Former UN rapporteur claims UK bus privatisation breached basic rights

[overthewater]

UK bus privatisation breached basic rights, says ex-UN rapporteur

Report blasts ‘more expensive, unreliable’ routes outside London that have cut people off from communities and essential services

www.theguardian.com

Britain’s bus services outside London were so damaged by privatisation that people were unable to access basic needs such as work, education and healthcare, according to a scathing report by the former UN special rapporteur on human rights.

Many people in Britain had lost jobs and benefits, been forced to give up on education, or been cut off from communities and healthcare as bus services grew more expensive, unreliable, and dysfunctional after the 1985 reform, the inquiry found.



The report is co-authored by Philip Alston, a New York-based academic whose UN reports in 2018-19 denounced the “social calamity” of austerity policies in the UK which he found had caused widespread poverty.

Alston said the deregulation of buses, brought in under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, had “provided a masterclass in how not to run an essential public service, leaving residents at the mercy of private actors who have total discretion over how to run a bus route, or whether to run one at all”.

He added: “In case after case, service that was once dependable, convenient, and widely used has been scaled back dramatically or made unaffordable.”

The authors interviewed passengers across Britain who described a broken, fragmented system with falling ridership as fares soared.

While the government has recognised buses need renewed investment and enacted some reforms, potentially allowing franchising in other cities outside London, the report was sceptical about the recently unveiled national bus strategy.

Alston said the UK could afford a world-class bus system if it chose. “Instead, the government has outsourced responsibility for a vital public service, propping up an arrangement that prioritises private profits and denying the public a decent bus.”

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Services across England are patchy, and it’s frankly not good enough.”

They said the strategy unveiled this year would “completely overhaul services”, adding: “We will provide unprecedented funding, but we need councils to work closely with operators, and the government, to develop the services of the future.”

The Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents private bus operators, said reliable journeys, well-equipped buses and competitive pricing were goals everyone shared. A spokesperson said: “These are best delivered where operators and local authorities work in partnership without local people having to take on the financial risk and cost of council control.”

Transport unions said the report was “completely right in its assessment”.

The RMT general secretary, Mick Lynch, said the government needed to urgently rethink its strategy “and stop caving to the private operators”, adding: “It needs to reverse the ban on new municipal bus companies, and provide sufficient ringfenced national funding for all local authorities to deliver the bus services their local communities require.”

Im not sure it does that, but you can hardly blame all of the issues at the foot of the private companies, if the government cuts funding and does nothing to sort out the congestion.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

UK bus privatisation breached basic rights, says ex-UN rapporteur

Report blasts ‘more expensive, unreliable’ routes outside London that have cut people off from communities and essential services

www.theguardian.com

Im not sure it does that, but you can hardly blame all of the issues at the foot of the private companies, if the government cuts funding and does nothing to sort out the congestion.

Perhaps sort out the title thread. The UN haven't said anything - it was a report by a guy who had previously written on austerity for the UN.

However, you're right that it was the government who

• Reduced expenditure on supported services
• Cuts to remuneration funding for ENCTS
• Increases to the burden on operators
• Cuts to the Bus Service Operators Grant

All whilst not daring upset the private car user. Once again the government will point to the support they're giving despite being the cause of the issues in the first place

 

[GusB]

Perhaps sort out the title thread. The UN haven't said anything - it was a report by a guy who had previously written on austerity for the UN.

Done!

 

[L401CJF]

I can't even begin to count how many early morning/late evening contract services we have lost (and even day time in some cases) on Wirral alone over the last decade thanks to budget cuts. All vital services to a lot of people, as most of them served the hospitals etc.

In recent years Merseytravel have conducted "bus reviews" to adapt services to suit passengers needs. In reality it was a budget cutting exercise in which they had already decided what was happening before the public consultations took place.

This left huge gaps in the Wirral bus network (I can't comment on Liverpool), and the missing bits were connected by dishing out work to local independent Avon Buses. Unfortunately they ceased trading a couple of years ago, and the majority of their routes were left without replacement to this day leaving a fragmented bus network rather than the network to suit passengers needs as they claimed.

 

[cnjb8]

Either way I think we can all agree something needs to change. I’d say Nottingham is well served by buses and yet there have been a lot of cuts and vital connections are still missing

 

[A0wen]

All vital services to a lot of people, as most of them served the hospitals etc.

