Labour's Plan for buses

YorkRailFan · 11 Apr 2024

Labour promises to allow every community to take back control of local bus services – The Labour Party

Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh MP, has today [Thursday 11 April 2024] set out the party’s plans for a better busnetwork across England, with a promise to allow every community across the country to take back control of local bus services. Labour’s plan could create and save up...

labour.org.uk

Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh MP, has today [Thursday 11 April 2024] set out the party’s plans for a better busnetwork across England, with a promise to allow every community across the country to take back control of local bus services.

Labour’s plan could create and save up to 1,300 vital bus routes and allow 250 million more passenger journeys per year compared to today’s failed system. It will also bring an end to the postcode lottery of bus services by providing safeguards over local networks across the country.

The plan will also see better buses delivered faster, with franchising done in as little as two years. Greater Manchester endured a six-year slog due to unnecessary barriers imposed by central government.

Since buses were deregulated in 1985, bus services in England’s regions outside London have collapsed, with:

1.5 billion fewer annual bus journeys in 2019 than in 1985
Almost 300 million fewer miles driven by buses per year since 2010
Thousands of bus services cut since 2010
Labour’s plans will ensure better value for money for the taxpayer, deliver a better service for passengers and give local authorities a choice over the bus system that works best for them. It will require no additional central government spending.

Where bus franchising is in place, in London and Greater Manchester, buses have thrived. Greater Manchester has already improved reliability and significantly grown passenger numbers less than a year after bus franchising went live.

Speaking at a launch event in the West Midlands with Labour’s Mayoral candidate, Richard Parker, Louise Haigh is expected to say that, during its first term, a Labour Government will pass new legislation to support local transport authorities to take back control of their bus services and has set out a five-point plan to deliver better buses. Labour will:

1. Empower local transport authorities and reform funding: by giving local leaders more control and flexibility over bus funding and allowing them to plan ahead to deliver their local transport priorities.

2. Allow every community to take back control of their buses:by removing barriers that currently limit bus franchising powers only to metro mayors.

3. Accelerate the bus franchising process: by supporting local leaders to deliver better buses, faster.

4. Step in to safeguard local bus networks: by providing more accountability over bus operators and ensuring standards are raised wherever you live across the country.

5. Support public ownership: by removing the Conservatives’ ideological ban on publicly owned bus companies and building on the success of award-winning public bus services still in operation.

Louse Haigh MP, Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, said:

“Reliable, affordable and regular buses are the difference between opportunity and isolation for millions of people across the country.

“Four decades of disastrous deregulation of Britain’s buses has robbed communities of a say over the vital services that they depend on, instead handing power to unaccountable private operators who have slashed services.

“Labour will give every community the power to take back control of their bus services, and will support local leaders to deliver better buses, faster.

“Labour’s plans will create and save vital routes and services, end today’s postcode lottery of bus services, and kickstart a revival of busservices across England.”

Richard Parker, Labour’s candidate for West Midlands Mayor, said:

“Under the Conservatives thousands of vital bus services have disappeared and local communities have been left powerless, with no tools to hold operators to account.

“As Mayor of the West Midlands I will end this broken system and bring our buses back under public control.

“With a Labour Mayor for the West Midlands, and a Labour Government in Westminster, we can work together to deliver better buses, faster.”

This is already being looked into in Merseyside, West Yorkshire, Wales, and South Yorkshire which all either have Labour Mayors or a Labour controlled Parliament. It is already happening in Manchester and London which both have Labour Mayors. The plan, however, does not mention how this would be funded and would not fall in line with Starmer's plan to continue Tory Austerity. This will be harder to achieve in Tory ran areas as this does not follow the Tories idea on buses.

RailUK Forums

Mollman · 12 Apr 2024

Basically it is a rehash of previous announcements. Making it easier for non-mayoral authorities to franchise, making the franchise process quicker and removing the current ban on new municipal bus companies.

HullRailMan · 12 Apr 2024

Oh dear, a Swiss cheese plan with plenty of holes. Of particular interest is the line saying “it will require no additional central government spending”. Essentially, giving local authorities the power but not the means to deliver it, allowing central government to blame local councils if it doesn’t happen.

