How are you all coping with the £3 cap?

[TravelDream]

Meanwhile, many voters and politicians in mainland Europe see things very differently.

In Britain, we have a very different system to mainland Europe.

Who is responsible for the public transport in Chelm, Poland? The mayor and city government.
Who is responsible for the public transport in Jerez, Spain? Primarily the mayor and city government with some services provided by the regional government.
Who is responsible for the public transport in Dijon, France? The mayor and city government.
In the first two cases, run by the city/ region. In the latter, contracted to a private company.

Who is responsible for public transport in Derby, Coventry, Colchester, Swansea, Bournemouth etc? Brits can't say the same thing as our mainland counterparts.

 

[RT4038]

Where have you been to have missed the groundswell of anger as Thatcher era bus policies, never exactly popular, have become a unifying source of voter discontent?

A 'groundswell of anger' ? Amongst whom? The small minority of the voting population who are bus users and pay fares?

Boris clearly wanted pre-Covid ridership back or buses reshaped to post-Covid life. Not the masking of deep seated post-Covid structural issues in the all but dead Thatcher era bus policy where fare rises across the board would soon be inevitable due to there being no magic money tree to sustain emergency funding indefinitely.

Yes, I think he did. Possibly because he is a closet bus enthusiast. Whether getting pre-Covid ridership back is in any way achievable, at a practical cost, is completely another matter. But he showed some interest, which many would not.

It is the very fact buses are highly relevant in the marginal constituencies of the post Boris-quake times, that the subterfuge of pitching £2 as a cost of living measure to mask it's failure to achieve what Boris hoped it would, didn't remotely pay off for Truss/Sunak. Not next to Starmer's wish to go further than Boris' other far wider and more useful bus reforms (but nowhere near 70s era bus policy).

It's also why the cap is now a relatively small but still quite serious problem for Starmer while he pursues those bus reforms. Especially if they don't work. You can't raise some people's bus fares by double digit percentages twice in a Parliament and not expect a Boris-quake.

I think you overestimate the political clout of the fare paying bus riding voters. The reforms will gain little or nothing without substantial finance, which there isn't much available. It is probably a means to shift the unpopular decisions away from central to local government (see below). Most people frankly don't care, and if asked profess to want improved services, cheaper fares and tax cuts, certainly not rises. The laws of economics cannot be suspended for public transport.

In Britain, we have a very different system to mainland Europe.

Who is responsible for the public transport in Chelm, Poland? The mayor and city government.
Who is responsible for the public transport in Jerez, Spain? Primarily the mayor and city government with some services provided by the regional government.
Who is responsible for the public transport in Dijon, France? The mayor and city government.
In the first two cases, run by the city/ region. In the latter, contracted to a private company.

Who is responsible for public transport in Derby, Coventry, Colchester, Swansea, Bournemouth etc? Brits can't say the same thing as our mainland counterparts.

Not sure how that matters - the Mayor and Local Government in this country are so financially tied to Central Government, and anyway are seriously struggling with the costs of Adult and child social care, Home to school transport and Special Educational needs that they have no budget to make any substantive changes to the current transport system - more likely to cut services to pay for their statutory obligations I should think.

Local Government has a responsibility for public transport in all the UK places you mention - just very little money to influence all but the most problem areas.

 

[12LDA28C]

£2 is AFFORDABLE, £3 or £6 return is not.. they should have increased the cap in 50p increments..

Again, this suggests people couldn't afford bus travel before the £2 cap was introduced.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A 'groundswell of anger' ? Amongst whom? The small minority of the voting population who are bus users and pay fares?

I think you overestimate the political clout of the fare paying bus riding voters. The reforms will gain little or nothing without substantial finance, which there isn't much available. It is probably a means to shift the unpopular decisions away from central to local government (see below). Most people frankly don't care, and if asked profess to want improved services, cheaper fares and tax cuts, certainly not rises. The laws of economics cannot be suspended for public transport.

Indeed. As I said above, it's a sizeable issue for those on this forum (who by definition are not representative of the general public in relation to their views on public transport), and an issue for those directly affected.

However, I've seen a lot less anger directed towards this than the Winter Fuel Allowance, and certainly not seen the demonstrations like the farmers over inheritance tax - both moves that I happen to support. There's a petition (naturally) on change.org supported by 121k people which sounds like a lot...except when you see that 221k want to see Sidiq Khan's knighthood blocked!

Not sure how that matters - the Mayor and Local Government in this country are so financially tied to Central Government, and anyway are seriously struggling with the costs of Adult and child social care, Home to school transport and Special Educational needs that they have no budget to make any substantive changes to the current transport system - more likely to cut services to pay for their statutory obligations I should think.