But many poorly used - and running half empty buses isn't good business. I'm afraid where bus services are concerned people should be clear it's a case of "use it or lose it" - one person making one or two journeys a week doesn't make a service viable.

 

[L401CJF]

But many poorly used - and running half empty buses isn't good business. I'm afraid where bus services are concerned people should be clear it's a case of "use it or lose it" - one person making one or two journeys a week doesn't make a service viable.

But that's just it! They axed the ones that had fairly decent usage, yet the routes which carry fresh air still exist!

A good example of this is the 492/495 circle. Ran by Arriva during the daytime Monday to Saturday, then was ran by Avon after 7pm and all day Sunday. When Avon went bust the evening and Sunday service was lost and both were previously very well used (also having been altered slightly to replace part of a route withdrawn in the 2017 bus review. ) The estates it serves are a good walk away from other bus routes.

It currently has a 2 hourly service on Sunday, and a 2 hourly evening service until 9pm by Arriva.

In Moreton there are a series of circular routes which operate in and out of the surrounding estates. During the day ideal for old dears popping the shop etc. However it somehow survived the cut and runs until near midnight 7 days a week! Never seen a soul on it after 6pm, and the estates it works through are all very close distance to the evening Arriva and Stagecoach services that pass through the area. A complete waste of money yet apparently its an essential service despite carrying nobody, yet the 492/5 which were busy and serve a greater population further away from main bus routes doesn't warrant one.

Apparently this is because a Councillor or MP or somebody lives locally and keeps the voters happy by not getting their service axed but don't quote me on that!

 

[Citistar]

This report fits the current media trend, which is supporting the government's drive for regulation at any cost whilst ignoring the real issues.

To echo what Grand Wazoo said, Since 1986 spending on supported services has been continually cut everywhere outside London. Due to government legislation, vehicles have become more expensive to buy, operate and maintain. The paperwork trail required of operators has never been more arduous. Private motoring has never been cheaper. And all this is apparently the fault of evil, demonic bus companies.

No media outlet has any interest in the other side of the story, which is a sad indictment of our supposedly free press and the reason i feel the need to write the company blog - nobody is challenging the single flawed viewpoint being trotted out by people who know nothing about passenger transport.

 

[tbtc]

A few thoughts:

1. I really don't like the way that people always talk about "rights" (when they sometimes just mean a wishlist of nice things that they'd like). I'd certainly agree that thirty five years of cuts have left some people unable to access education/ healthcare/ employment/ shops - looking at the reductions in frequencies/ fleets/ services, of course there have been cuts - but it doesn't need the hyperbole of "THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT" - that makes it look overly emotional. It's the same with lots of campaign groups though - they never say "we would like the following things...", they describe it as THEIR RIGHTS

2. There were a lot of cuts in the decades before 1986 - it'd have been amazing if passenger numbers had stabilised in 1986 after many years of decline - so "numbers have gone down" isn't the zinger that some people treat it as

3. As above - it's all about public funding. PTEs/ Councils etc used to subsidise lots of services - now they can't even afford to keep libraries open, so of course the money for buses had dried up

4. Although bus users out number train users, buses get ignored by politicians. Imagine if politicians worried about bus users (in the way that they focus on rail passengers) - rail passengers have guaranteed service levels, rail passengers have guarantees that their fares won't go up by more than inflation (or RPI + 1%) - whereas bus services can be cut at a few weeks notice/ fares can go up by much more than inflation/ fare rises can be more than once a year... politicians could tweak the bus market, but nobody seems interested in modest improvements (e.g. two timetable changes a year?), it's either "the naked greed of capitalism" or it's "nationalise/ regulate everything completely"

To echo what Grand Wazoo said, Since 1986 spending on supported services has been continually cut everywhere outside London. Due to government legislation, vehicles have become more expensive to buy, operate and maintain. The paperwork trail required of operators has never been more arduous. Private motoring has never been cheaper. And all this is apparently the fault of evil, demonic bus companies

Excellent points - I sometimes moan about First/ Stagecoach but I get annoyed when other people blame them for things, like struggling to run a bus service from a suburb into the city centre as successfully as the PTE/ NBC/ SBG did (when the public sector operated in an era where few people had cars, there weren't retail parks by ring roads or websites to spread the demand between loads of different places, buses were cheap to purchase)... how can a bus compete in that market?

