Former UN rapporteur claims UK bus privatisation breached basic rights

Bletchleyite · 22 Jul 2021

daodao said:
Only if one lives within a 10 minute walk of a major town centre like Altrincham or Macclesfield. It is not practicable if one lives 20 minutes walk away.

You've not come across bicycles before, then (or e-bikes)? A journey that would take 20-30 minutes to walk but can be cycled in 10-15 is pretty much the sweet spot for utility cycling - less than that and you might as well just walk by the time you've got your bike out of the shed and locked it up at the destination, more than that and it becomes a bit long/sweaty for most.

I'd say "but they prefer their Range Rovers down that way" - but cycling is also very popular among the middle classes these days.

Notably that's exactly the "sweet spot" my house to/from Bletchley station sits in - and that was a deliberate part of the choice of where to live!

RailUK Forums

daodao · 22 Jul 2021

Bletchleyite said:
Rangies

Please define - are you referring to a Chelsea tractor?

Bletchleyite · 22 Jul 2021

daodao said:
Please define - are you referring to a Chelsea tractor?

Yes, Range Rovers, I was playing a little on the stereotype that residents of leafy Cheshire prefer to drive everywhere in their large diesel 4x4s than use bicycles or public transport, but I was being a bit facetious as middle class people will use rail public transport (much less* so buses) and cycling is very popular in the middle classes.

* But not "not at all" - the quality approach Alex Hornby pushes seems to be quite good at getting all manner of people to use buses, including around super-posh Harrogate, but you aren't going to get them using whatever dented, rattling rubbish Arriva sees fit to chuck out.

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2021

I'm sure there are people reading this who walk everywhere and think nothing of walking 30 minutes to the station or town centre.

David Verity · 22 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
People who want to live such a lifestyle will move to an appropriate area where it is easier. However I'd be surprised if someone couldn't do all the things I just mentioned living in Altrincham or Sale, assuming flats near the tram stop exist in those areas (I presume they do, given their reputation as commuter havens). They can get a job in Manchester city centre and commute by tram which runs every 6 minutes. Supermarkets deliver there. Fibre broadband surely exists. Amazon lockers presumably exist. I'd be surprised if that area wasn't well served by Uber-style taxi firms.

It's been reported often that the city centre flat is all very well for young singles or couples - but many of the have their sights set on moving further out to larger properties when families come along - buses need to be attractive to complement their changing lifestyle.

philthetube · 22 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
Is cross-subsidy ever acceptable? What is the difference between cross-subsidy and simply 'subsidy'? For example, most local trains need public funding of some kind, whether in Britain or in most of the world. If we look at the rail franchises, some TOCs are almost exclusively local trains. Northern is always quoted as requiring a lot of subsidy. Commuter trains into London require less subsidy. Before Covid, we had some long distance franchises which required payments to be made to the government. These could be argued to be 'profitable'. However, we have mixed franchises such as GWR which have a mix of long-distance (so maybe profitable pre-Covid) and local trains (unprofitable). This kind of franchise sounds most like 'cross-subsidy', and therefore, by your logic, is the least desirable. However, the original franchise set-up had different franchises running the local trains in Devon and Cornwall and local trains out of Paddington, so that franchise has moved towards cross-subsidy. Having a single train company running most trains at Paddington or in Cornwall was seen as beneficial compared to them being split among more franchises. Of course, we could just say that railways as a whole lose money, so in reality we have (or had) Avanti West Coast cross-subsidising Northern if you look at the whole industry in the round, and obviously we'll have a unified national railway again soon.

Yes

If a route runs at a considerable profit through the day why shouldn't the operator of that route provide the service at other times at a loss providing the numbers add up overall.

The costs to the operator tend not to be as high as it initially appears as many journeys made using subsidised services are made on commercial journeys in one direction and would not be made if it were not possible to do it both ways.

Regulation is, however needed to prevent poaching.

GusB · 22 Jul 2021

I think we're drifting away from the original thread topic, which was privatisation breaching fundamental rights.

whoosh · 22 Jul 2021

philthetube said:
Yes

If a route runs at a considerable profit through the day why shouldn't the operator of that route provide the service at other times at a loss providing the numbers add up overall.

Well, this is it isn't it? The odd service here and there yes, but what often happens is:

"I've made my money during the day," says Mr First/Stagecoach/Arrival, "Do you want to be a good Council to your voters and pay up for the evening/Sunday services? Over to you!"
And, holding out a hand for payment, doesn't forget to add a bit of profit to the price to make it worth their while to agree to run these services.

daodao · 22 Jul 2021

Returning the topic, is this not just Pom-bashing, by someone who was recently appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia (equivalent to OBE) in the 2021 Queen's Birthday Honours.