Local Government has a responsibility for public transport in all the UK places you mention - just very little money to influence all but the most problem areas.

As I have said before, people need to realise the roles of central govt and local govt. The Osborne chancellorship was noteworthy by the way in which decisions were devolved to local govt but ultimately, the pivotal decision (i.e. how much cash they had to spend) was decided by HM Treasury. The reduction in LG Revenue Grants was massive between 2010 and 2020 and whilst the grant was improved in recent years, it is a) still 21% less than in 2010 in real terms and b) costs are continuing to increase in areas such as Social Care.

Also, and I know that you appreciate this, local government has a series of statutory duties that they must legally execute such as education, social care and child safeguarding, refuse collection etc. Bus services are not part of this so no surprise that funding was reduced as budgets were cut. All Osborne and Hammond really did was to say to councils "here's the settlement - you decide locally where to cut". The idea that bus service provision on the continent is different because of how the service is delivered is a fallacy - it's about funding.

 

[Starmill]

There were a lot more other things to consider that probably outweighed that for many people. Also, Labour may have said the would raise the cap (I don't recall if they specifically said this or that they would review it) but definitely didn't say they would plump for the immediate 50% increase. Much like they could have been clearer (or even mentioned) the planned changes to the winter fuel allowances. And massive public sector pay settlements.

I'm pretty sure the premise of that post is wrong, the Conservatives only promised to keep the cap to the end of last month that I saw.

 

[JamesT]

I'm pretty sure the premise of that post is wrong, the Conservatives only promised to keep the cap to the end of last month that I saw.

Page 57 of the manifesto https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/GE2024/Conservative-Manifesto-GE2024.pdf
Says (won't let me quote) that if elected the £2 bus cap would be retained for the entirety of the parliament.

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the flip side, Andy doesn't want to upset motorists so the Clean Air Zone was due to be introduced in 2022, then went for consultation (long grass) and then the approach was that they'd invest in electric buses instead.

It's worth pointing out that the Clean Air Zones were actually mandated by central government.

Of course, as always, central government devolved the implementation to local authorities so that the local authorities would cop the flack. But they made it a legal requirement on the relevant local authorities that they implement a clean air scheme to reduce air pollution.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's worth pointing out that the Clean Air Zones were actually mandated by central government.

Of course, as always, central government devolved the implementation to local authorities so that the local authorities would cop the flack. But they made it a legal requirement on the relevant local authorities that they implement a clean air scheme to reduce air pollution.

The targets were mandated, and as you say, it was central govt saying "we won't tell you how to do it but you have to achieve this" and then let the local govt get the hassle.

 

[duncombec]

Page 57 of the manifesto https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/GE2024/Conservative-Manifesto-GE2024.pdf
Says (won't let me quote) that if elected the £2 bus cap would be retained for the entirety of the parliament.

Indeed, but it goes on to say:

We will extend the £2 bus fare cap in England for the entirety of the next Parliament, benefitting young people and low-income households while pensioners continue to benefit from the free bus pass. The extension of the £2 fare cap will be funded by savings from reform of the railway which will save up to £1.5 billion annually.

So what would have happened if those savings didn't materialise? Does anyone know the cost of the previous cap, and how that relates to the sums in question?

 

[TUC]

Where have you been to have missed the groundswell of anger as Thatcher era bus policies, never exactly popular, have become a unifying source of voter discontent?

That appears to be based upon a fantasy that pre-deregulation services were a hive of customer care, low fares and efficient service delivery. They were very far from that.

 

[londonteacher]

For a simple return journey within Stevenage, one Arriva bus each way, it depends where you look.

The Arriva app will sell me an adult single for £3, or a day ticket for £5.60
bustimes.org says an onboard adult single is £2.70 (£5.40 return) I realise this is not official
The Intalink app wil sell me a multi-operator adult day ticket for £5

Yes if you want the cheaper fare on an Arriva bus you have to let them know your destination.

 

[TravelDream]

Not sure how that matters - the Mayor and Local Government in this country are so financially tied to Central Government, and anyway are seriously struggling with the costs of Adult and child social care, Home to school transport and Special Educational needs that they have no budget to make any substantive changes to the current transport system - more likely to cut services to pay for their statutory obligations I should think.

Of course it matters. It should be blindingly obvious.

Britain has no accountability for local public transport** whereas on the continent, they do in most parts. If I, Joe Bloggs, in Swansea or Coventry or Bournemouth am very unhappy with the service, timetables, fares of my local buses, there's no individual I can turn to with responsibility for public transport. Obviously there are mechanisms and council supported services etc. But 99.99999% of bus users and the public don't understand them.
Whereas Ewa in Chelm or Jose in Jerez or Pierre in Dijion do - they can look at the mayor who raised fares 10% and vote him/her out next time around.