Incidentally, I’m not sure what the “Tory austerity” you refer to is - the current government has consistently expanded the scope of the state and has given us record high taxes while government continues to borrow - the state living beyond its means is not austerity.

baza585 · 12 Apr 2024

Mollman said:
Basically it is a rehash of previous announcements. Making it easier for non-mayoral authorities to franchise, making the franchise process quicker and removing the current ban on new municipal bus companies.

Haigh is not bright enough to come up with anything innovative or radical.

Leyland Bus · 12 Apr 2024

HullRailMan said:
Oh dear, a Swiss cheese plan with plenty of holes. Of particular interest is the line saying “it will require no additional central government spending”. Essentially, giving local authorities the power but not the means to deliver it, allowing central government to blame local councils if it doesn’t happen.

Incidentally, I’m not sure what the “Tory austerity” you refer to is - the current government has consistently expanded the scope of the state and has given us record high taxes while government continues to borrow - the state living beyond its means is not austerity.

Nothing to do with all the money being syphoned out the public purse and poured down the drain into Tories mates coffers... :rolleyes:

yorksrob · 12 Apr 2024

HullRailMan said:
Oh dear, a Swiss cheese plan with plenty of holes. Of particular interest is the line saying “it will require no additional central government spending”. Essentially, giving local authorities the power but not the means to deliver it, allowing central government to blame local councils if it doesn’t happen.

Incidentally, I’m not sure what the “Tory austerity” you refer to is - the current government has consistently expanded the scope of the state and has given us record high taxes while government continues to borrow - the state living beyond its means is not austerity.

Giving local authorities the responsibility to do stuff while removing funding - that's Tory policy towards local councils for the last fifteen years, so Tory apologists have no business accusing anyone else of such.

The Ham · 12 Apr 2024

HullRailMan said:
Oh dear, a Swiss cheese plan with plenty of holes. Of particular interest is the line saying “it will require no additional central government spending”. Essentially, giving local authorities the power but not the means to deliver it, allowing central government to blame local councils if it doesn’t happen.

Incidentally, I’m not sure what the “Tory austerity” you refer to is - the current government has consistently expanded the scope of the state and has given us record high taxes while government continues to borrow - the state living beyond its means is not austerity.

If a local council requires a bus route they provide subsidy over which they have limited control over.

By tendering to provide a service and then given the income they may well actually get a better service for no extra cost. With a better services then you'll likely see more people using buses, which then generates more income which can be used to provide more services.

There's also the chance that you get more joined up thinking - for example by creating bus stop improvements which reduce dwell times this saves the councils money long term, which they can then use to improve frequencies.

JKP · 12 Apr 2024

Mollman said:
Basically it is a rehash of previous announcements. Making it easier for non-mayoral authorities to franchise, making the franchise process quicker and removing the current ban on new municipal bus companies.

Thé Scottish Govt already allow local authorities to set up their own municipal operators under the Transport Act 2019. However surprise surprise none have yet done so.

RT4038 · 12 Apr 2024

The Ham said:
If a local council requires a bus route they provide subsidy over which they have limited control over.

What makes you say they have limited control? A Council can have as much control now as they can afford over a bus route they require.

The Ham said:
By tendering to provide a service and then given the income they may well actually get a better service for no extra cost. With a better services then you'll likely see more people using buses, which then generates more income which can be used to provide more services.

Local Authorities can tender a service and get the revenue now if they want to. Generally they don't, because they don't want to take the risk, and prefer to pay bus companies to do that. Taking the risk potentially makes the budgeting process more difficult, which is why they don't want to. Why would that be any different in the future?

The Ham said:
There's also the chance that you get more joined up thinking - for example by creating bus stop improvements which reduce dwell times this saves the councils money long term, which they can then use to improve frequencies.

A fairly remote chance. It may just as easily result in worsening bus stop positions as bus operator objections and criticisms will be eliminated, and dissent muted by pressure between local government officers.

yorksrob · 12 Apr 2024

RT4038 said:
What makes you say they have limited control? A Council can have as much control now as they can afford over a bus route they require.

