English bus usage continues to fall (in most places)

[TheGrandWazoo]

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 ---


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.

I know you don't like it but WE SOLD THE FAMILY SILVER. As a country, we took that decision. You may think it's some quirk of fate and that we gave it away. Fair enough - I respect your view. However, we did in full knowledge of what we were doing and, at the time, it was seen as a massively uneconomic industry that was haemorrhaging money.

We can't just decide that because we've sold most of the council housing that now we can simply take it back. That is however laudable the reasoning may be.

Goodwill is clearly important AND it is something that the operators have paid out for. When they've bought businesses, they've paid for the tangible assets AND the inherent worth of the business.

Also, as can be clearly demonstrated, they're making a profit so when you're looking at revenue vs costs, there's clearly a net worth. You cannot say on one hand that Busways makes a ludicrous 20% margin and then say that there is no inherent goodwill - just doesn't make sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Not what I said. You can change it but you must compensate businesses.

Also, it's not an activity that is being outlawed. What you are essentially doing is taking someone's business away and giving it to someone else.

If you're talking about democracy, then remind me which government passed the 1985 Act and what was their majority.......

That said, they were assisted by a Labour Party that was riven with division, had lost a previous election relatively closely but then had lurched dramatically to the left before being soundly beaten in the following election. That was under the leadership of an ageing leftist party stalwart but sadly diverted by a cabale of hard left activists..... Thank god that sort of thing couldn't happen today

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know you don't like it but WE SOLD THE FAMILY SILVER. As a country, we took that decision. You may think it's some quirk of fate and that we gave it away. Fair enough - I respect your view. However, we did in full knowledge of what we were doing and, at the time, it was seen as a massively uneconomic industry that was haemorrhaging money.

I'd agree that you cannot just waltz into the depot and seize the buses.

But that isn't what regulation would do. It would simply set down rules and regulations about who can operate buses, where and when. Nobody would be having their businesses "stolen" from them. There just wouldn't be the stupid free-for-all that we have now, with companies actively competing along the busy corridors and then saying they "can't afford" to serve the more marginalised areas.

As I said, nobody would seriously advocate compensating Wonga because new regulations have forced them to tighten their business ethics and that's dampened their profitability.

Goodwill is clearly important AND it is something that the operators have paid out for. When they've bought businesses, they've paid for the tangible assets AND the inherent worth of the business.

Or, in many cases (hello Hants and Dorset) a value far below the inherent worth of the business.

But that's also not the point. The value of your investment can go down as well as up. The value then might not be the value now. It works both ways. The idea that we can't change anything because someone bought a state-owned business thirty years ago is ridiculous.

Also, as can be clearly demonstrated, they're making a profit so when you're looking at revenue vs costs, there's clearly a net worth. You cannot say on one hand that Busways makes a ludicrous 20% margin and then say that there is no inherent goodwill - just doesn't make sense.

But the value of Busways is the expected future profit combined with the capital assets value. There is no intrinsic value in the Stagecoach name, the idea that people truthfully care who runs it is laughable. "I would catch the Arriva bus outside my door, but I prefer orange buses so I'll walk three miles and catch the other one" said nobody ever.

We saw that when First walked out of North Devon and sold up: the name had no value, the registrations had no value, the only things of value were the depot land and the vehicles.

We also saw that when Arriva and Go-Ahead came to their little agreement about buses in Northumberland. People in Tynedale and Wansbeck didn't stop (or indeed start) using the bus because the logo on the side of the bus changed.

Busways make good margins because they are good at making sure revenue is higher than expenditure. The value of their business is their ability to do that.

 

[radamfi]

Not what I said. You can change it but you must compensate businesses.

Also, it's not an activity that is being outlawed. What you are essentially doing is taking someone's business away and giving it to someone else.

If you're talking about democracy, then remind me which government passed the 1985 Act and what was their majority.......

That said, they were assisted by a Labour Party that was riven with division, had lost a previous election relatively closely but then had lurched dramatically to the left before being soundly beaten in the following election. That was under the leadership of an ageing leftist party stalwart but sadly diverted by a cabale of hard left activists..... Thank god that sort of thing couldn't happen today

The activity that became legal in 1986 was "running a commercial bus service". In the event of franchising, the activity of "running a commercial bus service" would become illegal. Whether or not a franchised bus service replaces it is immaterial. Presumably you think it would therefore be legal for commercial services to be banned with no replacement?

