English bus usage continues to fall (in most places)

[Teflon Lettuce]

Trent Barton may be considered to be a good operator, and I agree that they do run the 141 service well with friendly and helpful drivers, but I am not paying £3.50 for a single to Nottingham when with a 20 minute walk to Hucknall Station it is only £3.40 return on the train. Even when using a TB Zigzag ticket it works out at £6 return or £5 using the Mango card. However, those reduced fares are often no use when there are no buses to return on if you want to come back later in the evening. If the bus fare on the 141 from Linby and Papplewick villages was sensibly higher to help subsidise the service I would be willing to pay and use the service. However, charging the same price as from Mansfield,and double the fare on the Threes route just half a mile away, is just taking advantage of what they think is a captive market.

I know that I, and many others have not supported the route for many years but I don't think that using it will result in TB reducing the fares. Ever since Trent took over the old Midland General company over 30 years ago fares on the route have rocketed up out of proportion to services that have always been Trent routes. This has happened on many routes that Trent took over from Midland General. I believe the same thing happened on many of the rural routes that were operated by Barton. When Trent took over the routes were either cut or fares raised out of all proportion to their own traditional routes. How many of the old Midland General and Barton routes are still in existence in Nottinghamshire.

I never suggested that the fares would fall... I said equalise over time.. ie fares go up more on the other routes you mention with less increase in the fares you are quoting...

as for ex Barton and MG routes being more expensive... is it not the case that they always were more expensive?

Also, by law, cross subsidy was outlawed by the Transport Act 1985... I would assume that with that in mind Trent has taken the brave decision to raise the fares on some of it's marginal routes in order to maintain the network... a laudable aim in anyone's book... of course that would mean that fares on ex-Barton routes (which tended to be more rural than Trent) would have to rise to maintain the "network" unfortunately high living costs in all walks of life are one of the penalties of living in a rural location!

 

[yorksrob]

How will the industry grow if it doesn't go after the market of far and away the most popular mode of transport in the UK, the car?

Short sighted petty spats with other operators gain nothing when there is that huge market out there waiting to be tapped. Get even 5% of it and your growth is huge.

Well, I suppose there is an element of that. There's certainly no harm in attracting people from their cars. However, I would have thought that non-drivers were still the key target audience.

That Midland Red might have done it badly does not invalidate the concept. Cross subsidy effectively allows some social levelling between busy and less busy routes, which as someone else said provides a level of social inclusivity without so much subsidy.

The concept is basically how the railway works, too, by way of franchise premia.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is also the benefit of cross subsidy of journeys. It might be that your 7pm service from big city to country is near enough empty because most people finish work in time for the 6pm. But the existence of that 7pm service might make it feasible for some occasional late workers to use that service - without it they might have to drive in case they have to work late.

That, FWIW, is where the German Anruf Sammel Taxi comes in - that way, a lightly used journey runs only when someone actually wants it.

Yes indeed. If subsidy is in short supply, It's even more important to have effective cross-subsidies to allow some network benefits to be maintained.

 

[radamfi]

Well, I suppose there is an element of that. There's certainly no harm in attracting people from their cars. However, I would have thought that non-drivers were still the key target audience.

Yes, but non-drivers don't have as much choice as drivers in their mode of transport. So they are already using buses to a large extent regardless of how bad they are, so the operators don't have to work hard to attract them. If bus users are changing to bike/tram/train/walk or working from home then that's not a problem however.

 

[ashworth]

as for ex Barton and MG routes being more expensive... is it not the case that they always were more expensive?

Also, by law, cross subsidy was outlawed by the Transport Act 1985... I would assume that with that in mind Trent has taken the brave decision to raise the fares on some of it's marginal routes in order to maintain the network... a laudable aim in anyone's book... of course that would mean that fares on ex-Barton routes (which tended to be more rural than Trent) would have to rise to maintain the "network" unfortunately high living costs in all walks of life are one of the penalties of living in a rural location!

Barton fares may have always been higher than Trent as many of their routes were indeed in rural areas. However, Midland General were known for having lower fares than Trent and they operated many more urban routes out of Notiingham to towns along the Notts/Derby border. My observations were that very quickly Trent drastically cut most of the MG routes and increased fares often to levels well above their own. I used to be quite a fan of Trent Barton, and whilst I still agree that it would be a great shame if they were ever to be taken over by one of the larger operators, I do feel that ex MG customers, albeit from 30+ yeas ago are not always getting such a good service from TB as some of the routes that have always traditionally belonged to Trent.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How will the industry grow if it doesn't go after the market of far and away the most popular mode of transport in the UK, the car?

Short sighted petty spats with other operators gain nothing when there is that huge market out there waiting to be tapped. Get even 5% of it and your growth is huge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



That Midland Red might have done it badly does not invalidate the concept. Cross subsidy effectively allows some social levelling between busy and less busy routes, which as someone else said provides a level of social inclusivity without so much subsidy.

The concept is basically how the railway works, too, by way of franchise premia.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is also the benefit of cross subsidy of journeys. It might be that your 7pm service from big city to country is near enough empty because most people finish work in time for the 6pm. But the existence of that 7pm service might make it feasible for some occasional late workers to use that service - without it they might have to drive in case they have to work late.
.