**Except in certain areas like TFL with the mayor and the new things coming in like the Bee network in Greater Manchester and the GM Mayor.

I realise LG budgets have been squeezed until the pips squeeze and then beyond. And I am well aware of the huge and increasing costs of adult and children's social care which has exploded over the last couple of decades.
This isn't really about budget though.
And, to me, this country has it the wrong way round totally. Local government should be raising its own revenue through local VAT and local property taxes, not reliant on central government grants. But that's for a different thread and would never happen in this country anyway.

 

[43055]

Diamond West/ East Midlands??
I believe they left the scheme
The 'Red' group of companies around Aylesbury were never part of the scheme

Diamond East Midlands are still within the £3 scheme as I used them the other day.

 

[Ghostbus]

That appears to be based upon a fantasy that pre-deregulation services were a hive of customer care, low fares and efficient service delivery. They were very far from that.

No, it's based on the fact voters tend to notice when buses they're relying on are cut to the point a poor service has become non-existent or totally infeasible, and the council blames the government and the government blames the council.

These voters included car drivers. The parents of 16-18 year olds for example. Are people really assuming all of those parents of kids leaving school at 16 just said, oh well, I don't care about that. I'm voting based on which party intends to properly fund special needs education or adult social care. With my taxes.

There was only one obvious choice for those voters if they hoped not to have to make major life adjustments in 2024 to ensure they met their legal obligations to ensure their "child" attended further education or training. On such small numbers, seats are won or lost.

Whereas for obvious reasons there was far less optimism to be had in casting that same vote because you imagined that by 2030 every adult that needed social care or every child that had special needs, would be getting it. There's political consensus for that. Socially necessary buses for 16-18 year olds? Not so much, scarily.

The sheer irony of that fantasy being those school leavers are being encouraged to take courses in care precisely to meet those needs.

 

[RT4038]

Of course it matters. It should be blindingly obvious.

Britain has no accountability for local public transport** whereas on the continent, they do in most parts. If I, Joe Bloggs, in Swansea or Coventry or Bournemouth am very unhappy with the service, timetables, fares of my local buses, there's no individual I can turn to with responsibility for public transport. Obviously there are mechanisms and council supported services etc. But 99.99999% of bus users and the public don't understand them.
Whereas Ewa in Chelm or Jose in Jerez or Pierre in Dijion do - they can look at the mayor who raised fares 10% and vote him/her out next time around.

In the financial circumstances that prevail in the organisation of Local Government in this country, this individual having 'control' will make little difference, as funding Statutory services takes precedence over and there is precious little money for public bus services, something which does not particularly concern the majority of voters. It may well mean that priorities are moved about, robbing Peter to pay Paul, which may not bode well for the public bus network, as at the end of the day this individual cannot transcend the laws of economics.

This isn't really about budget though.
And, to me, this country has it the wrong way round totally. Local government should be raising its own revenue through local VAT and local property taxes, not reliant on central government grants. But that's for a different thread and would never happen in this country anyway.

It is all about budget. Mayors and Local Authorities do not have a good track record of managing commercial undertakings - taxpayers will have to stump up more if there is to be anything apart from tinkerings. I dare say that raising local taxes would be even more unpopular than raising bus fares (and/or reducing services), so be careful what you wish for.

No, it's based on the fact voters tend to notice when buses they're relying on are cut to the point a poor service has become non-existent or totally infeasible, and the council blames the government and the government blames the council.

And at the end of the day it is all about budget, which Local Authorities simply do not have for bus service provision, and the spending priorities of the voters is on Health, Education etc.

These voters included car drivers. The parents of 16-18 year olds for example. Are people really assuming all of those parents of kids leaving school at 16 just said, oh well, I don't care about that. I'm voting based on which party intends to properly fund special needs education or adult social care. With my taxes.

There was only one obvious choice for those voters if they hoped not to have to make major life adjustments in 2024 to ensure they met their legal obligations to ensure their "child" attended further education or training. On such small numbers, seats are won or lost.

Whereas for obvious reasons there was far less optimism to be had in casting that same vote because you imagined that by 2030 every adult that needed social care or every child that had special needs, would be getting it. There's political consensus for that. Socially necessary buses for 16-18 year olds? Not so much, scarily.

The sheer irony of that fantasy being those school leavers are being encouraged to take courses in care precisely to meet those needs.

