There are scarce resources amongst LA’s, Devolved Governments and indeed most of the Bus Companies at the moment. Surely, a partnership between the major bus players in Wales and either the Welsh Counties and or the the Assembly to create a system (underpinned by Law) is the best way forward. I’m not looking for a reincarnated Crosville et al,to come back but to make the most of scarce resources for the benefit of the Welsh people. London style? I don’t think that is the appropriate model.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Welsh government to reverse bus deregulation
- Thread starter sefyllian
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think unified ticketing[1] and timetabling is the key thing. This includes prohibiting bus companies from undercutting interavailable tickets, as otherwise the whole model breaks down.
Who actually operates it is somewhat secondary.
[1] I'd actually suggest Wales moves to a system of fully unified bus and rail ticketing - i.e. a zonal Verbundtarif for the entire country - with only tickets that cross the border into England being under RSP at all. The patchy rail network means buses are important to many through journeys, far more so than in England or Scotland.
How does the model break down? Why should somebody who wants a few local journeys on one company have to pay the same price as an all Wales ticket? Otherwise just make an all Wales ticket cheaper by subsidising it, problem cured!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It breaks down because it means the price of the interavailable ticket ends up artificially high.
It wouldn't be one fare level for the whole of Wales, it would be either zonal or based on distance in some way. The key is that you should pay exactly the same[1] for a journey of that distance/number of zones on a single bus vehicle as you should pay if it involves five buses and a train, as it's not the passenger's fault that they don't get a direct single-bus, single-company journey.
[1] Not necessarily the same in GBP as there may be peak/off peak etc, or even Advances, but the point is that there should be no financial penalty to those who already have a convenience penalty from needing to change.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
There are a range of all operators tickets for SE Wales, North Wales, West Wales but not surprisingly, operators promote their own offerings. I don’t have a problem with paying a premium for flexibility but a partnership where these are promoted would seem a sensible way forward. This is, of course, not particular to Wales!
As an example, First’s website has ticket prices but only for their tickets; multi operator tickets are on another page! On bus publicity is equally skewed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But it isn't "flexbility" and it isn't a premium product. Many journeys can only be made by combining services of different operators and different modes. In an integrated public transport system (which is to me the best kind) passengers needing to do this should not be penalised further by having to pay more for their fare.
The idea that an any-operator ticket is for "flexibility" is an enthusiast's game - "look, I can ride on twice as many buses/trains". Non-enthusiast passengers simply want to make a given journey, and so the fairest way of charging this is based roughly on distance (be that zonal or directly) - not based on the arbitrary set of operators or modes that enable them to make it.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
You may want to look at the French model, where I believe an operator effectively gets monopoly powers in a particular area for a specified period and has the freedom to develop as well as to operate the network (obviously subject to various restrictions to prevent exploitation). Cities in the UK where there is a dominant operator are in a similar position, but minus the protections for passengers.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Flexibility, whether it be a bus journey or any other facet of life, usually attracts a premium. If I wish to travel on any train or plane at any time, that should be the same price?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You're completely missing the point, possibly deliberately. It's not about travelling on any train at any time. It's about being able to make a given public transport journey, not about flexibility.
It is fundamentally unfair that if someone in Cardiff, say, wants to make a journey from A to B, of say five miles with a direct bus service, should be charged less than someone wanting to make a journey from A to C which is also five miles but requires bus-train-bus.
They are already being disadvantaged by the lack of provision. Why also disadvantage them in the fares system?
The fair and correct way to do local public transport fares is that any journey at a given time of day between two points five miles apart should cost the same regardless of how that journey is made. And in civilised countries that know how to do public transport, that's exactly how it is.
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,638
Your proposal would effectively mean if I travel from Bangor to Cardiff by bus, I could have to pay the same as someone who takes the far faster and more comfortable train. Currently, there is a price advantage to encourage people to travel by bus or coach, to offset the longer journey time. Without it, why would anyone take the bus?
I think the Cardiff residents who find their A to B bus fares going up to match the A to C bus-train-bus fares might have something to say about this proposal!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Is that a local public transport journey?