Cross subsidy does nothing of the sort. Working on that premise, if you put your head in the freezer and your feet in the fire, then on average you'll be fine. It was not merely Midland Red that practiced cross subsidy. It was a staple of the UK bus industry in those halcyon days - those days when bus patronage halved between 1960 and 1980.

The idea that Peter can be robbed to pay Paul seems seductive. Bus A makes a fortune and that props up Bus B.

The problem goes back to the classic Boston Box - what could be a star product is often relegated to being a cash cow. Profits, instead of being invested in creating further growth, is instead diverted to prop up a well nigh terminal dog of a service that will never be sustainable.

Of course, we'll have the usual claims of how it's done different in some other country and that some form of re-regulation is the answer, often citing London as a back up example. Well, frankly it all comes down to money. All those examples are well funded from central government. The fact is that central government in their big society utterings have used that to massively cut block grants - localism is a way of passing on responsibility for where the cuts fall and as transport is not a statutory duty, it has been cut.

Even the idea of London style tendering is frankly missing the point. Most London operations run with a margin of 7-8%. First are struggling to get that on their provincial operations anyway (cue mention of Stagecoach Busways 20%). The idea that one can subsidise another is utter tosh as the Nexus debacle showed. One might also question the suitability and skills of public sector employees - again pertinent after the Nexus nonsense.

Of course, some will say that this is all distinctly prejudiced. It might be had it not been that I was a child of the regulated age. Where will the innovation come from? Where will the growth come from to fund the raft of uneconomic services?

As it is, bus companies DO take a holistic view on operating lower margin services. Especially in early evening for the reasons mentioned earlier, they will operate journeys at low margin because of the greater good and the ability to soak up some fixed overhead costs. Bus companies will cascade vehicles from stronger fleets to weaker ones. It's not cross subsidy but it is a way of spreading the pain more evenly.

I do wonder if some commentators have a) ever been a manager for ANY business b) worked for a bus company or c) spoken to a bus company manager. Perhaps they should - they might find it quite enlightening?

 

[yorksrob]

At least it was the buses they screwed up with de-regulation rather than the trains. Grand Wazoo, you're welcome to it.

 

[radamfi]

Of course, we'll have the usual claims of how it's done different in some other country and that some form of re-regulation is the answer, often citing London as a back up example. Well, frankly it all comes down to money.

Of course, money is needed. But apart from money, it takes a certain type of culture to get the kind of service they enjoy in areas where world class service exists. I suspect if the same amount of money was available in Britain to spend on local buses/trams/metros etc. as they have in the places with world class transport, there would still be lower patronage in Britain because it would not be spent in an optimal way. But I would like to be proved wrong.

I do wonder if some commentators have a) ever been a manager for ANY business b) worked for a bus company or c) spoken to a bus company manager. Perhaps they should - they might find it quite enlightening?

All we care about is having a service that people want to use. We shouldn't need to know about management experience or the like. It is also not just about bus operation. It is about the mix of cycling, walking, buses, trams and trains. It is crucially also about traffic modelling, road engineering and town planning. We see things done better in other places and it is only natural that we should want that too.

Yes, there are always excuses why Britain has to be worse. We've had loads of threads like that in the past. But this thread is about finding out why things are bad and how to make things better. So it should have a more optimistic twist compared to past threads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, I suppose there is an element of that. There's certainly no harm in attracting people from their cars. However, I would have thought that non-drivers were still the key target audience.

Non-drivers are already using buses, by and large, if they are in any way relevant to their journey. You will not grow the market, other than around the edges, by appealing to non-drivers.

Drivers are a massive, largely untapped market. Bus companies *seem* to realise that, but equally seem not to have any sort of handle on the kinds of things that put them off.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course, money is needed. But apart from money, it takes a certain type of culture to get the kind of service they enjoy in areas where world class service exists. I suspect if the same amount of money was available in Britain to spend on local buses/trams/metros etc. as they have in the places with world class transport, there would still be lower patronage in Britain because it would not be spent in an optimal way. But I would like to be proved wrong.



All we care about is having a service that people want to use. We shouldn't need to know about management experience or the like. It is also not just about bus operation. It is about the mix of cycling, walking, buses, trams and trains. It is crucially also about traffic modelling, road engineering and town planning. We see things done better in other places and it is only natural that we should want that too.

Yes, there are always excuses why Britain has to be worse. We've had loads of threads like that in the past. But this thread is about finding out why things are bad and how to make things better. So it should have a more optimistic twist compared to past threads.

There is a lot of good stuff going on - Stagecoach are particularly good but you can see it with Transdev too. I think First are beginning to see the fruits of the labours of the last two years in terms of ridership and returns after the atrocious damaging tenure of Lockhead.

Remember that bus patronage was plummeting before deregulation. The whole industry was turned upside down with de-reg and it took a while to settle down, consolidate, and for investment to begin in earnest. By the mid 2000s, patronage had stabilised. The idea that this should be ripped up and some other form of re-regulation and hope that cross-subsidy will sort it is frightening. Particularly so given the inept approach and cack-handedness of Nexus and their stab at land grabbing.