Local Authorities can tender a service and get the revenue now if they want to. Generally they don't, because they don't want to take the risk, and prefer to pay bus companies to do that. Taking the risk potentially makes the budgeting process more difficult, which is why they don't want to. Why would that be any different in the future?

A fairly remote chance. It may just as easily result in worsening bus stop positions as bus operator objections and criticisms will be eliminated, and dissent muted by pressure between local government officers.

I thought the whole point of deregulation was that the private sector had first dibs on any profitable routes, and only then could local authorities step in to subsidise what wasn't profitable ?

YorkRailFan · 13 Apr 2024

baza585 said:
Haigh is not bright enough to come up with anything innovative or radical.

To be fair to Haigh, she has to walk a fine line between changing transport (hopefully for the better) and not being too radical so to keep in line with Starmer and Reeves' economic and spending policies.

RT4038 · 13 Apr 2024

yorksrob said:
I thought the whole point of deregulation was that the private sector had first dibs on any profitable routes, and only then could local authorities step in to subsidise what wasn't profitable ?

Yes, perhaps I am overthinking this. The Council can, currently, have complete control over any bus route they require (although they don't necessarily exercise such completeness), but they only have limited control over the entire bus network (depending on how much commerciality there is).

Titfield · 13 Apr 2024

yorksrob said:
I thought the whole point of deregulation was that the private sector had first dibs on any profitable routes, and only then could local authorities step in to subsidise what wasn't profitable ?

I thought the rationale was that NBC had spent almost their entire existence managing decline. Opening up the market to competition would attempt to reverse this decline by encouraging a more commercial approach. Allowing staff at the nbc subsidiaries to purchase the business would give them a stake in the business and encourage them to innovate and develop their business winning back traffic lost to the private car. Like BR, many NBC subsidiaries had poor productivity and low fleet utilisation. It is worth reading Brian Souters account of what he found and what he did to improve matters. Two items have always struck me: (1) Brians comment about overhauling engines - that he could ring up a commercial remanufacturers and they could deliver a replacement engine in 24 hours at far less cost than what NBCs own engineering works could (2) that coach operation in many NBC companies had been losing considerable sums of money which was hidden in the accounts. (Tom McLachlan author of the 2 volumes about Grey Green makes much the same point about Southdown's coach operations).

yorksrob · 13 Apr 2024

Titfield said:
I thought the rationale was that NBC had spent almost their entire existence managing decline. Opening up the market to competition would attempt to reverse this decline by encouraging a more commercial approach. Allowing staff at the nbc subsidiaries to purchase the business would give them a stake in the business and encourage them to innovate and develop their business winning back traffic lost to the private car. Like BR, many NBC subsidiaries had poor productivity and low fleet utilisation. It is worth reading Brian Souters account of what he found and what he did to improve matters. Two items have always struck me: (1) Brians comment about overhauling engines - that he could ring up a commercial remanufacturers and they could deliver a replacement engine in 24 hours at far less cost than what NBCs own engineering works could (2) that coach operation in many NBC companies had been losing considerable sums of money which was hidden in the accounts. (Tom McLachlan author of the 2 volumes about Grey Green makes much the same point about Southdown's coach operations).

The difference being that when Brian Souter tried the same thing with South West Trains, he found out that it wasn't that inefficient at all and he ended up sacking too many drivers.

But my point remains - my understanding of bus deregulation is that if a private operator thinks it can run a service profitably, it can do so and a local authority must step aside.

greenline712 · 13 Apr 2024

At the risk of thread drift, although still on topic-ish, Local Transport Authorities can have as much control over the "network" as they wish to pay for. By discussing future plans (in detail) with the commercial sector, they can exercise some control over frequencies and routes, although this would need to be done in real-time, not as part of some nebulous "wish-list" by councillors.

One of the beauties of deregulation initially was that routes could be amended to "follow the passenger" at reasonable notice (6 weeks, now of course 10 weeks). By comparison, look at TfL, where every route adjustment requires "consultation" . . . which can take up to 12 months, by which time the original concept has been so watered down as to be useless. Will Manchester be any different? We'll have to wait and see . . .