But why would you want to incentivise them to use the coach when the train is better?
It's only fair, though.
There is a big difference between the need for an interavailable day ticket being more expensive than an operators day ticket and the concept that journeys needing a change shouldn't have a price disadvantage. Either way introducing any rule like this means an increase for some people because the price is now fixed at a certain level and an operator cant discount that either for it's own group of services or even to promote a single service. The issue isn't stopping operators undercutting a national scheme it's where is the subsidy coming from to ensure that national day ticket, or nationally set ticket prices, are set at the lowest practical value, not so that the residents of Cardiff have to pay more so the residents of Powys don't have to.
Fair rarely wins votes and (in Cardiff) just means more car journeys.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
But fewer from those people who find their journey more viable in a coordinated network than just a collection of separate routes?
Here's a clue as to who's got it right.
EU countries with fully deregulated bus services:
- UK
EU countries with regulated bus services:
- All of the others
(Not all have fares coordination etc, but it's only us that have a free-for-all)
The whole point of integrated fares and integrated networks is to attract people who currently don't use the bus/train combo or bus/bus combo because it is too expensive or interchange is too poor. Even if some people who currently have a direct bus have to pay more, and therefore some passengers are lost, new passengers gained would hopefully outweigh that, because there are vastly more journeys possible by changing than by direct bus.
Look at it another way. If integrated fares aren't more optimal, then Zurich, for example, would be better off introducing cheaper tickets for direct bus or tram services.
Even in Britain we allow many connections free of charge. For example, a tram from Oldham to Piccadilly is the same price as a tram from Oldham to St Peter's Square, even though the former requires a change. But because it is a tram to tram connection, nobody thinks that's weird. Yet when you suggest that a similar bus to bus or bus to tram interchange should not be penalised, that's somehow different.
Last edited:
But isn't that similar to the model we had between 1930 and 1986? The bus companies (either municipal, state or privately owned) were given monopoly powers in a particular area and had the freedom to develop as well as operate the network (subject to various restrictions). As often with these things, it started off reasonably equitably, but as circumstances changed the 'various restrictions' started to distort the market. In spite of a considerable amount of state control in one way or another, it did not exactly produce an integrated transport system, or able to cope with the significant demand changes from the 1960s onward.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It sounds similar with the important difference that the operators had an indefinite tenure (until the law was changed) whereas in France the operating concession is re-let from time to time. In my view a degree of public oversight is essential to prevent this sort of thing happening. But there is a debate to be had about exactly how that works ranging from the London model of tight specification through to something like the French model where the operator is effectively in charge for a period. But I consider any of these options would be better than the current system.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
We run the risk here of disappearing down the usual rabbit hole and, as always, we have had the par exemplar of Zurich thrown into the mix. As if Brexit hasn't highlighted the differences enough (and I don't want a debate on that), there is a completely different ethos in Europe. They are prepared to SPEND public money on creating a cogent connected public transport network whilst, in the UK, the Tories have pursued a policy of hollowing out the state. We are spending less, even in London.
Also, you look at how social policies are constructed in many European municipal areas in terms of sustainable development etc. We just don't do that - there is a god given right (it seems) to not only drive your tin box around and then to abandon it as close to your house as possible. Culturally, we are very different and sadly, our politicians (with a few exceptions) will not upset the voters by a) spending more money (or at least not when there are more "deserving" causes) and b) constrain some aspects of car use if only by levelling out the playing field.
FFS, we've not seen a fuel duty increase in the budget since 2011 because we don't wish to penalise "hard pressed families" aka voters yet bus fares have had to increase as wages and pensions increased for staff AND BSOG has been reduced PLUS twirly pass remuneration has been slashed WITH other legislative requirements also being introduced.
To be absolutely honest, the UK bus industry provides a decent product DESPITE government policy and the relative lack of funding.
