UK Bus Summit: Youre on your own

radamfi · 25 Feb 2017

so your suggestion in fact is that the council will put out a tender for an operator... in that tender it will not specify what level of service is to be provided... what type/ size of vehicle should be used.... what hrs of operation... what density of coverage... NOTHING.... the successful operator will then be allowed to run whatever level of service it wishes to operate with the money it has squeezed out of the authority and with no checks balances or oversight to make sure there is value for money? I'm sure the local taxpayers would love that utopian system....

Clearly any tender process would include some kind of parameters that need to be satisfied. The authority can decide how prescriptive it wants to be depending on local factors. But there's nothing to stop an operator suggesting something different that may still be worthy of consideration. An example would be when the original Metrolink network was tendered out back in the early 90s. The original requirement was for the two lines to Bury and Altrincham to run every 10 minutes. The winning bidder suggested that every 12 minutes is better because it would make interchange between the two lines at Piccadilly Gardens easier.

I also note that you have failed to answer my query as to what you propose would happen to cross border services when neighbouring authorities award contracts to different operators or have different expectations?

Almost the whole of the Netherlands is tendered out by area according to this map

http://wiki.ovinnederland.nl/wiki/Concessiekaart

so it is quite possible for neighbouring areas to be tendered out to different companies.

What can we do about failing operators such as Arriva in the deregulated environment, given that we can't "sack" them?

RailUK Forums

Teflon Lettuce · 25 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
Clearly any tender process would include some kind of parameters that need to be satisfied. The authority can decide how prescriptive it wants to be depending on local factors. But there's nothing to stop an operator suggesting something different that may still be worthy of consideration. An example would be when the original Metrolink network was tendered out back in the early 90s. The original requirement was for the two lines to Bury and Altrincham to run every 10 minutes. The winning bidder suggested that every 12 minutes is better because it would make interchange between the two lines at Piccadilly Gardens easier.

So in fact you are saying that, to all intents and purposes the local authority WILL design and specify the network!

radamfi said:
Almost the whole of the Netherlands is tendered out by area according to this map

http://wiki.ovinnederland.nl/wiki/Concessiekaart

so it is quite possible for neighbouring areas to be tendered out to different companies.

well the Netherlands have a completely different political system to us. They use PR to elect which means there is a history of collaboration and negotiation between political parties... here in the uk it is first past the post and confrontation.

Quite apart from the fact that you STILL haven't answered my question as to what would happen with cross boundary services, especially where different councils want different specifications.

[/QUOTE]What can we do about failing operators such as Arriva in the deregulated environment, given that we can't "sack" them?[/QUOTE]

There is perfectly adequate oversight provided for in the current legislation... the TC's and DVLA (or whatever it's called this week). Just because the regulatory bodies are underfunded and under utilised does not mean you have to change the whole system of operation

radamfi · 25 Feb 2017

Teflon Lettuce said:
So in fact you are saying that, to all intents and purposes the local authority WILL design and specify the network!

It depends how prescriptive the tendering process is. You were complaining earlier that complete freedom for the bidders would be objected to by the taxpayers! I'm not sure how much more I can elaborate. Tendering is a normal process carried out by local and national governments across the world.

Teflon Lettuce said:
Quite apart from the fact that you STILL haven't answered my question as to what would happen with cross boundary services, especially where different councils want different specifications.

We already have cross-boundary tendered services so negotiation is required even now. Obviously in the Netherlands they have many cross-boundary services so negotiation is needed there too. If you insist that it is impossible for neighbouring authorities to co-operate, then I can't really put forward any counter argument.

Teflon Lettuce said:
There is perfectly adequate oversight provided for in the current legislation... the TC's and DVLA (or whatever it's called this week). Just because the regulatory bodies are underfunded and under utilised does not mean you have to change the whole system of operation

I'm really talking about operators offering a poor network of services rather than failing to meet legal requirements. For example, you were complaining about Arriva, because of what they did in Milton Keynes. You said they no longer offer an attractive network and you are unhappy about that. But presumably they don't fall foul of any TC rules.

Teflon Lettuce · 25 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
It depends how prescriptive the tendering process is. You were complaining earlier that complete freedom for the bidders would be objected to by the taxpayers! I'm not sure how much more I can elaborate. Tendering is a normal process carried out by local and national governments across the world..