Back in the day, in around 1988, London Country North West believed that a (commercial) local route in Watford was only worthy of a 3BPH service (every 20 minutes), and registered the timetable accordingly. Herts CC disagreed, and issued a tender to provide a 4th bus each hour, which LCNW won. Unfortunately, the only way the timetable could work was to have a 20-20-10-10 headway; to do anything else would disrupt interworking arrangements with other local routes on the commercial network.
The extra trips lasted one year . . .

Back on topic . . . if Labour wish to facilitate every LTA to become a franchisor, bring it on!! Perhaps then they'll realise what a decent deal they had with deregulation . . . no need to make a profit, however small, to satisfy shareholders and the City; no need to continually re-evaluate networks and timetables to maintain their relevance; (and most of all) the ability to blame those nasty private bus companies, creaming off profits which could be used to improve services . . . As noted upthread, the franchising powers have been around for some years, and we've hardly been trampled in the rush.

Not that I'm cynical, mind . . .

buslad1988 · 13 Apr 2024

Also worth bearing in mind the more control you give governments/councils over local bus networks the more of a political issue they’ll become every election time.

I know of a local municipal in England (won’t name it) who are basically bound to not alter routes or make cuts to their network every time local/national elections are about to be held due to councillors fearing for their seats.

This is what happens when there’s too much interference and interest from people who have no idea or concept of how to run a successful commercial bus service.

It’s like the concessionary fares scheme… no government dares threaten it however each year the reimbursement dwindles and more border line services become unprofitable as a result. Yet no one wants to pay for it or carry the can.

The position Transport for London have got themselves into begging for more money from central government should ring alarm bells for the likes of Greater Manchester and soon to be West Yorkshire. Franchising is not the be all and end all - bus priority measures should be the issue to address first (again deeply unpopular though).

I’m sure Labour will push for more control over bus services in general. I wish them all the success but any damage it causes could be seriously hard to undo further down the line. Bus services will be the next NHS, schools, rail issue where the burden will fall on the taxpayer.

yorksrob · 13 Apr 2024

buslad1988 said:
Also worth bearing in mind the more control you give governments/councils over local bus networks the more of a political issue they’ll become every election time.

I know of a local municipal in England (won’t name it) who are basically bound to not alter routes or make cuts to their network every time local/national elections are about to be held due to councillors fearing for their seats.

This is what happens when there’s too much interference and interest from people who have no idea or concept of how to run a successful commercial bus service.

As a bus user, I want it to be politically difficult to cut bus services.

greenline712 · 13 Apr 2024

yorksrob said:
As a bus user, I want it to be politically difficult to cut bus services.

Why? If the bus route in question carries very few passengers, and has done so for some time ... the route is no longer fit for purpose and should be closed. By all means set a target, be it financial (cost vs fares) or passenger numbers (<10 pax/service hour); but if the target isn't met, then end of route.
Otherwise we're back to NBC days, when routes were allowed to wither away for years, wasting money all the way.

yorksrob · 13 Apr 2024

greenline712 said:
Why? If the bus route in question carries very few passengers, and has done so for some time ... the route is no longer fit for purpose and should be closed. By all means set a target, be it financial (cost vs fares) or passenger numbers (<10 pax/service hour); but if the target isn't met, then end of route.
Otherwise we're back to NBC days, when routes were allowed to wither away for years, wasting money all the way.

Because otherwise it won't be based on how many passengers a route carries, it will be based on how profitable it is.

I've seen a few routes cut around my way over the last couple of years and they hadn't been carrying fresh air.

buslad1988 · 13 Apr 2024

greenline712 said:
Why? If the bus route in question carries very few passengers, and has done so for some time ... the route is no longer fit for purpose and should be closed. By all means set a target, be it financial (cost vs fares) or passenger numbers (<10 pax/service hour); but if the target isn't met, then end of route.
Otherwise we're back to NBC days, when routes were allowed to wither away for years, wasting money all the way.

Precisely this. There has to be some emphasis if taken into local government control that (atleast a high % proportion) of services make a profit. However I do agree the more lucrative routes should subsidise a degree of borderline of services. After all what a bus company should be selling is a network which provides good value; not just a particular route. This enables connectivity and makes bus travel a more viable option against the car. Currently some operators fail to recognise this!