Therefore, the idea that somehow, the Welsh Government, Andy Burnham or anyone can suddenly provide a London style network without the funding is tantamount to alchemy!
krus_aragon
Established Member
Is Wales is inching its way towards changing that? The current Welsh Government was certainly ahead of the UK Government in deciding to change the way rail franchising was carried out, and established a brand (TfW) that would suit a remit beyond just trains.
Perhaps Mark Drakeford is looking to re-establish some of that "clear red water" that Rhodri Morgan once spoke of.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Quite possibly. England has long pushed the right-of-centre "leave them to it" approach, but Scotland is leading a move away from that, and while Welsh politics doesn't have quite as much of a gulf between it and England as Scottish ones do there is in my view certainly a move that way.
TubeMapCentral
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 103
Think "fair" has to be the most abused word in the English language today: if something is declared to be fair by an individual, it usually means "satisfies my personal vested interests and prejudices". Try travelling from Rotterdam to Den Haag by NS Rail for the same price as RET metro and see how far you get.
New Zealand is an even more extreme case than the UK in terms of car dependence, land use and general Anglo-Saxon culture, yet they managed to get rid of bus deregulation and introduce an integrated fare system. Even in Switzerland car culture exists and they can pretty much drive anywhere they want. They have much lower fuel duty there as well. There are always excuses why Britain has to be worse than everywhere else, such as population density and suburban development, yet when you actually do proper comparisons the excuses really are just excuses.
Rail fares are not integrated with metro fares in the Netherlands (not ideal I agree) but metro, bus and tram are integrated. Belgium is the same except in Brussels with its Jump ticket.
That is subjective. For many the train will be better but there are many reasons why, for others the coach may be better. It is about the most appropriate mode for the person travelling.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The Netherlands offers different prices per km for each mode but only charges the "start" fee once, so they again (in a different way) don't penalise changes of mode. That model would work too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And if they're the same price, they can choose based on which they prefer if they do have a preference. That preference may be because it's quicker or it might be something else. I often change to the LNR service at Crewe even on an Any Permitted ticket, for instance, because I like to settle into a priority seat with the laptop and get some stuff done and avoid the change at MKC for Bletchley (there's one that calls at Bletchley in the early evening, or was).
I have no issue with fares not being integrated. When I travelled in the Netherlands I was able to look up fares for different modes/operators and use the universally accepted ov-chipkaart on any of them which was of far greater benefit to me.
And if they're not the same price they can still choose, not necessarily solely on cost grounds as your example shows.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Also true, however what you don't want to be doing is penalising people for having to use two modes/operators - this is the massive issue with having multiple operators with their own fares systems. The Dutch system doesn't - you pay a flat "starting rate", then a per-kilometre fare set by each operator. While that wouldn't be my preference, it is certainly a workable option that fixes the cross-operator "penalty for changing" issue while still allowing operators to compete with different per-km fares if they wish.
Cardiff123
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,318
There's a lot of difference between Welsh and English politics if you look close enough.
There's no privatisation or competition in the Welsh NHS, with health boards overseeing local services, not trusts.
No privatisation in the education system - no foundation schools or academies, Wales has kept the comprehensive school system and only has a handful of private schools.
Free prescriptions for all, bus passes at 60, free museum entry.
A much more generous higher education financial support package for undergraduates and postgraduates, including generous grants.
Votes at 16 will be introduced at council elections and soon for elections to the Welsh Assembly, soon to be called Welsh Parliament.
And after much wrangling with Westminster, control over public transport has been devolved (although not rail infrastructure apart from the 'Core Valley lines', but Welsh Govt continues to push hard for this) and we're now seeing long overdue reforms to public transport. Transport for Wales is definitely going to grow it's responsibilities now it's not distracted with awarding and setting up the new rail franchise, and I would like to see it take over control of running Wales' bus network, particularly in the bigger towns and cities. Municipal operators like Cardiff and Newport Bus won't like being taken over, but this was part of Ken Skates' original plans for TfW when it was set up, but perhaps after pushback from councils, these plans seemed to have been dropped.
But if Wales' wants a truly integrated public transport system like London, TfW controlling/overseeing all public transport in Wales under one brand makes most sense to present an integrated and unified network to the public.
- Status