It doesn't matter what colour the government is. The colour is merely a branding and may have little or no bearing on its actual performance. So it totally possible for a 2016 Conservative government to permit franchising whereas previous Labour governments didn't. In the Netherlands, they have had a right-of-centre prime minister since 2002, but they still continue to invest in cycling and public transport.

Franchising is due in Greater Manchester anyway. No committee to block it there. Osborne would have serious egg on his face if devolution and his precious "Northern Powerhouse" was derailed.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The activity that became legal in 1986 was "running a commercial bus service". In the event of franchising, the activity of "running a commercial bus service" would become illegal. Whether or not a franchised bus service replaces it is immaterial. Presumably you think it would therefore be legal for commercial services to be banned with no replacement?

Sorry but the government sold off the publicly owned bus services. You banked the money, had the benefit, spent it.

There is a difference to an outright banning of activity (illegality) but back door nationalisation is not permitted. You would remove a major part of the inherent net worth of large businesses.

If the half baked plan from Nexus is any indication, I'd be worried about the ability of people there to do anything. The reality may well be the Cornish scenario - it provides leverage on operators. I'd be seriously worried about anything proposed by George. Cue a full scale removal of any ENCTS or any other central government funding!

 

[radamfi]

Sorry but the government sold off the publicly owned bus services. You banked the money, had the benefit, spent it.

There is a difference to an outright banning of activity (illegality) but back door nationalisation is not permitted. You would remove a major part of the inherent net worth of large businesses.

Privatisation and deregulation are two separate things. Some privatisations happened before deregulation and many after. Indeed, deregulation could have occurred without any privatisation at all. We could have allowed all existing state owned companies to continue as they were and compete with each other, compete with coach companies (which were already private in 1986) and new upstarts. And this is what happened in a lot of areas well into the 90s.

For example, GM Buses had operated as a public sector company until it was ordered to be split into two and privatised. But both companies were sold to employees, not major groups. It was only later that these companies were sold onto First and Stagecoach. So First and Stagecoach did not buy directly from the public sector. They can't claim that they bought directly from a privatisation that would guarantee them the right to run commercial bus services in perpetuity.

Same for many of the other former council/PTE firms.

There is no nationalisation proposed at all.

If there was no risk of franchising without nationalisation, then the big groups wouldn't care. They would be looking forward to receiving big money for their declining bus services, which could then be reinvested in bidding for franchises and buying up other companies. But they are worried, meaning that they think that if franchising happened, they would not be compensated.

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry but the government sold off the publicly owned bus services. You banked the money, had the benefit, spent it.

There is a difference to an outright banning of activity (illegality) but back door nationalisation is not permitted. You would remove a major part of the inherent net worth of large businesses.

If the half baked plan from Nexus is any indication, I'd be worried about the ability of people there to do anything. The reality may well be the Cornish scenario - it provides leverage on operators. I'd be seriously worried about anything proposed by George. Cue a full scale removal of any ENCTS or any other central government funding!

Nobody is suggesting buying them back, just making them compete for franchises in a regulated environment. Did the makers of "legal highs" sue when they were banned? I really don't see how there is any legal claim here and I would be interested in an opinion from anyone with legal expertise.

The fact that Nexus may have made a mess of it doesn't make it in itself a bad thing to do.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sorry but the government sold off the publicly owned bus services. You banked the money, had the benefit, spent it.

There is a difference to an outright banning of activity (illegality) but back door nationalisation is not permitted. You would remove a major part of the inherent net worth of large businesses.

I can't speak for radamfi, but I'm not talking about "backdoor nationalisation", I'm talking about setting up a regulatory framework where a local transport body sets the routes, times and fares and then employs a contractor to operate it. Nexus screwed it up, with more than a little help from a panel that seemed ever-so-slightly skewed towards the status quo, but that doesn't mean it's the correct way to go. It wouldn't be a solution to all the ills, but it would sort out some of the stupidity (e.g. all three big bus companies here competing heavily on routes into Cobalt and Silverlink).

The bus companies are seemingly happy enough with this relationship when it comes to tendered bus services. Just make all of them tendered.

As for the "value" of the business, compensating the bus companies for the change is as ridiculous as compensating tobacco manufacturers because of the changes to smoking laws.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The bus companies are seemingly happy enough with this relationship when it comes to tendered bus services. Just make all of them tendered.

As for the "value" of the business, compensating the bus companies for the change is as ridiculous as compensating tobacco manufacturers because of the changes to smoking laws.

Getting perilously close to Godwins Law there.

As I said, we sold the businesses to them. They paid for them. Why shouldn't they get paid for them if they're losing their livelihood?

 

[Tetchytyke]

As I said, we sold the businesses to them. They paid for them. Why shouldn't they get paid for them if they're losing their livelihood?

The same reason why companies who went bust following the loss of tendered services got nada (Western Greyhound say hi).

 

[radamfi]

As I said, we sold the businesses to them. They paid for them.

Who's "we"? "We" sold GM Buses North and GMS Buses to their employees. The employees sold them to First and Stagecoach. Therefore "we" did not sell GM Buses North and GMS Buses to First and Stagecoach. Similarly for many other companies not directly privatised.

In other areas, the link between the nationalised company and today is very weak or non-existent. For example if we wanted franchising in Thurrock, the area is mostly run by Ensignbus, not related to any pre-1986 public sector firm.

Why shouldn't they get paid for them if they're losing their livelihood?

Since when do we compensate companies for closing down? Existing companies could get franchise opportunities locally and even if they didn't, they could sell up and enter franchises in other areas, so would probably still be operating and may even by flourishing. Employees will more than likely get jobs at franchisees.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Who's "we"? "We" sold GM Buses North and GMS Buses to their employees. The employees sold them to First and Stagecoach. Therefore "we" did not sell GM Buses North and GMS Buses to First and Stagecoach. Similarly for many other companies not directly privatised.

In other areas, the link between the nationalised company and today is very weak or non-existent. For example if we wanted franchising in Thurrock, the area is mostly run by Ensignbus, not related to any pre-1986 public sector firm.



Since when do we compensate companies for closing down? Existing companies could get franchise opportunities locally and even if they didn't, they could sell up and enter franchises in other areas, so would probably still be operating and may even by flourishing. Employees will more than likely get jobs at franchisees.

We did. We, as a country, voted massively for the 1983 Thatcher government who introduced deregulation and began the sale of the NBC and we voted massively for the 1987 Thatcher government who continued the process and sold the SBG and the even began selling off the PTE operators. Democracy as you put it.

The fact that the business has been sold on is neither here nor there. It was publicly owned. We sold it out of public ownership - we sold the family silver as Harold MacMillan said at the time.

You don't compensate a business for failing. However, these are profitable businesses - too profitable for you in fact!

As I said before.... would you remove someone's home from them without compensation? Or their livelihood (e.g. redundancy)? No, you wouldn't.

In terms of the NBC, many firms were absolute basket cases, losing millions each year (in the 1970s - when a million was a lot of money). These firms may have been sold to get rid of the endless haemorrhage of cash that was needed to prop them up. All very easy to say now that they make too much.

And to get back on topic - I have no confidence in Nexus or ANY local authority not to make an absolute pigs ear of things. Responding to Arctic Troll - you think the T&W committee was biased? Nexus made fundamental mistakes and this was on their second submission, the first being fundamentally wrong in so many ways. They had a second go and made such elementary mistakes, it was frankly embarrassing.

 

[radamfi]

And to get back on topic - I have no confidence in Nexus or ANY local authority not to make an absolute pigs ear of things.

What about all the local authorities in the Netherlands who have been procuring bus services since tendering was introduced about 15 years ago?

Unless you believe that local authorities in Britain have to be bad, just because we are talking about Britain. I've more or less said that on a number of occasions myself. For example, when I say it is British culture that means things happen in a certain way meaning that good, integrated public transport simply cannot happen. This is basically out of desperation. But if we don't hope that things can improve, what's the point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You don't compensate a business for failing. However, these are profitable businesses - too profitable for you in fact!

As I said before.... would you remove someone's home from them without compensation? Or their livelihood (e.g. redundancy)? No, you wouldn't.

Where was it written down that deregulation would be guaranteed forever? Operators have had to operate on the basis that deregulation may be temporary so have no right to assume it will never end. That's the risk involved in being in the private sector.

Should operators that have no relation to past nationalised companies be compensated?

 

[miami]

We did. We, as a country, voted massively for the 1983 Thatcher government who introduced deregulation and began the sale of the NBC and we voted massively for the 1987 Thatcher government who continued the process and sold the SBG and the even began selling off the PTE operators. Democracy as you put it.

1983: Conservatives received 42.4% of the vote
1987: Conservatives received 42.2% of the vote

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

1983: Conservatives received 42.4% of the vote
1987: Conservatives received 42.2% of the vote

In a first past the post system, that is the way it works. Those are only slightly worse than the 1997 Labour landslide (43.4%). The most telling stats are:

1983 Conservative majority - 144 seats
1987 Conservative majority - 102 seats

 

[radamfi]

Labour and the SNP have kept deregulation as well, so the party in government is largely irrelevant.

 

[miami]

In a first past the post system, that is the way it works. Those are only slightly worse than the 1997 Labour landslide (43.4%). The most telling stats are:

1983 Conservative majority - 144 seats
1987 Conservative majority - 102 seats

Quite, so a massive drop in majority because of the bus sell off?

However most people voting in both 83 and 87 did not vote for the party that wanted to "sell off the family silver".

 

[radamfi]

I'm largely in favour of privatisation, in any industry, as long as there is adequate competition or strong regulation in the case of a private monopoly. Problems occur when the regulator doesn't have enough "teeth".

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Quite, so a massive drop in majority because of the bus sell off?

However most people voting in both 83 and 87 did not vote for the party that wanted to "sell off the family silver".

Hmmm.... or you could say that they were buoyed by the 1980 Transport Act that deregulated the coach industry

1979 Conservative Majority - 44
1983 Conservative Majority - 144

If you expect in a first past the post system to form a majority, then sorry to disappoint. Doesn't happen and even in the post war elections, the winning party didn't get more than half the vote.

Another way of looking it is that more people voted for the silver selling party than any other single party. More crucially, they won more seats.

 

[edwin_m]

You don't compensate a business for failing. However, these are profitable businesses - too profitable for you in fact!

Yes, that's really the root of the problem. The big operators are making big profits. They tell us deregulation is the best system and threaten to take their toys away if anyone disagrees. I suppose they would say that wouldn't they.

 

[Robertj21a]

What about all the local authorities in the Netherlands who have been procuring bus services since tendering was introduced about 15 years ago?

Unless you believe that local authorities in Britain have to be bad, just because we are talking about Britain. I've more or less said that on a number of occasions myself. For example, when I say it is British culture that means things happen in a certain way meaning that good, integrated public transport simply cannot happen. This is basically out of desperation. But if we don't hope that things can improve, what's the point?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do have to say that this rings rather true with me. Good, integrated, public transport in Britain is largely non-existent for many potential passengers.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, that's really the root of the problem. The big operators are making big profits. They tell us deregulation is the best system and threaten to take their toys away if anyone disagrees. I suppose they would say that wouldn't they.

Let's draw a parallel

You own a house? You (Edwin) bought it - to be fair, it was a bit of a decent deal? It perhaps wasn't in the best of repair but you saw the potential. You have added value to it (though some people may disagree with your tastes)?

The local authority then come along and say.... You've got a three bedroom but you and your partner only use one bedroom. We have a family who need three bedrooms so....

We'll take that 3 bed house off you. You can apply to be put on a list for a one bedroom house so you'll have the chance to have a house (but no guarantees). You can retain all the furniture which you can sell (but of course, you'll have too much as its a much smaller house so a bit of a fire sale).

However, you won't get any compensation.... after all, it's for the greater good

Would you accept that?

 

[radamfi]

Transport Act 2000 has been in existence for over 15 years now. Ever since that became law, operators have had to factor in the possibility of deregulation ending in their area. If that law can only be put into operation by nationalisation, then there was no point passing that law, nor devolution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you accept that?

I think the parallel is more with compulsory purchase of a house as it actually is done. You get a fair market value based on the value before the building project was announced, AIUI, but you do lose the "goodwill" of the things you have done to it for your benefit that haven't added to the value.

For example, I ripped the bath out and fitted a nice walk-in shower. If my house was compulsory purchased I'd effectively lose that, as while it makes the house better for me it's likely to have reduced the value slightly by reducing appeal to young families.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, I think the Quality Contract assessment panel were biased against the idea of Quality Contracts, if not Nexus themselves. Nexus were ripped to shreds- they were basically told they can't contract buses because they don't currently run buses- whilst NEBOA's assertions were all seemingly taken at face value DESPITE the fact that the panel actually acknowledged NEBOA were being disingenuous. The panel decided a voluntary partnership would be OK despite NEBOA only offering this in the hearing rather than, say, eighteen months previously.

I think the introduction of the SmartZone ticketing by council area- despite the fact most travel is across council boundaries- shows just how disingenuous NEBOA were being with their promises. The tickets are basically useless, as well NEBOA know. I can't think of a single Stagecoach route you can ride end to end in one council area. It's as though they've deliberately done the most useless thing they could whilst still fitting in with the promises they made.

I don't think the Nexus proposals were the way forward, I think a genuine voluntary partnership is the way forward. Sadly NEBOA are acting like petulant schoolchildren, so chances of that happening are nil.

As for the panel, I think they were biased, and the result is that they've set the burden so high that no PTE could ever impose a quality contract. The bus operators must be gutted.

 

[edwin_m]

Let's draw a parallel

You own a house? You (Edwin) bought it - to be fair, it was a bit of a decent deal? It perhaps wasn't in the best of repair but you saw the potential. You have added value to it (though some people may disagree with your tastes)?

The local authority then come along and say.... You've got a three bedroom but you and your partner only use one bedroom. We have a family who need three bedrooms so....

We'll take that 3 bed house off you. You can apply to be put on a list for a one bedroom house so you'll have the chance to have a house (but no guarantees). You can retain all the furniture which you can sell (but of course, you'll have too much as its a much smaller house so a bit of a fire sale).

However, you won't get any compensation.... after all, it's for the greater good

Would you accept that?

Completely irrelevant. Much more so than the tobacco analogy that you sought to dismiss by a completely spurious reference to Godwin's Law.

The bus companies can still bid for franchises in their local areas, or can move to another area, or sell their assets.

To take another example, electricians now have to be qualified/registered to self-certify their work or employ an independent person to do so. Did any electricians sue the Government when this law came in, because they would have to incur extra costs to stay in business?

Any business can be affected by changes in the law, and as long as it's not unreasonable or discriminatory I don't see that they can compete. However I'm not a lawyer and nor is anyone else in this discussion as far as I can tell.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Completely irrelevant. Much more so than the tobacco analogy that you sought to dismiss by a completely spurious reference to Godwin's Law.

The bus companies can still bid for franchises in their local areas, or can move to another area, or sell their assets.

To take another example, electricians now have to be qualified/registered to self-certify their work or employ an independent person to do so. Did any electricians sue the Government when this law came in, because they would have to incur extra costs to stay in business?

Any business can be affected by changes in the law, and as long as it's not unreasonable or discriminatory I don't see that they can compete. However I'm not a lawyer and nor is anyone else in this discussion as far as I can tell.

There is a different principle in legislative changes that even the industry has to adopt whether that be drivers' hours rule, WTD, living wage.

What is being proposed is the removal of the value of a business. Outright. Of course, it's easy to have a go at the big boys (boo hiss) but it is equally applicable to smaller businesses. A business like the Delaine who have clearly operate over several years can simply be removed should they fail to win their franchise. In fact, it's worse for small firms given they have no ability to move resources.

Note that the unions aren't in favour of franchising. Why? Because they recognise that if the cost of vehicles and fuel are broadly the same and the requirement to make a profit is the same, then how do tenderers get any form of competitive advantage? Off the backs of the workers!

As for tobacco companies, they haven't had their business removed from them. I was merely pointing out the central tenet of Godwin's law - a lurch to an extreme position to justify an argument and that was where we were going!

 

[radamfi]

There is a different principle in legislative changes that even the industry has to adopt whether that be drivers' hours rule, WTD, living wage.

What is being proposed is the removal of the value of a business. Outright. Of course, it's easy to have a go at the big boys (boo hiss) but it is equally applicable to smaller businesses. A business like the Delaine who have clearly operate over several years can simply be removed should they fail to win their franchise. In fact, it's worse for small firms given they have no ability to move resources.

Note that the unions aren't in favour of franchising. Why? Because they recognise that if the cost of vehicles and fuel are broadly the same and the requirement to make a profit is the same, then how do tenderers get any form of competitive advantage? Off the backs of the workers!

As for tobacco companies, they haven't had their business removed from them. I was merely pointing out the central tenet of Godwin's law - a lurch to an extreme position to justify an argument and that was where we were going!

It sounds like you are against the removal of the ability to operate commercial services on moral grounds, which is consistent with your opposition to franchising. You support deregulation regardless whether it is optimal for patronage levels. Would you even be proposing deregulation now if we currently had tendering?

But you've yet to convince me that it is illegal to take away the ability to run commercial services. If it really was illegal, then the QC proposal for Tyne & Wear wouldn't have got as far as it did. There would be no proposal for devolution for Greater Manchester, as it would be obviously unviable. The operators are fighting the proposals, meaning that they know it is legally possible to do what is suggested.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It sounds like you are against the removal of the ability to operate commercial services on moral grounds, which is consistent with your opposition to franchising. You support deregulation regardless whether it is optimal for patronage levels. Would you even be proposing deregulation now if we currently had tendering?

But you've yet to convince me that it is illegal to take away the ability to run commercial services. If it really was illegal, then the QC proposal for Tyne & Wear wouldn't have got as far as it did. There would be no proposal for devolution for Greater Manchester, as it would be obviously unviable. The operators are fighting the proposals, meaning that they know it is legally possible to do what is suggested.

First of all, it's not like we're banning legal highs and removing a right to trade. The fact is that bus services aren't being banned for health reasons; it is a removal of a right to trade and to transfer that right to a franchising system that by its nature removes a substantial part of the value of that business.

As I used with the house analogy, if someone took your house away from you, you'd expect compensation. If you were involved in an accident and the third party had removed your ability to earn the same money, you would expect compensation. So the compensatory aspect seems to be a complete anomaly.

Then there's the concern about the rationale. What is the motivation of George Osborne? Is it an altruistic gesture....? Or is it a way of washing the governments' hands of such expenditure.

Given the dubious record of various local authorities and PTEs (I've mentioned Nexus but I can point out many more), I have serious concerns about the capability of people in those positions. Nexus Quaylink hybrids anyone? The inability to even understand working capital - I mean, come on!! That is noddy stuff financially.

Lastly, the idea that somehow this will be the land of milk and honey. Well, look at stuff like the 36 in Harrogate or even the Sapphire and Max services in the north east. Where will the innovation come from? Moreover, I look at the justification and it always points at London - ignoring the fact that such improvements have required a lot of money. The idea that you can do something for nothing and a raft of cross subsidy just doesn't bear close examination (as was demonstrated in the Nexus submission and that was after they'd got it wrong first time and simply re-cut things to try and make them fit).

The idea that you can have european style public transport without european spending..... What next? Turning base metal into gold?

And hey, I don't say that the current system is perfect. For the good work that Stagecoach do AND I do think First are doing some good things, there are also other firms that do seem to be in a some malaise or torpor!

BTW, I know I won't convince you.... You elect to ignore the trade press and bus company managers because their views don't chime with yours

 

[radamfi]

BTW, I know I won't convince you.... You elect to ignore the trade press and bus company managers because their views don't chime with yours

When I see them dismissing the benefits of integration and cycling I know they are part of the problem, rather than the solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lastly, the idea that somehow this will be the land of milk and honey. Well, look at stuff like the 36 in Harrogate or even the Sapphire and Max services in the north east.

The 36 is truly innovative - a bus with premium car quality. But it's an island of innovation in an industry that with a few notable exceptions is not innovative.

Sapphire and Max are a turd-polishing exercise. Taking a standard bus and fitting plastic seats, power sockets, a cheap Mifi device, white LED destination and a coat of paint does not solve the underlying issues of comfort, quality of ambiance, connectivity, running speed and integration, nor the most important ones of punctuality and reliability, nor driving standards etc.

I'm not saying these concepts are not worthwhile, but they are not ground-breaking - they are still very conservative.

In summary, it's a posh bus, but it's still a bus.