My view has always been that Kickstart was the way forward but perhaps modified. New services could be pump primed but with a gainshare between LA and operator. There is the potential for a virtuous circle of competition - not least with LA's and PTE's brokering deals (e.g. Sheffield, Oxford, Bath, North Somerset) and even the creation of parties like WEBOA that brings sworn enemies together. The industry has a lot of innovation going on (though I accept that it's far from perfect and some organisations seem to happy to manage decline).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Particularly so given the inept approach and cack-handedness of Nexus and their stab at land grabbing.

They don't seem to be doing it well - which I think is a shame, because I would actually like to see that type of regulation tried in one UK city outside London. If it proved to be an abject failure, the point is then proven and we can forget it - but I don't think it would.

There is the potential for a virtuous circle of competition

With the car. I still think bus companies competing with bus companies (other than when tendering for subsidised routes) is a waste of time and money and is overall to the passenger's disbenefit.

Absent regulation, I would actually like to see all competition regulations applying to public transport removed entirely. A cartel of operators with interavailable ticketing would be hugely to the passenger's benefit - and there are few routes with multiple operators anyway.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

At least it was the buses they screwed up with de-regulation rather than the trains. Grand Wazoo, you're welcome to it.

Hmmm, difficult to do in a largely closed system.

As for state control, you must remind me of the figures. I could swear that passenger figures for BR in state control fell markedly before Beeching and also after the Beeching report was enacted (from 1980 onwards)?

After a slight rise in the mid to late 1980s, patronage on the rail fell but then began some modest rises. However, it really increase exponentially from 1995 onwards......doubling in fact.

 

[radamfi]

There is a lot of good stuff going on - Stagecoach are particularly good but you can see it with Transdev too. I think First are beginning to see the fruits of the labours of the last two years in terms of ridership and returns after the atrocious damaging tenure of Lockhead.

Remember that bus patronage was plummeting before deregulation. The whole industry was turned upside down with de-reg and it took a while to settle down, consolidate, and for investment to begin in earnest. By the mid 2000s, patronage had stabilised. The idea that this should be ripped up and some other form of re-regulation and hope that cross-subsidy will sort it is frightening. Particularly so given the inept approach and cack-handedness of Nexus and their stab at land grabbing.

The fact that we need to home in on certain owners means that you inevitably have a postcode lottery as to what kind of service you get. It is sheer fluke that certain areas ended up being bought in the 90s by Stagecoach, some by First and some by Arriva. It is all very well saying Stagecoach are great, Metrobus are great and so on, but that's no good if you are in an Arriva area. There has to be a way of sacking substandard operators.

Commercial fares are too high, and I can't see how you can get away from that without ending deregulation. Given that I'm not prepared to pay them, and I'm an enthusiast, that's a worry.

Patronage had stabilised by the mid 2000s. I don't see that as a positive thing at all. That means that patronage was lower in 2005 than in 1995 or 1985.

If Nexus are "land grabbing", does that mean that TfL/OV Bureau Groningen Drenthe etc. are "occupiers"? If deregulation is right for GB outside London, why not for London, Switzerland and everywhere else that doesn't have deregulation (i.e. pretty much the whole developed world). We've had nearly 30 years of deregulation and yet we are still saying "Give deregulation a chance. There's innovation coming through. You just have to wait a little bit longer."

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The fact that we need to home in on certain owners means that you inevitably have a postcode lottery as to what kind of service you get. It is sheer fluke that certain areas ended up being bought in the 90s by Stagecoach, some by First and some by Arriva. It is all very well saying Stagecoach are great, Metrobus are great and so on, but that's no good if you are in an Arriva area. There has to be a way of sacking substandard operators.

Commercial fares are too high, and I can't see how you can get away from that without ending deregulation. Given that I'm not prepared to pay them, and I'm an enthusiast, that's a worry.

Patronage had stabilised by the mid 2000s. I don't see that as a positive thing at all. That means that patronage was lower in 2005 than in 1995 or 1985.

If Nexus are "land grabbing", does that mean that TfL/OV Bureau Groningen Drenthe etc. are "occupiers"? If deregulation is right for GB outside London, why not for London, Switzerland and everywhere else that doesn't have deregulation (i.e. pretty much the whole developed world). We've had nearly 30 years of deregulation and yet we are still saying "Give deregulation a chance. There's innovation coming through. You just have to wait a little bit longer."

But on the other hand with a regulated system controlled by local or central government with the political interference that comes with it... Look at the waste of money that is the replacement of "hendy's bendies" with Borismasters on a political whim... or the debacle with the ECML where the "commercial" operator decided they couldn't make a return on their investment.. the franchise was returned into state ownership... said franchise started making large profits and yet... because of political dogma... was re-franchised to a commercial operator... do you REALLY want that throughout the uk...

I remember at the time of deregulation both Hertfordshire and Surrey County Councils took the laudable decision to maintain the current network... and the then government trumpetted how much less the same network was costing compared to the regulated regime in those counties... then the bus companies realised that a lot of what they had registered wasn't quite as commercial as they thought... and they started deregistering...and the county councils were left to pick up the tab,,,, and said councils started spending a lot more on buses then they ever had under the block grant system... strangely the government went very quiet on the subject.