There is no basic right to a public transport service. There would be fewer issues if the UK had better land-use/planning policies that assisted local public transport viability, but low density urban/suburban settlements are a particular feature of the Anglosphere.

carlberry · 22 Jul 2021

whoosh said:
Well, this is it isn't it? The odd service here and there yes, but what often happens is:

"I've made my money during the day," says Mr First/Stagecoach/Arrival, "Do you want to be a good Council to your voters and pay up for the evening/Sunday services? Over to you!"
And, holding out a hand for payment, doesn't forget to add a bit of profit to the price to make it worth their while to agree to run these services.

This is just how business works in a capitalist economy!

To get back to the original post; privatisation by itself had little effect on bus services, but did mean worsening conditions for a lot of the workers that were involved. However this equally applies to other industries or services that have been privatised.

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2021

daodao said:
There is no basic right to a public transport service. There would be fewer issues if the UK had better land-use/planning policies that assisted local public transport viability, but low density urban/suburban settlements are a particular feature of the Anglosphere.

You've said this a lot on various threads, but the UK and Ireland are quite different to the other English speaking countries. They are old places, so are dominated by terraced or semi-detached housing. Yes, there is car based development, but that exists even in European countries which are promoted as particularly exceptional when it comes to good planning. When you think about how few people live in Ireland, why are there so many small houses in their towns? They've got all the space in the world. There's more difference between the UK/Ireland and USA/Canada/Australia than between UK/Ireland and the rest of Europe in that respect. It's bizarre how so many people use low density as an excuse for poor transport in Britain. Not only are towns compact, as I just mentioned, population density in England (in particular) is one of the highest in the world.

daodao · 22 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
You've said this a lot on various threads, but the UK and Ireland are quite different to the other English speaking countries. They are old places, so are dominated by terraced or semi-detached housing. Yes, there is car based development, but that exists even in European countries which are promoted as particularly exceptional when it comes to good planning. When you think about how few people live in Ireland, why are there so many small houses in their towns? They've got all the space in the world. There's more difference between the UK/Ireland and USA/Canada/Australia than between UK/Ireland and the rest of Europe in that respect. It's bizarre how so many people use low density as an excuse for poor transport in Britain. Not only are towns compact, as I just mentioned, population density in England (in particular) is one of the highest in the world.

There is a big difference in housing density in the UK between areas developed before/after the First World War. Take the urban area of Hazel Grove in Stockport as an example. The main A6 road has densely packed terraced housing along it and for a short distance on either side; there used to be a tram as far as the Rising Sun pub (one of the last first-generation tramways in Greater Manchester) and it still has a very frequent unsubsidised bus service (route 192). There is a railway station close by. Further away from the A6 there is lower density modern housing, served just by subsidised bus routes generally only running hourly (evenings and Sundays excepted).

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2021

daodao said:
There is a big difference in housing density in the UK between areas developed before/after the First World War. Take the urban area of Hazel Grove in Stockport as an example. The main A6 road has densely packed terraced housing along it and for a short distance on either side; there used to be a tram as far as the Rising Sun pub (one of the last first-generation tramways in Greater Manchester) and it still has a very frequent unsubsidised bus service (route 192). There is a railway station close by. Further away from the A6 there is lower density modern housing, served just by subsidised bus routes generally only running hourly (evenings and Sundays excepted).

Is anyone saying there's no big houses in Britain? Of course there are some but you can't seriously claim that the mix of housing is similar to that in North American cities. In the US and Canada, a huge proportion of people live in detached houses. Even in the crime-ridden ghettos of big American cities like Detroit. That's the opposite of Britain, where hardly any social housing is detached. Britain is crowded, there isn't enough space for many people to live in detached houses, and most people can only dream of affording one. If you go to mainland European towns and cities, you get a mix of apartments, small and large houses. They don't all live in 'Commieblocks'.

Geordie driver · 22 Jul 2021

To get back to the original post, the gist of it as I understand it and from the headline is that poorer people outside London have had their right to access work, health and social interaction worsened as a result of privatisation. I would have added deregulation, since they went hand in hand in this country.

That many people in Britain had lost jobs and benefits, been forced to give up on education, or been cut off from communities and healthcare as bus services grew more expensive, unreliable, and dysfunctional after the 1985 reform, the inquiry found. He could also have added none existent.

