Bus deregulation - 25 years on

[Zoe]

And frankly I don't buy the idea that London is so different from the rest other Cities around the country that it's public transport must be managed in a completely different way from everywhere else. Other Cities have the same problems and challenges as London - it's just that London is on a bigger scale.

It it's the market that removes the private car from most society then wouldn't you expect it to provide the alternative? In the case of London cars are still available but due to congestion many people choose to use public transport. This isn't the case in other cities but once people can no longer afford a car then public transport will have to be provided.

 

[yorksrob]

I also object to the idea that everything is about modal shift from peoples cars. Why should those who don't drive put up with an inferior service just to suit some fantasy of a "market" which in reality doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[Zoe]

I also object to the idea that everything is about modal shift from peoples cars. Why should those who don't drive put up with an inferior service just to suit some fantasy of a "market" which in reality doesn't exist in the first place.

Personally I would like public transport to be run as a public service but the way things work right now is based on supply and demand and only the modal shift from the private car is going to create the demand needed to give other areas London levels of service.

 

[yorksrob]

It it's the market that removes the private car from most society then wouldn't you expect it to provide the alternative? In the case of London cars are still available but due to congestion many people choose to use public transport. This isn't the case in other cities but once people can no longer afford a car then public transport will have to be provided.

Nonsense. Have you travelled by bus into a City outside London in the rush hour recently ? I can assure you there is plenty of congestion, but the buses tend to get stuck in the traffic anyway. London proves that there is a latent demand for a quality bus service in our Cities (not to mention our towns) and I'm afraid for the past twentyfive years the deregulated system hasn't adequately delivered it.

 

[Zoe]

Nonsense. Have you travelled by bus into a City outside London in the rush hour recently ? I can assure you there is plenty of congestion, but the buses tend to get stuck in the traffic anyway. London proves that there is a latent demand for a quality bus service in our Cities (not to mention our towns) and I'm afraid for the past twentyfive years the deregulated system hasn't adequately delivered it.

It is not nonsense. The London area has a lot of commuting and it simply isn't practical to drive into Central London. You are not likely to get people choosing public transport over private car in other areas until they are forced out of their cars. It would be a large commercial risk to start providing extra public transport if people are not going to use it. Once people are forced to use it then there will be the demand for public transport.

 

[yorksrob]

What I am talking about is the less busy times like evenings and Sundays where there simply isn't the demand to justfiy a commercial service.

I'm sorry - I would have thought that routes that can't justify a commercial service would need more regulation to ensure that an adequate service is provided. This is particularly true since Local Authorities often end up having to pay for these services, so there is a moral justification for allowing them to regulate.

If the buses in London are so much fuller than everywhere else, surely they shouldn't need any regulation at all and should be able to support themselves on a purely commercial basis ?

This shows that bus regulation in london has absolutely nothing to do with spurious notions of how "commercially" viable a service is and everything to do with maintaining a level of quality that encourages people to use buses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is not nonsense. The London area has a lot of commuting and it simply isn't practical to drive into Central London. You are not likely to get people choosing public transport over private car in other areas until they are forced out of their cars. It would be a large commercial risk to start providing extra public transport if people are not going to use it. Once people are forced to use it then there will be the demand for public transport.

It is nonsense because you clearly have no notion of how congested Cities outside London are in the peak hour.

 

[Zoe]

It is nonsense because you clearly have no notion of how congested Cities outside London are in the peak hour.

No, I know they are congested but how are you going to get people to use the buses when the car is more convenient? In London public transport is largely more convenient than the car.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry - I would have thought that routes that can't justify a commercial service would need more regulation to ensure that an adequate service is provided. This is particularly true since Local Authorities often end up having to pay for these services, so there is a moral justification for allowing them to regulate.

If the private car is no longer available to most people that it may well be that it becomes viable to run evening and Sunday service routes. If you want a London style service at these times then you are going to have to accept that it be paid for by taxpayers money, something many people are not too keen on. Once the private car has been removed from the scene though this will likely not be the case.

 

[yorksrob]

No, I know they are congested but how are you going to get people to use the buses when the car is more convenient? In London public transport is largely more convenient than the car.

If the car is so much more convenient for commuting outside of London, how comes local train services are bursting at the seems ?

 

[richw]

The problem with buses is they can't compete with trains on price or journey time.
Here where I am, a train trip Penryn to truro is 3.80 return peak. Takes around 15mins
Bus identical journey station to station as route calls right outside both Penryn and truro stations, £6.50 return if outbound journey starts before 9am, on top of the fare the bus takes 70mins.
Now why do you think the train is full and standing with the buses going empty? Guessing similar situations nationwide!

 

[Zoe]

If the car is so much more convenient for commuting outside of London, how comes local train services are bursting at the seems ?

Train is different as they are generally quite fast into the city centre and indeed there hasn't been the same decline in train use as bus use.

 

[yorksrob]

If the private car is no longer available to most people that it may well be that it becomes viable to run evening and Sunday service routes. If you want a London style service at these times then you are going to have to accept that it be paid for by taxpayers money, something many people are not too keen on. Once the private car has been removed from the scene though this will likely not be the case.