As to the " they do it better in Europe" argument... do they? I've been to a few european countries where they "do it better" and they spend a lot more money on there buses... I noted 2 things... in a lot of places the idea was to run services at the lowest possible frequencies at the highest loading factor to keep costs down... in others there was a magnificent network running half empty stuck in the same traffic jams as we have..

remember the ultimate UK experiment in regulated integrated transport? ie Tyne & Wear where buses were funnelled into the local Metro stations and people were forced to change modes... it was an absolute disaster because of one small factor... people don't like changing modes unless it is ABSOLUTELY neccessary...

 

[radamfi]

As to the " they do it better in Europe" argument... do they? I've been to a few european countries where they "do it better" and they spend a lot more money on there buses... I noted 2 things... in a lot of places the idea was to run services at the lowest possible frequencies at the highest loading factor to keep costs down... in others there was a magnificent network running half empty stuck in the same traffic jams as we have..

Which places are we talking about? How does the patronage level compare to similar sized cities in the UK? There's no need to highlight places which don't quite come up to scratch. We don't need to worry about them. There are plenty of other cities that are well known for excellent local transport and which have high patronage. The whole point of talking about these places is so that we can see what works and try and emulate it.

remember the ultimate UK experiment in regulated integrated transport? ie Tyne & Wear where buses were funnelled into the local Metro stations and people were forced to change modes... it was an absolute disaster because of one small factor... people don't like changing modes unless it is ABSOLUTELY neccessary...

Again, why mention something that was negatively perceived and that happened over 30 years ago? Instead, how about focussing on the countless examples of excellent integration that exists around the world today?

 

[edwin_m]

remember the ultimate UK experiment in regulated integrated transport? ie Tyne & Wear where buses were funnelled into the local Metro stations and people were forced to change modes... it was an absolute disaster because of one small factor... people don't like changing modes unless it is ABSOLUTELY neccessary...

Tyne and Wear got some things wrong particularly at the Gateshead interchange. There passengers had to alight at a largeish bus station, pass through ticket barriers and down escalators to reach the Metro platform, by which time their bus would probably have got them to central Newcastle had it been allowed to. Contrast with the better bus-tram interchanges in Karlsruhe for example, where the walk is not much more than the width of the platform.

 

[yorksrob]

But on the other hand with a regulated system controlled by local or central government with the political interference that comes with it... Look at the waste of money that is the replacement of "hendy's bendies" with Borismasters on a political whim... or the debacle with the ECML where the "commercial" operator decided they couldn't make a return on their investment.. the franchise was returned into state ownership... said franchise started making large profits and yet... because of political dogma... was re-franchised to a commercial operator... do you REALLY want that throughout the uk...

I remember at the time of deregulation both Hertfordshire and Surrey County Councils took the laudable decision to maintain the current network... and the then government trumpetted how much less the same network was costing compared to the regulated regime in those counties... then the bus companies realised that a lot of what they had registered wasn't quite as commercial as they thought... and they started deregistering...and the county councils were left to pick up the tab,,,, and said councils started spending a lot more on buses then they ever had under the block grant system... strangely the government went very quiet

With regards to re-franchising the ECML due to political dogma, is that not what we already have on the buses with enforced de-regulation for political dogma?

Your observations about costs to local authorities are very pertinent.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They don't seem to be doing it well - which I think is a shame, because I would actually like to see that type of regulation tried in one UK city outside London. If it proved to be an abject failure, the point is then proven and we can forget it - but I don't think it would.

However, just think of the practicality of it. First of all, you have to buy out someone's business. Then you have the risks of getting it wrong - how do you put that right? How much money and the implications of getting it wrong?

With Nexus being seemingly unable to even get the simplest financials right, despite having a second bite at the cherry, it doesn't exactly bode well. I mean, who doesn't know about working capital....??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All we care about is having a service that people want to use. We shouldn't need to know about management experience or the like. It is also not just about bus operation. It is about the mix of cycling, walking, buses, trams and trains. It is crucially also about traffic modelling, road engineering and town planning. We see things done better in other places and it is only natural that we should want that too.

Yes, there are always excuses why Britain has to be worse. We've had loads of threads like that in the past. But this thread is about finding out why things are bad and how to make things better. So it should have a more optimistic twist compared to past threads.

Er yes you do....

To quote the old comic George Burns "Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair"

I advise that you do speak to some bus company managers. See how committed they are. Most choose to enter the industry for a genuine love of it and often enter with the wide eyed optimism of many in this thread.

Then they see the realities of day. The realities of financial performance, and in some cases, the abject failure of local authorities. As an example, take Darlington Council - a unitary authority.

Arriva are now the major operator in the town and whilst they suffered a malaise of ambition in the mid 2000s, they have invested heavily. The town itself got a load of DfT money to improve public transport (and roads) - Do The Localmotion. With RBC funding as well, cue loads of additional services etc - they've now gone. Moreover, they've systematically banished buses from the town centre but have been happy to maintain expanses of low cost parking. They've also withdrawn all (I think) supported services. At the same time, bus priority is abysmal - what's the major operator to do in the face of that?