I'm sorry but I have to correct you... your original argument was that local authorities would tender out operation of all services in their area on a block grant basis but that it would be up to the operators to design the network... I pointed out that to hand over money without any input or oversight would be untenable... you then said that of course the authority would specify minimum standards.. so you therefore contradicted your own argument... I only pointed out the fact

radamfi said:
We already have cross-boundary tendered services so negotiation is required even now. Obviously in the Netherlands they have many cross-boundary services so negotiation is needed there too. If you insist that it is impossible for neighbouring authorities to co-operate, then I can't really put forward any counter argument.

I am fully aware that we have a fair amount of cross border subsidised service already...but your proposals would increase that mileage many thousands of times...yes many councils can and do co-operate... but there are also many instances where they don't.

I'll give you a couple of examples:

there used to be a 2hrly sunday service on 61 Aylesbury- Ivinghoe- Edlesborough- Luton jointly subsidised by what was then Bucks CC and Beds CC. Beds CC wanted to save a bit of money by combining it with the 45 Luton-Whipsnade Zoo- Studham. Bucks refused. route was split into 2:
60 Luton-Studham-Whipsnade Zoo-Edlesborough
161 Aylesbury-Ivinghoe

Both ran 2 hrly. Both were next to useless. Both services withered away.

Then you can look at the wonderfully harmonious (not) relationship Luton Borough and Central Beds enjoy over the Luton-Dunstable Busway.... your proposals would be an absolute disaster for that conurbation... In fact so acrimonious has the relationship been it wouldn't surprise me if Central Beds would wait to see who Luton awarded the tender to and then issue their tender to anyone else apart from that operator!

radamfi said:
I'm really talking about operators offering a poor network of services rather than failing to meet legal requirements. For example, you were complaining about Arriva, because of what they did in Milton Keynes. You said they no longer offer an attractive network and you are unhappy about that. But presumably they don't fall foul of any TC rules.

please do not quote me out of context.... I was NOT complaining about what Arriva did in MK.... I did NOT complain that they no longer offer an attractive network... my point in that post was because the coucil kept interfering the operator changed hands from one who was network orientated (as someone else pointed out MK Metro was almost like a municipal in outlook) to one that ruthlessly looked at the bottom line and retreated to a core network meaning the local authority had to find more money to fund the same network

Bletchleyite · 25 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
For example, you were complaining about Arriva, because of what they did in Milton Keynes. You said they no longer offer an attractive network and you are unhappy about that.

TBH the main thing I'm unhappy with in MK is the quality of Arriva's operation - vehicles, cleaning, punctuality, damage repair, staff etc - they really are third-rate in almost all those areas (though some newer vehicles have arrived which are an improvement, I can't help to think they too will end up very tatty[1] in 5 years' time). I was less of a fan of Metro's "serve everywhere infrequently" approach[2], and I think Arriva's network of today is somewhat more useful. With regard to the tendered routes, most of the "fill the gaps" ones carry few if any passengers much of the time and are by and large a waste of money. There are some planning gain routes some of which are Arriva and some not, but that's different, it's a sort of kickstart.

The "fuzzy cross" thing never really went very far (in a way that was visible to the public, at least). The Council did push subsidised route 210 (which became the 8 on the Western end, now commercial and doing reasonably well for itself) but a north-south route was never really pursued.

[1] Metro, OTOH, had older vehicles but took real pride in their cleanliness and interior condition.

[2] I did like the way they considered it a network, though, and didn't really do route branding (the "easy 5" aside, which was more to promote the coming of low-floor), and the "simple but professional" look and feel that probably was fairly key to it looking like a municipal. However there were massive gaps - an example was that there was no connection between the estates of western MK and the Westcroft Centre (Morrisons, nee Safeway) except on evenings and Sundays when the Council tendered 3E operated. Arriva now have both the 8 and 2 serving it quite frequently, and naturally that connection is well used.

Teflon Lettuce · 25 Feb 2017

Neil Williams said:
TBH the main thing I'm unhappy with in MK is the quality of Arriva's operation - vehicles, cleaning, punctuality, damage repair, staff etc - they really are third-rate in almost all those areas (though some newer vehicles have arrived which are an improvement, I can't help to think they too will end up very tatty[1] in 5 years' time). I was less of a fan of Metro's "serve everywhere infrequently" approach[2], and I think Arriva's network of today is somewhat more useful. With regard to the tendered routes, most of the "fill the gaps" ones carry few if any passengers much of the time and are by and large a waste of money. There are some planning gain routes some of which are Arriva and some not, but that's different, it's a sort of kickstart.