If you want to find the reason this is thought ok, it's in the thread. Rail is seen as far more important. Why?

Because the movers and shakers, the people who make the decisions, top civil servants ( who make an awful lot of the decisions) business men, politicians, the media, they use the trains. They also might use the buses, but almost certainly in the still regulated London.

Buses outside London for poor people, shop workers, factory workers,health care workers, bin men, transport workers, the people who actually keep the country going as opposed to those who talk about it. Key workers I think they were called, by the happy clappers on a Thursday night.

daodao · 22 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
Is anyone saying there's no big houses in Britain? Of course there are some but you can't seriously claim that the mix of housing is similar to that in North American cities. In the US and Canada, a huge proportion of people live in detached houses. Even in the crime-ridden ghettos of big American cities like Detroit. That's the opposite of Britain, where hardly any social housing is detached. Britain is crowded, there isn't enough space for many people to live in detached houses, and most people can only dream of affording one. If you go to mainland European towns and cities, you get a mix of apartments, small and large houses. They don't all live in 'Commieblocks'.

While most post-WW1 housing in British suburbia may not be detached, it is semi-detached, laid out amongst significant areas of green parkland. This is too low density to support viable public transport. Using my previous Hazel Grove example, compare the A5143 and A6 on Google Streetview.

johncrossley · 22 Jul 2021

daodao said:
While most post-WW1 housing in British suburbia may not be detached, it is semi-detached, laid out amongst significant areas of green parkland. This is too low density to support viable public transport.

Evidence from other countries and outer London suggests otherwise. Unless you mean "commercially profitable" by "viable". Only Britain expects buses to be profitable, and even in Britain that's only outside London.

In any case, why are you so fixated with such areas? Bus companies seem to have problems serving many areas of high density, hence great dissatisfaction with deregulation in many urban areas.

Mikey C · 23 Jul 2021

Yes the bus system isn't good enough, and yes the 1986 changes caused many problems

But that was 35 years ago, so it seems weird to use the 1986 changes as a basis for a report, as any government since then could have changed the system or chosen to put more money into buses.

A0wen · 23 Jul 2021

Mikey C said:
Yes the bus system isn't good enough, and yes the 1986 changes caused many problems

But that was 35 years ago, so it seems weird to use the 1986 changes as a basis for a report, as any government since then could have changed the system or chosen to put more money into buses.

I think you're mistaken in your statement I've put in bold.

If you look at bus usage since 1950 - this thread has the graph I'm posting https://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2480/cycling/the-dominance-of-the-car/index.html

The biggest drop in bus usage was in the 1950s and 1960s - there were still falls through the 1970s and the fall actually slowed during the 1980s. Usage actually pretty much plateaued from 1990 onwards, yet many seem to be of the view the changes in 1986 accelerated decline, yet there's no evidence for that, if anything it's the opposite and decline slowed and stabilised post 1986.

carlberry · 23 Jul 2021

A0wen said:
I think you're mistaken in your statement I've put in bold.

If you look at bus usage since 1950 - this thread has the graph I'm posting https://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2480/cycling/the-dominance-of-the-car/index.html

The biggest drop in bus usage was in the 1950s and 1960s - there were still falls through the 1970s and the fall actually slowed during the 1980s. Usage actually pretty much plateaued from 1990 onwards, yet many seem to be of the view the changes in 1986 accelerated decline, yet there's no evidence for that, if anything it's the opposite and decline slowed and stabilised post 1986.

The figures show how little privatisation affected things, which was the original statement, however they mask the effects of deregulation which caused a dip immediately after it started before the figures for outside London reverted to their longer term trend over time.

At the same time however London (with the benefit of much higher subsidies and the introduction of the congestion charge) saw an increase in passengers numbers. However London's figures were declining over recent years as journeys got slower and the subsidy has reduced.

johncrossley · 23 Jul 2021

carlberry said:
At the same time however London (with the benefit of much higher subsidies and the introduction of the congestion charge) saw an increase in passengers numbers. However London's figures were declining over recent years as journeys got slower and the subsidy has reduced.

Privatisation and franchising of London's buses happened almost at the same time as deregulation outside London. From 1986 to 2000, passengers in London largely stayed the same but outside London they dropped dramatically. London buses were running at roughly break even during that time. There was no congestion charge until 2003. Subsidy was required for tendered services outside London, so deregulated buses were more expensive for the taxpayer than London buses over that period. Subsidy was only injected into London's buses once TfL came into being, which dramatically increased usage.

