The last is a fair point; my reading is that the impetus for the Bus Services Act was the increasing political unpalatability for the Conservative Party of being seen to be defending both bus deregulation and the consequent emergence of monopolistic bus magnates. Obviously bus users outside London tended to be highly dissatisfied; but so too were advocates for private cars; as bus operators increasingly argued that investment in bus priority was essential; and this would always tend to be at the expense of private car users. Moreover Nicholas Ridley's neoliberal allies have now moved on; those who argue that all road use should be transformed into a regulation-lite, minimal enforcement, free-for-all, now tend to rid bikes.
But I don't see the Bus Services Act as reducing the involvement of the state - clearly re-introducing co-ordination, regulation and integration by public authorities, it goes the other way. What it does is to relocate central government action in this matter from Whitehall to City Regions and elected Mayors - just as in London.
But it is fair to say that the whole enterprise is contingent on better mobilising sources of funding; both in support of bus operations and for investment in infrastructure. The implication of the Bus Services Act is that funding of improvement in stopping bus services may be expected to come primarily from increased fare revenue. The current deregulated system has had the (unintended) effect of pricing large numbers of potential users out of the market. Introduce a simplified and integrated fare structure - with smart ticketing to guarantee best value fares for each trip - and bus usage will increase substantially with minimal impact on costs (urban buses typically running at between a third and half occupancy even at peak periods). You have identified longer term changes in travel demand as potentially inhibiting this short-term bonus - and that may well be an issue. TfGM reckon that accessible public transport into and through satellite urban centres can counter the presssures you identify - as clearly has been achieved in Bury and Altrincham. Wigan and Bolton are suffering - but these are both towns currently off the Metrolink and BRT map.
But overall a new system will indeed be predicated on 'new' sources of infrastructure investment. The deregulated system was deliberately designed to inhibit such investment; so as to direct resources into the favoured mode of private car provision. Now that has changed; but investment funds will still be needed. TfGM seem to link new investment chiefly with their aspirations for a BRT network, distinct from the stopping bus network; and the Spatial Framework document does indicate that they will be looking for partner funding in support of this from enterprises and developments benefitting from improved access; hence expecting the Airport to support the BRT route to Altrincham; and likely residential developers on the Woodford site contributing to investment in rapid bus infrastructure linking into the A6MARR. But there will certainly need to be substantial funds for investment raised through the local tax mechanisms; either earnback funds from the Treasury, or additional levies on Council Tax.