The "fuzzy cross" thing never really went very far (in a way that was visible to the public, at least). The Council did push subsidised route 210 (which became the 8 on the Western end, now commercial and doing reasonably well for itself) but a north-south route was never really pursued.

[1] Metro, OTOH, had older vehicles but took real pride in their cleanliness and interior condition.

[2] I did like the way they considered it a network, though, and didn't really do route branding (the "easy 5" aside, which was more to promote the coming of low-floor), and the "simple but professional" look and feel that probably was fairly key to it looking like a municipal. However there were massive gaps - an example was that there was no connection between the estates of western MK and the Westcroft Centre (Morrisons, nee Safeway) except on evenings and Sundays when the Council tendered 3E operated. Arriva now have both the 8 and 2 serving it quite frequently, and naturally that connection is well used.

I can't really comment on the quality of Arriva's fleet or services now as I left Milton Keynes 8 yrs ago, before the big contraction in services... however if the way I was treated by management is anything to go by I should imagine that they have a very demoralised workforce.

The main problem with serving MK by bus is the scattered population coupled with many scattered centres. Whilst on the face of it MK Metro ran a low frequency anywhere to anywhere service with services running at 20-30 min frequencies there was a lot of logic to the way services intertwined to provide a higher frequency esp to CMK... and many estates in fact enjoyed services of 10-15 mins

ChathillMan · 25 Feb 2017

There are many small/rural communities up and down the land that have a relatively decent service purely as they are situated between two busy places on good bus routes.

But, how do you best serve the places that are "off the beaten track" for want of a better phrase? Costs/Dead mileage are issues that can't be ignored.

I was in Wooler, a small market town in North Northumberla with a population under 2000 which is 15-20 miles from the nearest "big town" and close to 60 miles to the nearest big city. I did wonder, what sort of bus service should it have?

Bletchleyite · 25 Feb 2017

Teflon Lettuce said:
I can't really comment on the quality of Arriva's fleet or services now as I left Milton Keynes 8 yrs ago, before the big contraction in services... however if the way I was treated by management is anything to go by I should imagine that they have a very demoralised workforce.

Yes, I have that impression - to clarify I wasn't blaming staff for their not being the best - most of the time it is usually caused by poor management.

The main problem with serving MK by bus is the scattered population coupled with many scattered centres. Whilst on the face of it MK Metro ran a low frequency anywhere to anywhere service with services running at 20-30 min frequencies there was a lot of logic to the way services intertwined to provide a higher frequency esp to CMK... and many estates in fact enjoyed services of 10-15 mins

Also true I suppose.

Bletchleyite · 25 Feb 2017

ChathillMan said:
I was in Wooler, a small market town in North Northumberla with a population under 2000 which is 15-20 miles from the nearest "big town" and close to 60 miles to the nearest big city. I did wonder, what sort of bus service should it have?

Hard to say without looking at travel demand (cars included).

johnnychips · 25 Feb 2017

What service does Wooler have, if any?

ChathillMan · 25 Feb 2017

johnnychips said:
What service does Wooler have, if any?

It has a bus every 1-2 hours to Alnwick. Every 1-2 hours to Berwick. A local service every 2 hours and three buses a week to Newcastle.

Shaw S Hunter · 26 Feb 2017

Richard1960 said:
I once took the disgraceful state of deregulated bus services up with my conservative MP they admitted deregulation was messy in our area (The deregulated cowboys got kicked off eventually by the regulator),they also said that it would be nice to put it back how it was , but the money was not there to do so.

Yet politicians of all persuasions are happy to spend £Billions each year on the railway network, some of which is spent on keeping open very lightly used routes. More people use buses each day than use trains yet the contribution the national bus "network" makes to the overall economy is seen as having little or no value. Utterly illogical.

Robertj21a · 26 Feb 2017

ChathillMan said:
It has a bus every 1-2 hours to Alnwick. Every 1-2 hours to Berwick. A local service every 2 hours and three buses a week to Newcastle.

I suppose that, for a population under 2,000 and out in the sticks, it's not really doing so badly. I haven't been to Wooler for many a year (it's rather out of the way......) and I think I'd need a car to live there permanently.