David Verity · 23 Jul 2021

carlberry said:
The figures show how little privatisation effected things, which was the original statement, however they mask the effects of deregulation which caused a dip immediately after it started before the figures for outside London reverted to their longer term trend over time.

At the same time however London (with the benefit of much higher subsidies and the introduction of the congestion charge) saw an increase in passengers numbers. However London's figures were declining over recent years as journeys got slower and the subsidy has reduced.

One suspects that this "revelation" has been fed into the public domain by those who would wish things to be how they were pre 1986. Anyone think of any names?

A0wen · 23 Jul 2021

carlberry said:
The figures show how little privatisation affected things, which was the original statement, however they mask the effects of deregulation which caused a dip immediately after it started before the figures for outside London reverted to their longer term trend over time.

At the same time however London (with the benefit of much higher subsidies and the introduction of the congestion charge) saw an increase in passengers numbers. However London's figures were declining over recent years as journeys got slower and the subsidy has reduced.

But if you look at the wider trend the drops were, rougly:

1950 - 59 ~42% > 30%
1960 - 69 30% > ~18%
1970 - 79 ~18% > ~10%
1980 - 89 ~10% > ~8%

Since 1989 it's remained steady at around 8%.

Privatisation and deregulation changed things no doubt, but there were *far* bigger drops in bus usage both proportional and absolute in the period when there was a highly regulated, largely state run bus service. Whereas the usage levels have remained fairly consistent for the last 30 or so years with a de-regulated, largely private operation.

Bletchleyite · 23 Jul 2021

Whether regulation is good or not depends how you regulate. If regulation just means some level of control, e.g. you have to get a Permit to operate your route and one won't be issued if someone already runs the route, then that would change very little. Whereas the fully-integrated German Verkehrsverbund (a bit like TfL but typically no mode-specific fares) model delivers excellent results albeit at a price.

What's interesting about the Verbund model is that it came about not as a statutory thing but as cartels of transport operators. I do wonder what would be gained as a result of simply abolishing competition law as related to bus operations? It'd be bad for the small guy but could deliver some benefits from co-operation.

johncrossley · 23 Jul 2021

A0wen said:
But if you look at the wider trend the drops were, rougly:

1950 - 59 ~42% > 30%
1960 - 69 30% > ~18%
1970 - 79 ~18% > ~10%
1980 - 89 ~10% > ~8%

Since 1989 it's remained steady at around 8%.

Privatisation and deregulation changed things no doubt, but there were *far* bigger drops in bus usage both proportional and absolute in the period when there was a highly regulated, largely state run bus service. Whereas the usage levels have remained fairly consistent for the last 30 or so years with a de-regulated, largely private operation.

Obviously bus usage was inevitably going to drop up from the 50s to the 80s, because people gradually owned more and more cars. That's the same in all developed countries. By the 90s, car ownership was reaching saturation levels, especially in the south. So from the 90s onwards you would expect lower falls in bus usage. The key statistic, which is rarely collected, is the amount of public transport usage by people who had a car available for their trip but chose not to use it. In London and in mainland European cities this is commonplace, but probably not in the UK outside London. Only a small percentage of people will not buy a car because public transport is good, in any country, so this is not a major factor. Basically people will buy a car because they can afford one. More likely they might not buy a car because owning one is impractical, like in some parts of London, and, by coincidence, those areas typically have good public transport.

A0wen · 23 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
Obviously bus usage was inevitably going to drop up from the 50s to the 80s, because people gradually owned more and more cars. That's the same in all developed countries. By the 90s, car ownership was reaching saturation levels, especially in the south. So from the 90s onwards you would expect lower falls in bus usage. The key statistic, which is rarely collected, is the amount of public transport usage by people who had a car available for their trip but chose not to use it. In London and in mainland European cities this is commonplace, but probably not in the UK outside London. Only a small percentage of people will not buy a car because public transport is good, in any country, so this is not a major factor. Basically people will buy a car because they can afford one. More likely they might not buy a car because owning one is impractical, like in some parts of London, and, by coincidence, those areas typically have good public transport.

Maybe so - but you've just ignored the point that there are many people claiming bus usage declined / collapsed under de-regulation / privatisation - whereas the simple fact is the largest decline happened at a time when things were heavily regulated and the industry was predominantly state owned - either as Transport Holding Company (Tilling etc) or National Bus Company plus Municipals.

johncrossley · 23 Jul 2021

A0wen said:
Maybe so - but you've just ignored the point that there are many people claiming bus usage declined / collapsed under de-regulation / privatisation - whereas the simple fact is the largest decline happened at a time when things were heavily regulated and the industry was predominantly state owned - either as Transport Holding Company (Tilling etc) or National Bus Company plus Municipals.