Local Authorities outside of London are quite capable of deciding whether they want to pay for such a service or not. What possible justification can there be for enshrining in law that cities are not allowed to do so.

Also, since Local Authorities already pay for services at these times, what possible justification can there be for not allowing them to regulate ticketing and fares structures in the same way that London does.

 

[Zoe]

Local Authorities outside of London are quite capable of deciding whether they want to pay for such a service or not. What possible justification can there be for enshrining in law that cities are not allowed to do so.

Also, since Local Authorities already pay for services at these times, what possible justification can there be for not allowing them to regulate ticketing and fares structures in the same way that London does.

Some people (myself not included) would argue that it's not good use of taxpayers money. The argument is that the cost of running the service should be paid by the users.

 

[yorksrob]

Some people (myself not included) would argue that it's not good use of taxpayers money. The argument is that the cost of running the service should be paid by the users.

1, That would equally apply to London, therefore it obvoiously has no relevance to this discussion.
2, What individuals may or may not think is neither here nor there. Democratically elected Councillors are there to decide whether such a service in Leeds for example, is a good use of Leeds' taxpayers money. There is no reason for the Government to interfere.
3. You still haven't answered why Local Authorities should be prevented from regulating ticketing and fares structures for example, on bus services that they largely pay for.

 

[Zoe]

1, That would equally apply to London, therefore it obvoiously has no relevance to this discussion.

It is relevant, anyone that tried to cut public transport in London would not be popular at the next election. Public transport in London is well used.

2, What individuals may or may not think is neither here nor there.

This isn't a dictatorship. It's this type of attitude that gets quite a few people against politicians.

Leeds for example, is a good use of Leeds' taxpayers money. There is no reason for the Government to interfere.

At the end of the day they are still using taxpayers money, locally or nationally elected and still have to face the electorate.

3. You still haven't answered why Local Authorities should be prevented from regulating ticketing and fares structures for example, on bus services that they largely pay for.

Are they actually legally prevented from doing so? If not then as I said above, it would be seen as a waste of taxpayers money.

 

[yorksrob]

Train is different as they are generally quite fast into the city centre and indeed there hasn't been the same decline in train use as bus use.

Again, that will be equally true of London.

 

[Zoe]

Again, that will be equally true of London.

How many other cities have a suburban rail network on the scale of London though? Many have very little and so have to rely on buses. With the exception of London Overground, railways are franchised in the same way both in London and elsewhere so there is no difference here. The approaches to London on many lines are four tracks so the capacity for extra trains is available. Elsewhere suburban trains have to share tracks with intercity services so the capacity simply isn't there.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Here where I am, a train trip Penryn to truro is 3.80 return peak. Takes around 15mins
Bus identical journey station to station as route calls right outside both Penryn and truro stations, £6.50 return if outbound journey starts before 9am, on top of the fare the bus takes 70mins.

Both bus and train service between Falmouth and Truro are operated by the same company, First Group. Would it make things more appealing to the travelling public, if First combined their fares offering one interchangeable ticket for both bus and train on this route, so you could take your pick ?

 

[richw]

I'd still only use the train, 45 mins quicker also.
Integrated trains and buses are a great idea, but not permitted under the transport act thing apparently

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[yorksrob]

It is relevant, anyone that tried to cut public transport in London would not be popular at the next election. Public transport in London is well used..

Public transport outside of London is well used and yes, those who cut it would also suffer at the ballot box.

This isn't a dictatorship. It's this type of attitude that gets quite a few people against politicians.

Would you let these individuals have a veto over what the democratically elected Council decides? That is a very perverse version of democracy if I may say so.

Then why on earth would you allow Central Government to force such a position over the head of locally elected politicians who are capable of making that decision.

At the end of the day they are still using taxpayers money, locally or nationally elected and still have to face the electorate.

That is why local Councillors are qualified to make these decisions

Are they actually legally prevented from doing so? If not then as I said above, it would be seen as a waste of taxpayers money.

Yes they are, and one of the other things Local Authorities can't do is use profitable routes to cross-subsidise less profitable ones, meaning that the whole system ends up more expensive than the previously regulated system.

As I have said time and time again, If taxpayers are as likely to see a regulated system as a waste of money as you think, why not let them express it to their Councillors through the ballot box ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd still only use the train

Can't say as I'd blame you !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many other cities have a suburban rail network on the scale of London though? Many have very little and so have to rely on buses. With the exception of London Overground, railways are franchised in the same way both in London and elsewhere so there is no difference here. The approaches to London on many lines are four tracks so the capacity for extra trains is available. Elsewhere suburban trains have to share tracks with intercity services so the capacity simply isn't there.

I'm sorry - you're completely losing me with your argument.