There also has to be a degree of being willing to change - you can’t just keep services indefinitely running to a set route just because that’s how they’ve always been. Adapt, re-route and try new revenue streams before then withdrawing.

What worries me is buses becoming a bottomless pit which are run by individuals with little/no experience. What a waste of valued talent in the industry who thrive to provide a quality service that makes a profit… rather than running routes which may not serve any value/purpose just because they can. For any cost at that!

yorksrob · 13 Apr 2024

buslad1988 said:
Precisely this. There has to be some emphasis if taken into local government control that (atleast a high % proportion) of services make a profit. However I do agree the more lucrative routes should subsidise a degree of borderline of services. After all what a bus company should be selling is a network which provides good value; not just a particular route. This enables connectivity and makes bus travel a more viable option against the car. Currently some operators fail to recognise this!

There also has to be a degree of being willing to change - you can’t just keep services indefinitely running to a set route just because that’s how they’ve always been. Adapt, re-route and try new revenue streams before then withdrawing.

What worries me is buses becoming a bottomless pit which are run by individuals with little/no experience. What a waste of valued talent in the industry who thrive to provide a quality service that makes a profit… rather than running routes which may not serve any value/purpose just because they can. For any cost at that!

Commercial interests cannot be the prime consideration in running public services such as bus services.

RT4038 · 13 Apr 2024

Titfield said:
I thought the rationale was that NBC had spent almost their entire existence managing decline. Opening up the market to competition would attempt to reverse this decline by encouraging a more commercial approach. Allowing staff at the nbc subsidiaries to purchase the business would give them a stake in the business and encourage them to innovate and develop their business winning back traffic lost to the private car. Like BR, many NBC subsidiaries had poor productivity and low fleet utilisation.

You are right, but I don't think it was quite envisaged at the time that those staff would sell on their newly acquired (at knock down prices) businesses to City shareholders [in one way or another] and(often early) retire on the proceeds, and for those new investors to grow their businesses by acquisition (rather than growth of volume) to become area monopolies. I doubt some of the tactics employed by companies to get to their near monopoly position were envisaged either. A bit of a case of unintended consequences, I suspect, in an industry where most of those making the policy decisions are not users.

yorksrob said:
The difference being that when Brian Souter tried the same thing with South West Trains, he found out that it wasn't that inefficient at all and he ended up sacking too many drivers.

I don't think this is quite true. At all (or just about all) his bus companies, Brian Souter swept away inefficient manning practices, often confrontationally, and saved considerable operating costs. I believe he thought the same could be achieved at South West Trains. However he was frustrated by the long lead times for driver training and the inability to parachute in replacement staff, within the confines of the franchise agreement. I do not believe for one minute that he thought that it wasn't that inefficient, and failure to tackle then leads us to the dispute today.

buslad1988 said:
What worries me is buses becoming a bottomless pit which are run by individuals with little/no experience. What a waste of valued talent in the industry who thrive to provide a quality service that makes a profit… rather than running routes which may not serve any value/purpose just because they can. For any cost at that!

yorksrob said:
Commercial interests cannot be the prime consideration in running public services such as bus services.

You are both right, and it is where the line is drawn between public expenditure (and precisely on what) and user tariffs that is where all the argument will be. Local politicians can make difficult decisions on attenuating or closing down services ( Birmingham City Council have just gone this process - many other Councils have shut most of their libraries/public conveniences etc.) Don't for one moment imagine that bus services would be immune from such things, or political pressure to serve this or that area by diverting existing services hither or thither and/or thinning out all services so everyone gets something, whether attractive or not. As much unintended consequences as the deregulated system I expect.

However, the deregulated system has run its course. Bus Companies became adept at gaming the system to maximise their profits, and Government has grabbed its share with concessionary fare schemes of one type and another. The deregulated system, but its very nature, does not easily allow for fares reform, and bus companies have become, for understandable reasons, risk averse. I suspect we need a period where the State takes on the revenue risk. Shortly after they do, there will start being calls for deregulation ..........

greenline712 · 13 Apr 2024

yorksrob said:
Commercial interests cannot be the prime consideration in running public services such as bus services.