To my mind, one of the issues for residents in that type of area is to contemplate how they'll cope in their later years, and what happens if they can no longer drive themselves. I know some in similar circumstances who made a conscious decision to move back into a nearby town where far more facilities, plus bus and train, were readily available.

TheGrandWazoo · 26 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
Of course, you need to look at per capita usage, which would eliminate the effect of population changes. Also, I'm talking about outside the UK, not just London. Naturally you will say, "Of course they have good patronage. They have the funding."

Patronage outside London may have stopped falling for a while, but the patronage was still at an undesirably low level. I suppose we should really be looking at the patronage level itself rather than whether it had gone up or down. Someone consistently getting an A+ at school who "slips up" by getting an A- on occasion is still a better performer than someone who improves from an E to a C.

We are all in agreement that money is important. But what would you do with the money if regular European style funding was available in the UK? Would it be possible to spend it effectively in the deregulated system to achieve European levels of usage?

Given that London's population during the period 1986-2001 increased by >10% yet patronage was virtually unchanged, per capita use in that period actually declined.

The great growth in London is due mainly to two main areas:

Population growth
Subsidisation of fares

Don't believe me.... TfL said "half of the growth in passenger
journeys was attributable to the fares and ticketing strategies" in the early stage of 2001-3 when Livingstone increased the funding. The price sensitivity is especially pronounced now as "patronage growth has slowed, with much of the growth attributable to free travel schemes"

Now to take Teflon's view, it isn't as simple as throwing money at the situation. After all, we did that with a fully regulated model and that didn't work!

However, the fact is that there is a clear correlation between what we spend on public transport and patronage. The fact is that the government do not wish to spend anything so you can wiffle on about Holland and Germany as much as you like. The central issue is we're not prepared to spend the money as a nation.

edwin_m · 26 Feb 2017

Under the deregulated regime it's difficult or impossible for any body (outside London) to implement a step change in bus service funding. If it was done by commissioning more subsidised routes then parallel commercial operators would object, so the only option is to increase BSOG and concessionary rates and hope this results in better services rather than just increased profits for the operators. So while this might be a very cost-effective way of getting people out of cars it's probably not going to happen.

TheGrandWazoo · 26 Feb 2017

edwin_m said:
Under the deregulated regime it's difficult or impossible for any body (outside London) to implement a step change in bus service funding. If it was done by commissioning more subsidised routes then parallel commercial operators would object, so the only option is to increase BSOG and concessionary rates and hope this results in better services rather than just increased profits for the operators. So while this might be a very cost-effective way of getting people out of cars it's probably not going to happen.

It's not going to happen - that's the whole point of the thread. The government are continuing their walking away from funding bus services.

Bletchleyite · 26 Feb 2017

TheGrandWazoo said:
It's not going to happen - that's the whole point of the thread. The government are continuing their walking away from funding bus services.

But yet they retain some level of regulation which as I said doesn't really protect against predation and at the same time acts as a discouragement for small players to set up rural or other low-demand bus services themselves. The effect of that regulation is to mean that in most cases the market is only open to large players, those with deep pockets and cowboys.

I really think that needs revisiting. That I can think of at the moment two suggestions that would work well together might be:-

1. Allow for "trial services" which can be withdrawn at any time within up to say 56 days of first operation, after which existing rules would apply. Such services must be clearly designated as trial services, with this made clear to passengers.

2. Have a system like patents for completely new non-abstractive bus services, where they are protected from someone else registering a competing service for a specified period of time. This would remove the risk of another operator coming in to kill a service they didn't like early on.

Tetchytyke · 26 Feb 2017

Everyone knows it's 56 days, a mere 8 weeks, to cancel a service. If you're setting up a new service, you should have sufficient budgeting nous to be able to operate for those 56 days with zero income. If you don't, then I'd seriously question whether you are a fit and proper person to be operating a public bus service.

For one-man-and-a-dog operations, you're looking at 8 weeks petrol and lease costs, and leases normally last longer than 8 weeks. It's about planning for failure, and hoping against it.

ETA I do like the idea of giving new operators some protection from immediate competition, but any rules would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid them being abused.

Bletchleyite · 26 Feb 2017

Arctic Troll said:
Everyone knows it's 56 days, a mere 8 weeks, to cancel a service. If you're setting up a new service, you should have sufficient budgeting nous to be able to operate for those 56 days with zero income. If you don't, then I'd seriously question whether you are a fit and proper person to be operating a public bus service.

Why?

I don't have to do that if I am setting up any other type of small business (assuming I don't need to lease property - and most small businesses start at home where you don't). We should be reducing barriers to entry, not increasing them.

Precisely why *shouldn't* Bob operate his 8-seat "minibus" roughly once a week from his local village to town, provided he has a valid MoT and the appropriate insurance? It'd be a service that would respond well to local needs, and would substitute for them potentially otherwise having nothing at all.

What, unless you fully regulate, is the difference between running a bus service and a haircutting service? I could set the latter up tomorrow if I wasn't cack-handed with a pair of scissors. I could even set it up if I *was* cack-handed with a pair of scissors, but it wouldn't last very long.

ETA I do like the idea of giving new operators some protection from immediate competition, but any rules would have to be very carefully drafted to avoid them being abused.

Yes, I agree. There would need to be careful definition of what is and isn't abstractive.

RT4038 · 26 Feb 2017

Because 'Bob' might be a crook, unreliable, dangerous etc etc etc. Hence the system of Operators Licences. The registration notice period was once 42 days, but those of regulating bent lobbied to change to 56 days, so alternative arrangements could be made when changes/withdrawal were made. Government wants ENCTS to be valid on bus services, so 'Bob' must be reliable (in character and in service operation) - not some fly by night - to be in receipt of state money.

And why should 'Bob' have any advantages in the regulatory system over any more established operator, whether they have 1 minibus or 10,000 double deckers?

'Bob' of course will soon find that the 78p or thereabouts he receives for ENCTS passengers (likely 80 per cent of his load) [and then only after completing all sorts of documents and attending a few meetings taking up hours of his time] will soon sap his enthusiasm for his service, and one day will wake up in the morning and think 'I can't be bothered to run today'.

MedwayValiant · 26 Feb 2017

Robertj21a said:
I suppose that, for a population under 2,000 and out in the sticks, it's not really doing so badly.

Absolutely it isn't. There are a handful of small towns of 5,000 which don't have any service as frequent as hourly, and Wooler's not-quite-hourly service is probably adequate for its population of 1,980.

As a broad generalisation, places that sort of size tend to be better served in the north of England than they are in the south, although there are exceptions both ways.

Of the UK's 2,374 places which have a population of at least 2,374, only one has no public transport service whatsoever. It's Wynyard Village in Durham, but that is a fairly new gated community inhabited mostly by millionaires, and it's easy to understand why no one has felt it necessary to provide a bus service.

The vast majority of the rest have at least the level of service available to the people of Wooler. The handful that don't, that get only two or three buses a day, are mostly in Dorset and the Cotswolds.

radamfi · 26 Feb 2017

The major players in the industry don't want too much public funding as that makes the argument for greater public sector involvement stronger. They make enough money (for now) from urban bus services so they don't really need tendered routes. However, even big city services may well stop being profitable at some point and the begging bowl may come out at that point.

I wonder whether rules for existing taxi services would work to enable Neil to run an occasional village service, or with some minor amendment? Given that buses are becoming increasingly irrelevant, there may well be growing demand for an alternative to both conventional bus services and normal taxis. Obviously driverless taxis would lead to the end of most bus services as we know them but until then we might see shared taxis like UberPool become increasingly popular.

TheGrandWazoo · 26 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
The major players in the industry don't want too much public funding as that makes the argument for greater public sector involvement stronger. They make enough money (for now) from urban bus services so they don't really need tendered routes. However, even big city services may well stop being profitable at some point and the begging bowl may come out at that point.

You really do keep on this hobby horse of yours. Have you forgotten your contention just a few years ago that the way the industry was going (based on Surrey only) that bus services were going to be increasing reliant on the public purse.

The opposite to that has happened and if the government's ill-judged and ill-considered wish comes to pass, it will simply mean that the bus industry will be more commercially based/less subsidised than now, and those routes that aren't sustainable will simply disappear. No begging bowl - just gone.

Also, you should leave your own personal filter bubble. If you did, you'd know that the bus industry actually recognise the need for public sector support, they welcome it and the cuts being experienced now are not welcome especially those on evenings. Losing supported services then reduces both revenue/profit for those as well as undermining commercial services.

TheGrandWazoo · 26 Feb 2017

MedwayValiant said:
Absolutely it isn't. There are a handful of small towns of 5,000 which don't have any service as frequent as hourly, and Wooler's not-quite-hourly service is probably adequate for its population of 1,980.

As a broad generalisation, places that sort of size tend to be better served in the north of England than they are in the south, although there are exceptions both ways.

Of the UK's 2,374 places which have a population of at least 2,374, only one has no public transport service whatsoever. It's Wynyard Village in Durham, but that is a fairly new gated community inhabited mostly by millionaires, and it's easy to understand why no one has felt it necessary to provide a bus service.

The vast majority of the rest have at least the level of service available to the people of Wooler. The handful that don't, that get only two or three buses a day, are mostly in Dorset and the Cotswolds.

As an aside, the service provision to Wooler is much the same as it always has been since the mid 1980s (i.e. predating de-reg) for Alnwick and better towards Berwick. What has disappeared have been the basket case services to places like Kirk Yetholm.

Kuyoyo · 26 Feb 2017

MedwayValiant said:
Of the UK's 2,374 places which have a population of at least 2,374, only one has no public transport service whatsoever. It's Wynyard Village in Durham, but that is a fairly new gated community inhabited mostly by millionaires, and it's easy to understand why no one has felt it necessary to provide a bus service.

Wynyard did used to have a bus service - a 2 hourly Durham County Council Supprted service linking Ferryhill to Billingham. It ceased sometime in the early 2000s.

radamfi · 26 Feb 2017

TheGrandWazoo said:
If you did, you'd know that the bus industry actually recognise the need for public sector support, they welcome it and the cuts being experienced now are not welcome especially those on evenings. Losing supported services then reduces both revenue/profit for those as well as undermining commercial services.

Of course, everyone likes free money. But they don't want that money to come with too many strings. They will only tolerate a limited amount of public sector interference. As edwin_m stated earlier, it is difficult to spend a large amount of money in a deregulated environment, in the unlikely event of it becoming available.

The days of the bus are essentially over and we need to develop encourage and foster alternatives to conventional bus service.

Busaholic · 26 Feb 2017

TheGrandWazoo said:
As an aside, the service provision to Wooler is much the same as it always has been since the mid 1980s (i.e. predating de-reg) for Alnwick and better towards Berwick. What has disappeared have been the basket case services to places like Kirk Yetholm.

My sister-in-law lives in Alnwick, has never driven and can count the number of taxis/minicabs she's taken in her life, in the UK, on her fingers. She regularly uses her ENCTS pass (only recently issued owing to the gradual upward rise in age availability) and has no complaints about either the frequency or quality of bus service, which she also used when she had to pay.

TheGrandWazoo · 26 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
Of course, everyone likes free money. But they don't want that money to come with too many strings. They will only tolerate a limited amount of public sector interference. As edwin_m stated earlier, it is difficult to spend a large amount of money in a deregulated environment, in the unlikely event of it becoming available.

The days of the bus are essentially over and we need to develop encourage and foster alternatives to conventional bus service.

It's not free money and there are a myriad of things that can be done in the current environment. However, you would never countenance even considering them - a person who self selects what they will or will not read clearly cannot be relied upon to take a full, considered view.

For instance, we can extend free travel to under 19s? Or we can have a renewed Kickstart programme, with a gainshare mechanism? Put back the former funding for local authorities? Recut ENCTS so a flat fee is levied at source to each pensioner and this is hypothecated for public transport expenditure.

As for predictions, you've not been great with those so I'll not quite write off the bus industry just yet

Teflon Lettuce · 26 Feb 2017

radamfi said:
The days of the bus are essentially over and we need to develop encourage and foster alternatives to conventional bus service.

earlier in the thread you stated "buses are irrelevent"

on WHAT basis are you making these fatuous statements?

radamfi · 26 Feb 2017

TheGrandWazoo said:
For instance, we can extend free travel to under 19s? Or we can have a renewed Kickstart programme, with a gainshare mechanism? Put back the former funding for local authorities? Recut ENCTS so a flat fee is levied at source to each pensioner and this is hypothecated for public transport expenditure.

That's only tinkering around the edges and isn't remotely what we would call "proper funding".

TheGrandWazoo said:
As for predictions, you've not been great with those so I'll not quite write off the bus industry just yet

You've been basically saying that funding issues are causing serious problems for the industry causing many services to be withdrawn. If the bus industry will survive regardless of funding level, then stop worrying.

UK Bus Summit: Youre on your own

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

UK Bus Summit: Youre on your own