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Services across England are patchy, and it’s frankly not good enough.”

...and who's fault do you think that was?

It's good to see someone in Government takes hand washing seriously - shame it's just to wash their hands of responsibility (rather than Covid related)

 

[Megafuss]

Either way I think we can all agree something needs to change. I’d say Nottingham is well served by buses and yet there have been a lot of cuts and vital connections are still missing

There are plenty of big towns and cities like Nottingham in terms of frequency and service level. But they don't have strong local authority partners, which is where things need to change.

 

[carlberry]

Assuming the quotes reflect the report it appears to have been deliberately written to arrive at a pre-agreed conclusion, with little need to be balanced. The quote also makes the usual jump between privatisation and deregulation without deciding which one it's actually complaining about.

So what would the situation be now if deregulation and privatisation hadn't happened.

Would the fall in bus passenger numbers have been changed? There is no question that the early years of deregulation caused the loss of passengers, however passengers have also been gained because of the (too few) companies that have made a difference over the years using marketing and improving their services. However most of the loss would have happened anyway as the alternative has got more convenient and cheaper over time.

Would there be loads more money for services if the evil bus companies hadn't existed? The evil shareholders have had money (quite a bit from property sales) however central costs for admin and engineering have reduced and bus drivers wages and conditions have worsened so the end result is likely to be about even, in the terms that the report covers (i.e. transport services, not the wider social effect of less employment and less well paid jobs).

So, would there be more of the services that have been identified as being lost because of deregulation/privatisation? Almost certainly there would be less. The services that the report appears to be complaining about are those that were cross subsidised as part of the network in the old days and, since deregulation, have always been paid for and specified by the councils. Given the policy of the current government to turn the screws on the councils over the last 12 years the end result would have been that the councils that have abandoned all subsidised services would have started cutting what (currently) they cant touch as a way of balancing their budgets.


The government will, of course, say that Boris's Barmy Bus Bill will make everything right again by letting the councils control everything however, without any money (and the promise of even less money in the future) all it's doing is setting up the councils to be the scapegoats for any future complaints about buses.

 

[Simon75]

After privatisation, for many years services did improve. First example in Macclesfield Crosville introduced the mini buses, which local estates had a 10/12 minute day service and 30/60 minute evening Sunday service.
Now under Arriva they are 30 minutes, no bus after 8PM and non on a Sunday .
I know most ex NBC areas did introduce the mini buses
In addition the bus station/garage was sold off early 2000s , and replaced by a bus station near by , and small depot/0utstation 2 miles on the edge of town

 

[philthetube]

UK bus privatisation breached basic rights, says ex-UN rapporteur

Report blasts ‘more expensive, unreliable’ routes outside London that have cut people off from communities and essential services

www.theguardian.com

Im not sure it does that, but you can hardly blame all of the issues at the foot of the private companies, if the government cuts funding and does nothing to sort out the congestion.

The one way in which privatisation did damage services is by removing the cross subsidy which previously existed, if a route made money in the day and lost it at night, this often broke even overall and was allowed to continue, the changes meant that whoever ran the route in the day mace cash. (or lost it because of competition), and the evenings got canned or needed subsidy.

 

[edwin_m]

The one way in which privatisation did damage services is by removing the cross subsidy which previously existed, if a route made money in the day and lost it at night, this often broke even overall and was allowed to continue, the changes meant that whoever ran the route in the day mace cash. (or lost it because of competition), and the evenings got canned or needed subsidy.

Even here the effect of deregulation may be more significant. If the companies had been privatised as regulated local monopolies or under a franchising system, they would have been obliged to continue the evening service. As it is, in many cases they have to cut costs to the bone to avoid an attack by cherry-pickers who will just run the daytime and charge a lower fare.

 

[johncrossley]

The article is clearly about 'deregulation' but is erroneously described as 'privatisation'. 'Privatisation', for the most part, is not controversial. Many countries have privatised their buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The one way in which privatisation did damage services is by removing the cross subsidy which previously existed, if a route made money in the day and lost it at night, this often broke even overall and was allowed to continue, the changes meant that whoever ran the route in the day mace cash. (or lost it because of competition), and the evenings got canned or needed subsidy.

Deregulation did remove cross subsidy but also served the bus industry very poorly over many years as money was diverted into supporting what might have been considered socially necessary services that then undermined the strong routes through a lack of funds. Cross subsidy is fundamentally one of inexorable decline and eventually, it reaches a tipping point. Of course, you might say that there's always the ability to be more successful and develop the better routes....but that's what commercial organisations do now. Cross subsidy seems a seductive vision but the reality is that it does not work. However, we run the risk of going over the some very old, well trodden ground in terms of cross subsidy.

To my mind, we can go on about the merits of cross-subsidy, privatisation, deregulation etc. What this report is ultimately highlighting is a a fundamental failure of government, centrally and locally. It was the public bodies who have promoted a car based economy, with masses of road building and a reluctance to do anything that will play badly with the car driving electorate. Fuel duty has been frozen since 2010 whilst in the same time, Bus Service Operators Grant has been halved so increasing the disparity between those two modes. That's before we get onto Clean Air Zones where the car driver cannot be disadvantaged; a crazy situation where it's perfectly acceptable for me to drive a 1994 Volvo diesel estate into Bath (had I got one) but a Euro V e200 bus would be considered as more polluting and so must be retrofitted; a situation replayed in Sheffield, Southampton etc.

So private car drivers are protected and all the while, they've been loading more environmental and legislative burden onto bus operators. And, as @Citistar alludes, that's nothing compared to the pain of public sector procurement rules.

Moreover, the biggest issue is the reduced funding for bus services since deregulation (which was one of the main aims of the exercise) and this has been exacerbated in recent years with BSOG, cuts to supported services and, most pernicious of all, the stitch up that is the concessionary fare reimbursement. So if the funding isn't there and we're not prepared to "level up" (a fave Boris-ism) the respective burdens between private car and bus, the latter will always be the poor relation.

 

[duncombec]

Although this was clearly written by a former Special Rapporteur, one thing that does seem common across all UN Rapporteurs is "my enemy's enemy is my friend": they are great when they are criticizing the neighbouring country, or telling you that you're great, yet when they criticize you, they are out of touch and don't know what they are talking about. (See the author's previous work on UK poverty and the government's then reaction). In this case, it is no surprise that the "usual suspects" are in favour... equally, I can make up a likely quote for their response if the current UK system had been declared the best thing since sliced bread that should be adopted the world over. It's often hard not to see the report as written to fit the pre-drawn conclusion - also noticeable that a response quoted as being "from Go Ahead" (Appendiz 1) is actually from the CPT, and if the CPT is telling them where to find freely findable data, perhaps they weren't looking hard enough?

I note the "notes to editors" in the press release for one of the launch event hosts "https://www.getglasgowmoving.org/news/press-release-campaigners-welcome-philip-alstons-report/"

There is now a near-unanimous consensus in the UK regarding the urgent need to amend England’s Bus Services Act (2017). [...] To date, there has been just one Enhanced Partnership set up in Hertfordshire and Greater Manchester is the only local authority to have begun the bus franchising process.

As to the first sentence... really? As to the second, a bit disingenuous given that most areas are currently considering just that (albeit that they had to be pushed).

I haven't done so yet (and may not), but if anyone is interested, the full report is available as a PDF here: https://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Report-Public-Transport-Private-Profit.pdf (the direct link from a Google search returned a bad gateway - I had to get that from the press release above). Pages 6-37 contain the main text.

[subsequent edit to avoid double response]:

I've just skimmed the methodology (page 10):

This report is based on interviews with 72 bus users in England, Scotland, and Wales; 10 written statements; 42 interviews with experts on transportation and poverty, former bus drivers, government officials, activists, social workers, and union leaders; and a review of public documents, surveys, and laws concerning buses in the United Kingdom. [...]
Interviewees included people living in urban, semi-rural, and rural areas, were socioeconomically diverse, and ranged from those who relied almost exclusively on bus transportation to those who used the service infrequently. [...] Researchers did not conduct surveys or statistical studies, and interviewees are not statistically representative of the broader population in Britain. Interviewees were referred to researchers by organizations working on transportation, poverty, and social issues, and were informed of the nature and purpose of the research and our intention to publish a public report. [...]
This report was externally reviewed by two UK transportation experts prior to publication.

This immediately strikes up the following points for me:
- 72 bus users is a pathetically small number of people for a report that proclaims to be GB-wide (it excludes NI entirely... which would surely be the perfect control model for what they are suggesting??). That's less than one double-decker load of passengers - perhaps with a few left behind at covid capacity.
- Some of the other 42 are going to have a pre-ordained view of the service being bad, matching my suggestion that the conclusion was written first (in fairness, they did send letters to the five transport groups and "transport officials" in England/Scotland/Wales, but only Go-Ahead replied, and that via the CPT. Transport for Scotland replied late).
- No surveys were carried out, and the interviewees were not representative of the broader population: as such, their interviewees could have been heavily skewed (one rural person ABC1 who never uses the bus, 71 CDE urban and semi-urban regular users)
- Who were the "experts" who reviewed it? They aren't listed in the acknowledgements. It also doesn't state whether it was merely reviewed for accuracy, or critically reviewed, proposing alternative viewpoints for their conclusions.

 

[Dai Corner]

Even here the effect of deregulation may be more significant. If the companies had been privatised as regulated local monopolies or under a franchising system, they would have been obliged to continue the evening service. As it is, in many cases they have to cut costs to the bone to avoid an attack by cherry-pickers who will just run the daytime and charge a lower fare.

Well, here in Newport we still have as near as you can get to a regulated local monopoly with the Council-owned bus company having no competition within the city boundaries, save Stagecoach services to outlying towns on certain corridors.

We've had no evening services since last March and only fairly recently regained minimal Sunday services. I think there are only about five buses out on a Sunday.

(Apologies to those who've read my rant before).

 

[johncrossley]

Deregulation did remove cross subsidy but also served the bus industry very poorly over many years as money was diverted into supporting what might have been considered socially necessary services that then undermined the strong routes through a lack of funds. Cross subsidy is fundamentally one of inexorable decline and eventually, it reaches a tipping point. Of course, you might say that there's always the ability to be more successful and develop the better routes....but that's what commercial organisations do now. Cross subsidy seems a seductive vision but the reality is that it does not work. However, we run the risk of going over the some very old, well trodden ground in terms of cross subsidy.

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

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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

Interesting point.... If you want to highlight the perils of cross-subsidy and centralised control, look at the old BR.

The original 25 franchises were split like that and only a few provided payments back to the treasury. Now, yes, franchises have been amalgamated but the businesses don't cross subsidise. Routes stand on their own, and you'll be aware that the amount of subsidy to the rail industry before Covid is considerably higher than prior to privatisation. And, of course, there was a real incentive for rail operators to grow their revenues and profits on their killer routes. Not so with stuff like London's buses and the Burnham proposals as they are simple management contracts - they "just" have to provide a service to set standards and that's it. Revenue isn't a consideration to the operator in that model (cost control is) as they have no influence on that; instead it's left to the dynamic, customer focussed organisations such as TfGM to worry about that.

 

[johncrossley]

Interesting point.... If you want to highlight the perils of cross-subsidy and centralised control, look at the old BR.

The original 25 franchises were split like that and only a few provided payments back to the treasury. Now, yes, franchises have been amalgamated but the businesses don't cross subsidise. Routes stand on their own, and you'll be aware that the amount of subsidy to the rail industry before Covid is considerably higher than prior to privatisation. And, of course, there was a real incentive for rail operators to grow their revenues and profits on their killer routes. Not so with stuff like London's buses and the Burnham proposals as they are simple management contracts - they "just" have to provide a service to set standards and that's it. Revenue isn't a consideration to the operator in that model (cost control is) as they have no influence on that; instead it's left to the dynamic, customer focussed organisations such as TfGM to worry about that.

But there was great dissatisfaction with the franchising system. The franchises causing the most trouble were the ones which should have been cash cows. Franchising was set to be abandoned, even before Covid. The railways run as management contracts, for example London Overground, have been seen to be the least problematic, hence that model is to be rolled out across the country.

How do they avoid the issues of cross-subsidy in bus operation in other countries?

 

[cnjb8]

There are plenty of big towns and cities like Nottingham in terms of frequency and service level. But they don't have strong local authority partners, which is where things need to change.

I was giving an example of where I live, I’m saying even where it’s good, it needs improvement

 

[edwin_m]

Well, here in Newport we still have as near as you can get to a regulated local monopoly with the Council-owned bus company having no competition within the city boundaries, save Stagecoach services to outlying towns on certain corridors.

We've had no evening services since last March and only fairly recently regained minimal Sunday services. I think there are only about five buses out on a Sunday.

(Apologies to those who've read my rant before).

My point is that a situation like this has little to do with privatization, more to do with deregulation. Plus the general lack of money for bus services, where it would probably benefit a lot more people than some of the rail proposals discussed on this forum. Which in turn reflects the general government attitude that buses don't matter and can be left to fend for themselves. And nor, a lot of the time, do local authorities.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But there was great dissatisfaction with the franchising system. The franchises causing the most trouble were the ones which should have been cash cows. Franchising was set to be abandoned, even before Covid. The railways run as management contracts, for example London Overground, have been seen to be the least problematic, hence that model is to be rolled out across the country.

Because as has been explained before, what happened was that the treasury stoked up the competitive aspect but also imposed certain restrictions/assumptions on growth etc

You don't sound as if you've been exposed to the joys of public sector procurement. Basically, you're in a competition and naturally you want to win (otherwise why do it) and then you have to take various views, at your risk, as to what you are prepared to assume in terms of risk and how much in premium payments. Get it right and you might make money; get it wrong and you have GNER.

So instead you have the direct management approach that says you don't have any revenue exposure. It's a simple management contract but instead you have to push costs down. Given that you have no control over access charges etc, then it's fuel or staff...which is why the unions don't like it as it becomes a race to the bottom for terms and conditions.

How do they avoid the issues of cross-subsidy in bus operation in other countries?

They don't.

Remember that in the UK, train franchisees were given the ability to market themselves, introduce new services (albeit with a minimum service level on existing lines), and all manner of other things to increase revenues. London and Manchester bus proposals don't allow for that.

Which in turn reflects the general government attitude that buses don't matter and can be left to fend for themselves. And nor, a lot of the time, do local authorities.

Indeed - had the railways had the level of cuts that had been imposed on bus passengers, there would have been hell to pay (and that's not pitting rail fans vs bus fans). Rail is always more emotive in that respect.

 

[Dai Corner]

My point is that a situation like this has little to do with privatization, more to do with deregulation. Plus the general lack of money for bus services, where it would probably benefit a lot more people than some of the rail proposals discussed on this forum. Which in turn reflects the general government attitude that buses don't matter and can be left to fend for themselves. And nor, a lot of the time, do local authorities.

If the Council were able to formally regulate the service, rather than owning and having a majority of seats on the Board of the local monopoly bus company, what do you think they'd do differently?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there was great dissatisfaction with the franchising system. The franchises causing the most trouble were the ones which should have been cash cows. Franchising was set to be abandoned, even before Covid. The railways run as management contracts, for example London Overground, have been seen to be the least problematic, hence that model is to be rolled out across the country.

How do they avoid the issues of cross-subsidy in bus operation in other countries?

Cross subsidy isn't an issue. It's a very normal part of operating any business.

Businesses are typically open all day. There will be times during the day when the takings do not exceed the cost of being open, but they stay open for the convenience of customers, because it's simple and because good service breeds repeat custom.

Some people in here seem to think it's some sort of evil to operate a journey that isn't itself remunerative as part of a whole, and it's bizarre. Tesco doesn't shut when it gets a bit quiet.

If the Council were able to formally regulate the service, rather than owning and having a majority of seats on the Board of the local monopoly bus company, what do you think they'd do differently?

I suppose it varies, but Blackpool Transport is an example of this done very well, even as an arms-length.

Though there have been plenty of bad examples.

 

[johncrossley]

They don't.

Remember that in the UK, train franchisees were given the ability to market themselves, introduce new services (albeit with a minimum service level on existing lines), and all manner of other things to increase revenues. London and Manchester bus proposals don't allow for that.

However, in London the bus companies have an incentive to perform well, because if they don't they won't get their bonus. TfL measure excess waiting time, amongst other metrics, on a route by route basis. As far as I'm aware, punctuality isn't measured to the same granularity outside London. Deregulated buses in theory have the incentive to make more money by carrying more passengers, but that's not a guarantee, whereas in London they know they will get the bonus if they perform well enough. More revenue also doesn't necessarily imply more passengers, as it is possible for them to make more money by carrying fewer passengers, if they find a fare level that means the loss in passengers is more than made up by the increased fare revenue.

Cross subsidy isn't an issue. It's a very normal part of operating any business.

It can't be an issue, given we have just heard that they don't avoid it outside the UK. Therefore the UK is the only place that cares about it!

 

[Citistar]

Is cross-subsidy ever acceptable? What is the difference between cross-subsidy and simply 'subsidy'?

As a small bus operator, i'm of the opinion that it is. If a bus carries out a day's work doing productive things for most of the day, i'm quite happy to carry on doing the bits between even if they have some usage and value even if they don't cover the full cost of doing them. If you want an example, we're entering the six weeks of the year where neither of our daytime shoppers' services will come close to breaking even because the school run which works around them isn't required. If we're taking the "cross-subsidy" rule really seriously, then i'd deregister them for the six weeks of summer each year. That would probably be enough to upset the passengers to the point where they didn't come back in September when the full day's work is closer to being profitable.

I think the problem is the scale of what people think should be cross-subsidised. A few weak journeys amongst a strong day's work is tolerable. Running until midnight on a service which doesn't carry anyone after 6pm is not.

 

[Eyersey468]

As a small bus operator, i'm of the opinion that it is. If a bus carries out a day's work doing productive things for most of the day, i'm quite happy to carry on doing the bits between even if they have some usage and value even if they don't cover the full cost of doing them. If you want an example, we're entering the six weeks of the year where neither of our daytime shoppers' services will come close to breaking even because the school run which works around them isn't required. If we're taking the "cross-subsidy" rule really seriously, then i'd deregister them for the six weeks of summer each year. That would probably be enough to upset the passengers to the point where they didn't come back in September when the full day's work is closer to being profitable.

I think the problem is the scale of what people think should be cross-subsidised. A few weak journeys amongst a strong day's work is tolerable. Running until midnight on a service which doesn't carry anyone after 6pm is not.

Your comments remind me of the time about 10 years ago where we deregistered commuter journeys on a service which went through several villages and there was hell to pay over it. The journeys during the day were council subsidised, the first and last ones were commercial and were run off the back of school runs, which was fine until we lost the school runs and had no way of running them viably.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

However, in London the bus companies have an incentive to perform well, because if they don't they won't get their bonus. TfL measure excess waiting time, amongst other metrics, on a route by route basis. As far as I'm aware, punctuality isn't measured to the same granularity outside London. Deregulated buses in theory have the incentive to make more money by carrying more passengers, but that's not a guarantee, whereas in London they know they will get the bonus if they perform well enough. More revenue also doesn't necessarily imply more passengers, as it is possible for them to make more money by carrying fewer passengers, if they find a fare level that means the loss in passengers is more than made up by the increased fare revenue.

The incentive is based on performance, not on revenue generation. Bonus/malus is weighted and in any case, the operators factor that in anyway.

Deregulated operations are sadly forced by concessionary fare calculations to try to game the system to try and mitigate the worst effects of what the government has done.

It can't be an issue, given we have just heard that they don't avoid it outside the UK. Therefore the UK is the only place that cares about it!

Look at the percentage of farebox revenue vs cost in other countries and then you see the issue. Of course, you can always increase subsidies to make up for shortfalls in revenue but that doesn't happen in the UK, does it?

I think the problem is the scale of what people think should be cross-subsidised. A few weak journeys amongst a strong day's work is tolerable. Running until midnight on a service which doesn't carry anyone after 6pm is not.

Your comments remind me of the time about 10 years ago where we deregistered commuter journeys on a service which went through several villages and there was hell to pay over it. The journeys during the day were council subsidised, the first and last ones were commercial and were run off the back of school runs, which was fine until we lost the school runs and had no way of running them viably.

This is absolutely it. We can go all micro and look at the odd journey. It's fine to run a few off-peak runs, or to run that 1830 journey at the end of a day, at a marginal cost if your fixed costs have been covered but firms don't generally run vehicles all day at a loss.

Take that to a macro level and you end up where we were in the 1970s in which services that still reflected service patterns from the 1950s were operating. It soaked up cash that could've been employed to improve the stronger services, and indeed, ended up with the whole structure bending under the excessive millstone.