I couldn't agree more . . . but if a journey runs empty every day, then why continue with it?
If the journey carries 2-3 passengers every day, then evaluate that journey in some way . . . be it profit/loss; passenger numbers; cost per passenger . . . any way you like, but at least evaluate it. If value for money is poor, then decide on a priority for funding (social care; meals on wheels, whatever) and apply it.

Around my way, a rural route runs 5 times a day, using one bus and 1.5 drivers (it's a 0700-1900 day). Both ends of the route are covered by other routes, so it's only the middle that counts. On schooldays, the bus carries 5 scholars on the appropriate trips; on non-schooldays the bus runs empty. At one end of the route, maximum loadings are 2-3 passengers on a couple of trips; at commuter times the bus carries either 1 or 0 passengers. I don't see the other end of the route, but let's assume it's much the same.

At a rough estimate: one bus; 150 miles (including garage run); 1.5 drivers; it must cost over £100K per year to run.

With the best will in the world, I can't come above 15 pax/day (25 pax/day on schooldays). On 10 single trips, that's an average of 1.5-2.5 pax/trip. Pretty much all passengers are either "entitled" scholars, or ENCTS passholders. This revenue comes from two council budgets, so Peter IS paying Paul . . . there's probably no cash revenue at all.

Should this route survive? In an ideal world . . . why not? In today's world . . . why? I'll tell you why . . . the route survives because for political reasons. Nobody on the local Council can bear to be saddled with "Bus Route Murderer" as an epitaph. Sometimes unpopular decisions need to be taken . . .

RT4038 said:
I suspect we need a period where the State takes on the revenue risk. Shortly after they do, there will start being calls for deregulation ..........

And so the circle starts again . . . been there, seen it, done that, got the t-shirt . . . glad I won't be involved again; 45 years was enough!!

yorksrob · 13 Apr 2024

greenline712 said:
I couldn't agree more . . . but if a journey runs empty every day, then why continue with it?
If the journey carries 2-3 passengers every day, then evaluate that journey in some way . . . be it profit/loss; passenger numbers; cost per passenger . . . any way you like, but at least evaluate it. If value for money is poor, then decide on a priority for funding (social care; meals on wheels, whatever) and apply it.

Around my way, a rural route runs 5 times a day, using one bus and 1.5 drivers (it's a 0700-1900 day). Both ends of the route are covered by other routes, so it's only the middle that counts. On schooldays, the bus carries 5 scholars on the appropriate trips; on non-schooldays the bus runs empty. At one end of the route, maximum loadings are 2-3 passengers on a couple of trips; at commuter times the bus carries either 1 or 0 passengers. I don't see the other end of the route, but let's assume it's much the same.

At a rough estimate: one bus; 150 miles (including garage run); 1.5 drivers; it must cost over £100K per year to run.

With the best will in the world, I can't come above 15 pax/day (25 pax/day on schooldays). On 10 single trips, that's an average of 1.5-2.5 pax/trip. Pretty much all passengers are either "entitled" scholars, or ENCTS passholders. This revenue comes from two council budgets, so Peter IS paying Paul . . . there's probably no cash revenue at all.

Should this route survive? In an ideal world . . . why not? In today's world . . . why? I'll tell you why . . . the route survives because for political reasons. Nobody on the local Council can bear to be saddled with "Bus Route Murderer" as an epitaph. Sometimes unpopular decisions need to be taken . . .

You raise some good points. This is why some political oversight is required for such decisions. The routes I've seen cut have not been "five passengers a bus " routes.

buslad1988 · 13 Apr 2024

You also cannot blame the big bad boy bus operators for the accelerated decline of our high streets and town/city centres. Or the increase in online shopping/deliveries and working from home. The days of the traditional bus to town services are numbered…

That’s a problem for whoever runs buses nowadays.

YorkRailFan · 13 Apr 2024

greenline712 said:
Why? If the bus route in question carries very few passengers, and has done so for some time ... the route is no longer fit for purpose and should be closed. By all means set a target, be it financial (cost vs fares) or passenger numbers (<10 pax/service hour); but if the target isn't met, then end of route.
Otherwise we're back to NBC days, when routes were allowed to wither away for years, wasting money all the way.