But there was a sudden, immediate and dramatic fall in usage in the main cities outside London immediately after 1986. These places had previously enjoyed heavily subsidised fares and variable levels of integration between bus and train. This is widely acknowledged by most people, whether or not you are pro-deregulation.

A0wen · 23 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
But there was a sudden, immediate and dramatic fall in usage in the main cities outside London immediately after 1986. These places had previously enjoyed heavily subsidised fares and variable levels of integration between bus and train. This is widely acknowledged by most people, whether or not you are pro-deregulation.

There wasn't a massive increase in fares (which would be the obvious effect of removing fare subsidies) - and if you think there was "integration between bus and train" then you really weren't alive in the UK in 1986 - because that is absolute nonsense outside of the cities / PTE areas, there really wasn't any - no through ticketing, no co-ordination between timetables, often no common siting of bus / train terminis the list goes on.

The one thing there *was* were some service reductions - but that tended to be the less well used services because the former NBC companies couldn't justify registering them as commercial operations - these tended to be either rural or evening / weekend services.

dm1 · 23 Jul 2021

daodao said:
There is no basic right to a public transport service.

This is where the fundamental disagreement lies between the British view of public transport and the view taken in much of Europe and the rest of the world. In several countries such a right is written into law.

That right ensures that everyone has a basic level of independence. The moment that right ceases to exist, you limit the ability to move around independently to those who can drive, have a driving licence and who own a car. That excludes a huge number of people, be that for economic, health or age reasons, among others, which are points made by the report.

Seen from this perspective, public transport is not a service that must be profitable at all costs, but rather a fundamental service that any developed society should aim to offer its citizens, much like other basic services like bin collection, public litter bins or traffic signals. Nobody expects a traffic light to turn a profit, but it still costs money to run.

Form this the idea follows that every settlement in the country, no matter how small should be offered a usable public transport service. For a small rural village, that could be a bus service every two hours to the nearest larger settlement, or even an on-demand service (at an accessible price), for inner city areas that is likely to be far more frequent. And that includes services in the evening and at weekends - people don't just travel to commute.

For this to work, there needs to be a nationwide public transport system that works as a whole and that is where deregulation and privatisation has failed Britain entirely.

That's not even mentioning the numerous ecological and environmental reasons why a functional public transport is crucial.

johncrossley · 23 Jul 2021

A0wen said:
There wasn't a massive increase in fares (which would be the obvious effect of removing fare subsidies) - and if you think there was "integration between bus and train" then you really weren't alive in the UK in 1986 - because that is absolute nonsense outside of the cities / PTE areas, there really wasn't any - no through ticketing, no co-ordination between timetables, often no common siting of bus / train terminis the list goes on.

I was talking about the PTE areas. These were the areas which accounted for a large proportion of the bus usage in England outside London before 1986, and these areas saw the biggest falls in usage immediately after 1986. Fares in some of these areas were ridiculously low, for example the famous 5p fare in Sheffield. In these areas, there were massive fare increases literally overnight. There was comprehensive integration in Tyne & Wear. There were more half-hearted attempts at integration elsewhere, for example timed connections between bus and trains at Altrincham and ability to use the West Yorkshire SaverStrip on both buses and trains, with a very cheap West Yorkshire DayRover for something like £1 covering both buses and trains. In Greater Manchester, where fares were relatively high even before deregulation, there was huge loss in patronage due to passenger confusion due to constantly changing services and the poor quality of many of the competing operators. The ClipperCard system was largely abandoned soon after deregulation leading to huge effective fare rises for many.

I just created this graph from

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/929560/bus0103.ods

You can see the fall in bus usage in the PTE areas was halted in the early 80s and passenger numbers stabilised, but after 1986 there was a dramatic fall.

Dai Corner · 23 Jul 2021

johncrossley said:
I was talking about the PTE areas. These were the areas which accounted for a large proportion of the bus usage in England outside London before 1986, and these areas saw the biggest falls in usage immediately after 1986. Fares in some of these areas were ridiculously low, for example the famous 5p fare in Sheffield. In these areas, there were massive fare increases literally overnight.

Ridiculously low fares lead to artificially high ridership and more realistic ones result in a reduction. Fancy that!

Former UN rapporteur claims UK bus privatisation breached basic rights

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Attachments

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member