First you say trains can't possibly be compared to buses because they are faster - justifying your insinuation that buses outside London aren't well used. Then you say that London has a vast suburban network and other Cities very little - which to my mind should lead to buses outside of London being comparatively more popular in Cities outside London

 

[Zoe]

First you say trains can't possibly be compared to buses because they are faster - justifying your insinuation that buses outside London aren't well used. Then you say that London has a vast suburban network and other Cities very little - which to my mind should lead to buses outside of London being comparatively more popular in Cities outside London

No, I'm saying that trains are the fasteset way to get into a city centre regardless of location. Outside of London though the network is not as comprehensive and this reduces the choice to car or bus. In many cases the car is quicker than the bus so there needs to be a way of getting people to use the buses to justify service improvements.

 

[shinkansen1966]

but not permitted under the transport act thing apparently

Oh how silly.

Frankly, I'd like motorways to be privatised and tolls charged. There'd be different companies, none of whom talk to each other. So you could drive down the M25 having paid £5 for the privilege only to find your toll ticket is not valid on the M4.

There'd be different night tolls to keep the motorway open during unsocial hours when the road is quiet and roads works need to be undertaken. These tolls would be different from the daytime tolls and not at all interchangeable.

There would season tickets for each motorway, but they would be motorway specific. So might need two seasons tickets: one for the M62 and one for the adjacent M6. There would be an all-motorway rover toll available, but only after 09:30, and this would be £30 per day.

 

[yorksrob]

No, I'm saying that trains are the fasteset way to get into a city centre regardless of location. Outside of London though the network is not as comprehensive and this reduces the choice to car or bus. In many cases the car is quicker than the bus so there needs to be a way of getting people to use the buses to justify service improvements.

So would you say that stopping companies from cherrypicking the busiest routes and instead using their profits to cross-subsidise less profitable ones, at the same time as allowing Local Authorities to regulate fares and ticketing would be a good way to get more people using the buses ?

 

[Zoe]

Frankly, I'd like motorways to be privatised and tolls charged. There'd be different companies, none of whom talk to each other. So you could drive down the M25 having paid £5 for the privilege only to find your toll ticket is not valid on the M4.

There'd be different night tolls to keep the motorway open during unsocial hours when the road is quiet and roads works need to be undertaken. These tolls would be different from the daytime tolls and not at all interchangeable.

There would season tickets for each motorway, but they would be motorway specific. So might need two seasons tickets: one for the M62 and one for the adjacent M6. There would be an all-motorway rover toll available, but only after 09:30, and this would be £30 per day.

But wouldn't you want "turn up and drive" motorway rates to go through the roof to force people to book their motorway journey in advance?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So would you say that stopping companies from cherrypicking the busiest routes and instead using their profits to cross-subsidise less profitable ones, at the same time as allowing Local Authorities to regulate fares and ticketing would be a good way to get more people using the buses ?

You'd have to be sure that it would get people to use the bus though, I wouldn't want to see empty buses driving around and roads still congested with cars.

 

[yorksrob]

You'd have to be sure that it would get people to use the bus though, I wouldn't want to see empty buses driving around and roads still congested with cars.

But if that did happen, people would see it was a waste of money and elect Councillors to spend the money on something else.

Plus, how can you know until you try it - and the only example we have is London, where it has worked.

 

[Zoe]

Plus, how can you know until you try it - and the only example we have is London, where it has worked.

Indeed and I would have thought Labour would have wanted to do so when elected in 1997 but they seemed to want to just continue the Tory system.

 

[yorksrob]

We all know that Labour are as much in the pocket of big business as the Tories.

So is that a yes ? Afterall, you've admitted that due to the relative paucity of rail services outside of London, there's likely to be as much latent demand for a quality bus service if not more.

 

[Zoe]

So is that a yes ? Afterall, you've admitted that due to the relative paucity of rail services outside of London, there's likely to be as much latent demand for a quality bus service if not more.

Personally I'd go a step further and have the local council actually run the buses as public services. The issue here though is getting the public to support that and to give up their cars.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I'd go a step further and have the local council actually run the buses as public services. The issue here though is getting the public to support that and to give up their cars.

Not really. Bus deregulation was something dreamt up by the Government of the day. There was no great public clamour for it in the first place and I can't see demonstrations on the streets demanding that buses are re-deregulated happenning.

First you say that you need quality services to attract people out of their cars, then you say that people already need to be out of their cars to justify a quality bus service.

You have to start somewhere and regulated services have been proven to attract people and increase usage. De-regulated services haven't.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Indeed and I would have thought Labour would have wanted to do so when elected in 1997 but they seemed to want to just continue the Tory system.

I expected Labour to reform public transport, too, but they choose not. Think the reasons Labour did little were threefold:

• they wanted private involvement in public services (eg PFI schemes and the London underground PPP - now whatever happened to the Tube PPP ?)
• bus companies lobbied to retain the current deregulated system
• there are more votes from motorists than there are from bus passengers

 

[Zoe]

First you say that you need quality services to attract people out of their cars, then you say that people already need to be out of their cars to justify a quality bus service.

Well people not using the buses would be an issue, yes many people do use cars as they are convenient but is there any evidence that they would change to bus if a London style service was provided? If the buses had never been deregulated to start with then people may well have continued using them but it's not as easy to get people out of their cars once they are in them.