What if that service provides vital connections to rural towns and villages?

mangad · 13 Apr 2024

buslad1988 said:
The position Transport for London have got themselves into begging for more money from central government should ring alarm bells for the likes of Greater Manchester and soon to be West Yorkshire. Franchising is not the be all and end all - bus priority measures should be the issue to address first (again deeply unpopular though).

Let's look at the context of what happened to Transport for London, because the context behind the requests is really important

As Chancellor, George Osbourne removed ALL operating subsidy from central government. All removed. Not even a penny for TfL maintained roads. Nope. Roads had to be funded out of TfL's budgets which came from fares. Yes, tube and bus fares, paid for road maintenance.

London became highly abnormal in the world, quite possibly unique, in that it was a major city with absolutely zero spending from central government to subsidise its entire transport network.

Forced into this situation, TfL got about trying to pay the bills and did a reasonable job, until something happened.

They lost their fares.

Covid came along, people stopped travelling. Suddenly the model didn't work and there was no resilience in the system.

And they had to fight - SERIOUSLY FIGHT - to get anything out of central government because mostly what they got were short term deals that didn't deal with the problem.

Like I say, the context is really important. TfL had to go with a begging bowl because of circumstances it could never have anticipated that it was not in a state to live through because of government cuts.

Should this situation ring alarm bells in other areas interested in franchising? Well possibly because it suggest that a certain type of government may not have your back when something out of your control happens. But then Greater Manchester knows this anyway. Why? Because they had to fight to get money to support the trams.

tl:dr - whilst we could panic and worry about what might happen due to a specific circumstance like Covid, perhaps we shouldn't.

greenline712 · 13 Apr 2024

YorkRailFan said:
What if that service provides vital connections to rural towns and villages?

Define "vital". If passenger numbers are very nearly zero .... then the service is not "vital" for those communities.

I'll make the point again ... if the route carries some passengers, then it should continue, subject to some form of "value for money" check.
If only shopping-type journeys carry passengers, then by all means run them, but ditch the peak-time journeys (assuming they run pretty much empty).

If money is the problem, cut the Saturday service .... that might save around 20% of weekly costs, and make all the difference. Maybe reduce the timetable to two/three days a week, and run with another similar route .... withdrawal should be the last option, but still an option.

Horses for courses, obviously ...

cactustwirly · 13 Apr 2024

yorksrob said:
Because otherwise it won't be based on how many passengers a route carries, it will be based on how profitable it is.

I've seen a few routes cut around my way over the last couple of years and they hadn't been carrying fresh air.

That will be the same regardless who operates it.
Reading buses is run by the council, the actual buses are the same as Stagecoach or Arriva. They are a mixed bag of brand new, 5 years old or 15 years old, the fares were expensive before the £2 cap.

Routes have still been cut after Covid, some have gone down from every 6 minutes to every 10, every 20 from every 15 minutes etc.

They cut the Park and Ride too, which I find hilarious as millions was spent extending it. The council is complaining there are too many cars and people should use the P&R.

I'm not convinced it will change anything if there's no government funding.
Arguably the Tories have made the biggest difference to buses with the £2 fares.

YorkRailFan · 13 Apr 2024

greenline712 said:
Define "vital". If passenger numbers are very nearly zero .... then the service is not "vital" for those communities.

Routes for school children and elderly people in particular.

greenline712 said:
Define "vital". If passenger numbers are very nearly zero .... then the service is not "vital" for those communities.

I'll make the point again ... if the route carries some passengers, then it should continue, subject to some form of "value for money" check.
If only shopping-type journeys carry passengers, then by all means run them, but ditch the peak-time journeys (assuming they run pretty much empty).

If money is the problem, cut the Saturday service .... that might save around 20% of weekly costs, and make all the difference. Maybe reduce the timetable to two/three days a week, and run with another similar route .... withdrawal should be the last option, but still an option.

Horses for courses, obviously ...

I got a bus today. I get it from time to time and there were roughly 5 people onboard (at an off-peak time); should it be axed in your opinion?

Labour's Plan for buses

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation