Transport be as they do a decent job and are quite popular locally
- It probably makes sense for Transport for Wales and Transport Scotland to have their own nationalised regional operator, because most such routes are subsidised and co-ordinating them better to fill the gaps in nationalised rail rather than compete with it makes more sense
- Coaches to/from London seem to work fine commercially so if it ain't broke don't fix it. I think it's fair to say that urban buses are very often "broke", but long distance prebooked coach seems to generally be run quite well by the two main incumbents (Megabus and National Express) and, er, averagely by the green mob. The market is big enough for multiple operators and the high level of competition keeps the cost down, which works well as cost is the main priority of those who use long distance coaches.
- Smaller urban areas without operating competence like Milton Keynes, Northampton or Aylesbury would be better tendered on a "here's the budget, what can you do" type basis like Jersey and indeed the 1995 TOCs
- Regional within England is likely to be a mix

So I don't see much need for an all encompassing National Bus Company.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I'm not asking why it's a good idea. I'm asking why you think that nationalisation will cause that to happen.

Because profits aren't the incentive, customer service is, meaning that a better, more frequent, and more reliable service is prioritised. This will then mean that people see the bus as a more viable option and use it instead of driving.

 

[Dai Corner]

Because profits aren't the incentive, customer service is, meaning that a better, more frequent, and more reliable service is prioritised. This will then mean that people see the bus as a more viable option and use it instead of driving.

I'd say politics and minimising costs would be the main drivers, so that politicians get re-elected and have more money to spend on reducing taxes or on more important/popular things like health and education.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I'd say politics and minimising costs would be the main drivers, so that politicians get re-elected and have more money to spend on reducing taxes or on more important/popular things like health and education.

If buses become a more viable option for people, then they will be seen as an important/popular public service.

 

[Dai Corner]

If buses become a more viable option for people, then they will be seen as an important/popular public service.

Why do you think having politicians, with many conflicting priorities, in charge instead of senior managers with just one will lead to buses becoming a more viable option for people?