 

[radamfi]

Er yes you do....

I think you are implying that you need to have had such experience in order to realise that it is impossible to have excellent local transport and high patronage levels.

But it is possible. I've seen it with my own eyes. I travel on such networks regularly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you are implying that you need to have had such experience in order to realise that it is impossible to have excellent local transport and high patronage levels.

But it is possible. I've seen it with my own eyes. I travel on such networks regularly.

The UK is very good indeed at "not invented here syndrome", or "we always did it that way, we aren't changing"...

 

[Robertj21a]

The UK is very good indeed at "not invented here syndrome", or "we always did it that way, we aren't changing"...

Sorry to say it but this is rather true. My best example usually relates to the abysmal revenue controls exercised by TfL with their 'bendy buses' - absolutely hopeless and quite clearly ignorant of how it is done across Europe/World. In addition, the 'Borismaster' could well be the 'we always did it that way, we aren't changing' - after all, who on earth would have seriously suggested putting conductors back on buses (but not giving them revenue control duties).

Someone has already mentioned Karlsruhe, an excellent system that shows what can be done - but then so can just about everywhere in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Poland etc etc.

 

[edwin_m]

First of all, you have to buy out someone's business.

No you don't. The enabling legislation says that from date X all services within area Y will be subject to franchise competition. The existing operators have the choice of bidding for franchises and if they lose or decide not to bid they have the option of taking their assets away or selling them off. There is the option of TUPE transfer for existing crews.

New entrants would also have the opportunity to bid for franchises, and if they won they would have to invest in buses, depots and crews (unless transferred from the previous incumbent). But that's no more costly, and considerably less risky, than trying to break into the existing deregulated market.

I can't see any way the existing operators could sue for loss of business, any more than, say, pubs can sue if their licences are revoked, provided the process is carried out according to the rules and does not unfairly discriminate between operators.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No you don't. The enabling legislation says that from date X all services within area Y will be subject to franchise competition. The existing operators have the choice of bidding for franchises and if they lose or decide not to bid they have the option of taking their assets away or selling them off. There is the option of TUPE transfer for existing crews.

New entrants would also have the opportunity to bid for franchises, and if they won they would have to invest in buses, depots and crews (unless transferred from the previous incumbent). But that's no more costly, and considerably less risky, than trying to break into the existing deregulated market.

I can't see any way the existing operators could sue for loss of business, any more than, say, pubs can sue if their licences are revoked, provided the process is carried out according to the rules and does not unfairly discriminate between operators.

A pub losing it's license is akin to an operator losing it's O license.

However, removing an asset from a company is a completely different thing. I think you'll find that the operators will challenge through the courts including Europe. Basically, you cannot remove someone's business from them without compensation. As was quoted in the Guardian regarding Jeremy Corbyn's wish to take the energy businesses into public control...

“Such a policy would face many hurdles, such as compatibility with EU law, but if it was implemented how much might it cost? In his interview, Mr Corbyn suggests that the government could take a majority equity stake in the utility companies. However, under stock exchange rules, once a stock holding hits 30% an offer for the whole company must be made. Therefore, we assume that all of the equity would be acquired.”

And don't just think that assets is just depots and buses. The biggest one is the intangible worth of the business - "goodwill".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorry to say it but this is rather true. My best example usually relates to the abysmal revenue controls exercised by TfL with their 'bendy buses' - absolutely hopeless and quite clearly ignorant of how it is done across Europe/World. In addition, the 'Borismaster' could well be the 'we always did it that way, we aren't changing' - after all, who on earth would have seriously suggested putting conductors back on buses (but not giving them revenue control duties).

Someone has already mentioned Karlsruhe, an excellent system that shows what can be done - but then so can just about everywhere in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Poland etc etc.

Where I am coming from is perhaps a bit more centerist..... I see some excellent practices on the continent - in the last year, I have seen some really good stuff in Italy and some stuff that had it happened in the UK, this thread would go into meltdown.

I think the fact is that Europe does some stuff really well. Some of that "best practice" is actually relatively straight-forward to do but we just fail to do it. In terms of bus/rail integration, there's a good example in Buses magazine showing the lovely piazza outside Reading station. However, we can remember when it was a functional if slightly ropey bus interchange point. Even more criminal is the decision of Cardiff City Council to remove the main bus station from outside the station - a central location close to shops AND providing modal interchange. All thanks to the good aldermen of the city!!

However, there are other things that we do well. Having travelled on buses last year in Iceland, Cyprus and Italy, I can say that most comfortable and well appointed vehicles I've been on have been in the UK. They may not have double glazing but at least they had comfortable seating!

There are many areas that the continent have ahead of us, some where the UK is better. However, it's a miracle given how little we actually spend in central government expenditure and THAT is my main point. It is all very good citing these examples elsewhere - they've spent the money. We think that we can't or, worse still, can indulge in cross subsidy which is demonstrably damaging.

I am not some sort of rabid, free marketeer Tory. Far from it. I just wish when the Labour government from 1997 onwards had the chance, they could've been really bold. Instead, they milked the fuel duty escalator, didn't hypothecate the cash for transport, created a slush fund for rural buses (which was wasted) to appease the rural roads lobby, and then created an underfunded concessionary pass scheme that would now be political suicide to remove. Instead, the spend is reduced by simply cutting block grants so subsidised services are lost to everyone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you are implying that you need to have had such experience in order to realise that it is impossible to have excellent local transport and high patronage levels.

But it is possible. I've seen it with my own eyes. I travel on such networks regularly.

No, but it's easy to see the superficial. It's a bit like the Top Gear "how hard can it be...."

Well, the people who do it will testify it's bloody hard. I have friends in the industry - we did our transport degrees together. The stories they tell would open your eyes; I took the decision to go elsewhere as the money is better

 

[Robertj21a]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Where I am coming from is perhaps a bit more centerist..... I see some excellent practices on the continent - in the last year, I have seen some really good stuff in Italy and some stuff that had it happened in the UK, this thread would go into meltdown.

I think the fact is that Europe does some stuff really well. Some of that "best practice" is actually relatively straight-forward to do but we just fail to do it. In terms of bus/rail integration, there's a good example in Buses magazine showing the lovely piazza outside Reading station. However, we can remember when it was a functional if slightly ropey bus interchange point. Even more criminal is the decision of Cardiff City Council to remove the main bus station from outside the station - a central location close to shops AND providing modal interchange. All thanks to the good aldermen of the city!!

However, there are other things that we do well. Having travelled on buses last year in Iceland, Cyprus and Italy, I can say that most comfortable and well appointed vehicles I've been on have been in the UK. They may not have double glazing but at least they had comfortable seating!

There are many areas that the continent have ahead of us, some where the UK is better. However, it's a miracle given how little we actually spend in central government expenditure and THAT is my main point. It is all very good citing these examples elsewhere - they've spent the money. We think that we can't or, worse still, can indulge in cross subsidy which is demonstrably damaging.

I am not some sort of rabid, free marketeer Tory. Far from it. I just wish when the Labour government from 1997 onwards had the chance, they could've been really bold. Instead, they milked the fuel duty escalator, didn't hypothecate the cash for transport, created a slush fund for rural buses (which was wasted) to appease the rural roads lobby, and then created an underfunded concessionary pass scheme that would now be political suicide to remove. Instead, the spend is reduced by simply cutting block grants so subsidised services are lost to everyone.

I'll happily go along with much of that. I just feel that we do some things very well but other things so really badly that I wonder if 'Common Sense' has completely departed from some of us.

 

[miami]

So to return to the original title of this thread English bus usage continues to fall (in most places), in my case this is why I don't use my local village bus service.

I think the internet age has shown just how good the railway is. I can see the exact position of my train, when it's due in, how much a trip will cost, from my phone at any point. I have guaranteed connections, and if I miss them I get compensated.

Compare to a bus, where today I was waiting 20 minutes for the 1744 to turn up, no idea if it would bother turning up or not, the roulette wheel charged £4 for the journey today. Cash only of course. I couldn't give a stuff about the leather seats or the free wifi (which it apparently has), I want it to
1) Turn up on time
2) Tell me where it really is and when it's really due when it's inevitably late
3) Tell me how much it will cost to travel from A to B

I managed to find this about fares: http://www.ghacoaches.co.uk/fares/

Which has lots of fares, but doesn't give anything on a "point to point" basis.

And this: http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/88-Knutsford.pdf, which also has nothing about fares.

If I head into Altrincham I take the first bus that turns up, I think this is offered by at least 4 companies (Arriva, Manchester Community Transport, GHA coaches, Goodwins, Belle Vue but I don't recall seing "Belle Vue"), and has a multitude of prices, which all change from one week to the next. Any multi-journey ticket is completely random as there's no way to know if it would be valid on a return trip. Some buses are theoretically overtaken by others, but that assumes the bus is on time, and they are cancelled or massively delayed

Compare this with London, where you get on the bus, wave a thing at a pad, and sit down, before regretting it as you take an hour to go 3 miles. You can see that in 12 minutes time the 20 to Walthamstow will arrive at Traps Hill, and teh #142 can whisk me from Stanmore to Watford Junction in 3 minutes time. Compare it to Singapore, where you get on the bus, wave a thing at a pad, and sit down, and travel far faster.

As an irregular distress bus user. I'd far rather drive to the station and pay £3 to park for the day than get the bus (adding 40 minutes at least onto the trip. Each way.), paying £4, or £5, or £8, and be stuck with the first bus at 07.19 and last bus at 18.54 (so in other words have a taxi in at least one direction)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't use the bus for these reasons.

 

[LateThanNever]

A pub losing it's license is akin to an operator losing it's O license.

However, removing an asset from a company is a completely different thing. I think you'll find that the operators will challenge through the courts including Europe. Basically, you cannot remove someone's business from them without compensation. As was quoted in the Guardian regarding Jeremy Corbyn's wish to take the energy businesses into public control...

“Such a policy would face many hurdles, such as compatibility with EU law, but if it was implemented how much might it cost? In his interview, Mr Corbyn suggests that the government could take a majority equity stake in the utility companies. However, under stock exchange rules, once a stock holding hits 30% an offer for the whole company must be made. Therefore, we assume that all of the equity would be acquired.”

And don't just think that assets is just depots and buses. The biggest one is the intangible worth of the business - "goodwill".

The government could, of course decide to change stock exchange rules!

Additionally I think you need to consider that as per Dr Roger Sexton of Nottingham Trent University who argued in front of the Transport Select Committee, that “any claim to compensation [e.g. based on deprivation of possessions contrary to the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights] would be weak. An outgoing operator is being deprived of neither its vehicles, nor its real estate [because it can sell or deploy these assets in other ways]. The only “asset” which the operator might claim to have lost is the “goodwill” of its customers in a market where customer loyalty to an existing established bus operator is generally very weak [i.e. bus users get on the first bus that comes along].”
Further, where was this goodwill when say, Worst Group were trying to run Lothian buses off the road or Stagecoach trying the same in Greater Manchester? And why should either be compensated for just happening to be fortuitously in the right place at the right time?
When/if franchising arrives I would suggest that if any have the gall to fight for compensation, whilst at the same time seeking a franchised service, their case would and should automatiacally fail.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The government could, of course decide to change stock exchange rules!

Additionally I think you need to consider that as per Dr Roger Sexton of Nottingham Trent University who argued in front of the Transport Select Committee, that “any claim to compensation [e.g. based on deprivation of possessions contrary to the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights] would be weak. An outgoing operator is being deprived of neither its vehicles, nor its real estate [because it can sell or deploy these assets in other ways]. The only “asset” which the operator might claim to have lost is the “goodwill” of its customers in a market where customer loyalty to an existing established bus operator is generally very weak [i.e. bus users get on the first bus that comes along].”
Further, where was this goodwill when say, Worst Group were trying to run Lothian buses off the road or Stagecoach trying the same in Greater Manchester? And why should either be compensated for just happening to be fortuitously in the right place at the right time?
When/if franchising arrives I would suggest that if any have the gall to fight for compensation, whilst at the same time seeking a franchised service, their case would and should automatiacally fail.

Doctor Sexton's views are well known and, may I say, slightly jaundiced by his views....

"I am very much looking towards more regulation. I have been consistent in that view in the submissions I have made in writing to this Committee in the past, particularly if you look at the submissions I made in 2006 and 2007. Certainly in 2007 this Committee very much endorsed some of my views.

I would go the whole hog and introduce a franchising system for the whole United Kingdom, or at least England outside London, very much on the basis that it works not just in London."

And....

"We need radical new legislation to allow us to come into line with our European neighbours. We need to reject deregulation."

So in short.... Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

The idea that he espouses doesn't really bear up to analysis. Working on his assumption, the fact that punters show little brand loyalty (a moot point in itself as firms have sought to tie in punters by reducing regular travel) means that virtually any firm has no value other than the physical assets that it possesses. Taken to a logical conclusion, you can nationalise Tesco and not consider goodwill as there is little loyalty and people tend to go to the supermarket nearest their home?

As for changing stock market rules.....the implications for that are massive and that rule is there for a very good reason

 

[Tetchytyke]

Doctor Sexton's views are well known and, may I say, slightly jaundiced by his views...

Very probably, but I also do not see how the conclusion can be reached that deregulated bus operators have to be "compensated" for the introduction of a regulatory regime.

Nationalisation would be difficult because of the cost of buying the business, but regulation would not be nationalisation. Deregulated operators can choose to compete in the regulated marketplace or they can choose not to, but nobody is stealing their business from them. Nobody is saying Wonga should be compensated because regulation has forced them to lower their interest rates and increase affordability checks, so what is so different about the bus industry?

The report into Nexus' quality contract was interesting, at least in how the panel ripped into every slight inconsistency in Nexus' position whilst taking every half-truth from the bus operators at face value, even after stating that NEBOA were being, to paraphrase, disingenuous. And they still are: it's fascinating how the SmartZone multi-bus operator tickets, promised as an alternative to the Quality Contracts, are only available per council area, given that most commuting here is across council boundaries. I'm dying to hear what the justification for that one is. I don't necessarily think that a Quality Contract was the right route to take, but the current situation is ridiculous.

That said, the biggest issue for bus use around here has to be the complete lack of traffic management from the local councils. This morning it has just taken me 70 minutes on the bus to travel ten miles, a journey I can do in 50 minutes on a bicycle, because of traffic congestion and roadworks. Some of that is the operator's fault- they send the bus down all the congested roads- but mostly it is down to the councils failing to sort out the road infrastructure. I don't care about the plastic e-leather seats and the free WiFi (which didn't work), a bus that is slower than a bicycle is never going to attract people.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Working on his assumption, the fact that punters show little brand loyalty (a moot point in itself as firms have sought to tie in punters by reducing regular travel) means that virtually any firm has no value other than the physical assets that it possesses.

And most businesses don't have value other than the physical assets and the ongoing profits. Goodwill is so nebulous as to be meaningless in most situations.

That said, bus operators show no loyalty to their passengers (well, they show 56 days loyalty, which is the minimum required) so how can there be value in loyalty? A bus operator can withdraw a service with very little warning, as plenty of the outlying villages in Tyne and Wear know to their cost, so even if we compensate operators for the value of that loyalty that cost is going to be roughly £0.00.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, the biggest issue for bus use around here has to be the complete lack of traffic management from the local councils. This morning it has just taken me 70 minutes on the bus to travel ten miles, a journey I can do in 50 minutes on a bicycle, because of traffic congestion and roadworks. Some of that is the operator's fault- they send the bus down all the congested roads- but mostly it is down to the councils failing to sort out the road infrastructure. I don't care about the plastic e-leather seats and the free WiFi (which didn't work), a bus that is slower than a bicycle is never going to attract people.

Quite. The other thing that causes that is on-bus ticketing - if the bus stops at each stop for more than about 30 seconds in a typical 30mph town it *will* be slower than cycling.

But from experience the UK really is not any good at designing bus lanes. To do it well you have to start from the presumption that the bus will only stop when it wishes to, and that means lanes right up to junctions and junction priority are the key elements - rarely do you see this.

 

[pemma]

Compare to a bus, where today I was waiting 20 minutes for the 1744 to turn up, no idea if it would bother turning up or not, the roulette wheel charged £4 for the journey today. Cash only of course. I couldn't give a stuff about the leather seats or the free wifi (which it apparently has), I want it to
1) Turn up on time
2) Tell me where it really is and when it's really due when it's inevitably late
3) Tell me how much it will cost to travel from A to B

I managed to find this about fares: http://www.ghacoaches.co.uk/fares/

Which has lots of fares, but doesn't give anything on a "point to point" basis.

And this: http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/RouteMaps/88-Knutsford.pdf, which also has nothing about fares.

There was severe disruption to the 88 route yesterday morning, some people who use that service arrived an hour or more late for work so presumably the late running hadn't properly recovered by the evening. If a bus gets 30 minutes behind schedule on arrival at Knutsford or Altrincham they are known to cancel the next working and run the bus out-of-service along the A556 between Knutsford and Altrincham to hopefully start the following service on time. GHA have a Twitter and Facebook feed but didn't think to keep passengers up-to-date by posting updates on it.

Recently there's also been an 04 reg Dart filling in, so presumably one of the Enviros has been out-of-service or they're undergoing servicing. Note the lack of a disclaimer on the timetable that a bus without wifi, leather seats and tables may be used.

It also isn't clear where the boundary of their day tickets are. The Cheshire one apparently includes all of the 88 route but what about the 289 which also runs to Altrincham or the 200 which just goes in to Greater Manchester and is a contracted service for Cheshire East council? And what about Warrington or Halton, some people like to claim they are still part of Cheshire, some people like to claim they have been separate since the mid-90s.

Out of interest I once emailed GHA asking what the fare is from Mobberley Road, Knutsford to Knutsford bus station to see how it compared with the fare D&G Bus on the 300 route. The email I got back said "The hare for Mobberley to Knutsford is 2.20" (not a typo that's exactly what his reply was) so not only did he not read the email properly he said I would have to pay using hares instead of cash.

You can use Travelcard on the 88 route: http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/public_transport/bus/cheshire_travelcard.aspx but the only way you can top one up is by asking the driver to do it, so the first time you use one it's slower than by cash but on subsequent journeys if you have enough credit it's faster.

As an irregular distress bus user. I'd far rather drive to the station and pay £3 to park for the day than get the bus (adding 40 minutes at least onto the trip. Each way.), paying £4, or £5, or £8, and be stuck with the first bus at 07.19 and last bus at 18.54 (so in other words have a taxi in at least one direction)

Since December the first 88 bus to Altrincham leaves Knutsford at 05:25 and the last 88 bus from Altrincham leaves Altrincham at 19:20, those times are shown on the timetable you linked to. Yes that's another disadvantage of the bus the times can be changed at 8 weeks notice and passengers usually get a lot less than 8 weeks notice so improvements can go unnoticed at first and people can turn up for a bus which has been withdrawn unaware of the withdrawal.

 

[radamfi]

So you make a law in 1985, but future governments are not allowed to revoke it. How is that remotely democratic? Should you compensate anyone who suffers by an activity being outlawed? If running a commercial service becomes illegal then that's it.

a bus that is slower than a bicycle is never going to attract people.

In an urban area, a bike should be able to match or better a bus journey time, especially when you take into account bus waiting time. That's why bike usage far outstrips bus usage in the Netherlands. Certainly in small to medium sized urban areas, up to say about 300,000 people, the bike has the best potential to replace car trips now that electric bikes make hills irrelevant. Developing bike infrastructure up to Dutch standards is relatively cheap compared to building bus and tram infrastructure up to typical European standards and you don't have the ongoing subsidy costs of running a state of the art bus/tram service (although of course the Dutch do both!). But the side effect would be a loss of of bus passengers to the bike, meaning that commercial bus service would no longer be possible. Should the bus company sue for loss of business in this case?