I see that you have a particular axe to grind (no criticism of that). There is a mismatch between the Statutory responsibilities of Local Authorities and of Home to School Transport (up to the age of 16) and the age to which scholars now attend School. However, this is a Central Government issue (it is they who make the laws) - generally Local Authorities simply do not have the money and have no Statutory responsibility for the provision of socially necessary but not provided by the commercial market. I can only imagine that Central Government has not prioritised this over the numerous other issues that need the application of funds.

 

[TravelDream]

It is all about budget. Mayors and Local Authorities do not have a good track record of managing commercial undertakings - taxpayers will have to stump up more if there is to be anything apart from tinkerings. I dare say that raising local taxes would be even more unpopular than raising bus fares (and/or reducing services), so be careful what you wish for.

It isn't necessary for the LG to run the buses themselves. Contracting/ franchising to private operators is not the issue.

On the second point, the US manages to get by with school districts, counties, cities, townships, water districts, local transport authorities and seemingly every other Tom, Dick and Harry applying their own local sales tax or property tax. It's all about accountability.
London (and soon Manchester) have much better services because there is real accountability there.

And, at the end of the day, if local voters don't want better bus services, they won't vote for them. But it's clear than public transport has been a major campaign point of local mayors like Andy Burnham, Tracy Brabin and previous major Andy Street.

 

[RT4038]

It isn't necessary for the LG to run the buses themselves. Contracting/ franchising to private operators is not the issue.

Never suggested it is. Money coming in from fares has got to be sufficient to pay the private contractors or any shortfall made up by taxpayers. There is no suspension of the laws of economics possible. If the Local Authority has no taxpayer funds available for this purpose, will the timetable and fares specification cover the costs of operation?

On the second point, the US manages to get by with school districts, counties, cities, townships, water districts, local transport authorities and seemingly every other Tom, Dick and Harry applying their own local sales tax or property tax. It's all about accountability.

Taking bits of other countries' practice, without the other parts of their economy and social fabric, does not usually work. Don't think there are many fantastic bus networks in the US, certainly not outside the cores of major cities (and not even many then). The bus network in the UK works within the administrative and financial structures that they find themselves.

London (and soon Manchester) have much better services because there is real accountability there.

Or is this to do with other factors, such as differing funding arrangements (London) and Manchester being given some one-off funding. Lets wait and see how that develops.

And, at the end of the day, if local voters don't want better bus services, they won't vote for them. But it's clear than public transport has been a major campaign point of local mayors like Andy Burnham, Tracy Brabin and previous major Andy Street.

So let us hope they can deliver, and convince Central Government to fund them.

 

[GusB]

£2 is AFFORDABLE, £3 or £6 return is not.. they should have increased the cap in 50p increments..

Perhaps the cap should have been increased in smaller increments - 50p now and another 50p later. However, we'd still have people wailing about a "massive" 25% increase to begin with; in 6 months time (or whenever the cap was planned to rise again) you'd have the same people crying about a "massive" 20% increase.

What did you pay for a single before the original £2 cap, and does the new £3 cap still provide you with a saving on the actual, uncapped, fare?

I'll no doubt get shouted down, but this isn't a fares hike; it's a reduction in the discount you've been receiving.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm afraid I disagree. The vast majority of people aren't so price sensitive and, if you have a car, the temptation is to use it. Price is far from the only factor to beat convenience... Those places in the UK that have enjoyed bus patronage growth are ones that have good bus priority to make journey times attractive, engaged operators who have matched investment and have marketed services appropriately, and have also restricted parking so it's less attractive to take your car in.

You are probably right that there needs to be some sort of a "stick" or negative incentive to push people on to public transport, but for the most part, I sincerely believe that at a certain price, it becomes a very tough choice to continue driving for certain journeys.

 

[markymark2000]

Britain has no accountability for local public transport** whereas on the continent, they do in most parts. If I, Joe Bloggs, in Swansea or Coventry or Bournemouth am very unhappy with the service, timetables, fares of my local buses, there's no individual I can turn to with responsibility for public transport. Obviously there are mechanisms and council supported services etc. But 99.99999% of bus users and the public don't understand them.

**Except in certain areas like TFL with the mayor and the new things coming in like the Bee network in Greater Manchester and the GM Mayor.

You seem to be putting ideology over reality here. There's no accountability in TFL or in Manchester and it's really showing and almost anyone who deals with these organisations knows full well, they aren't accountable at all. As proven with the lack of information and lack of backlash over huge cuts to services in Trafford as part of the network moving into Bee Network (instead everyone patting Burnham on the back despite now many people having only half (or 1/4) the service they had pre Bee Network.
London also no one held accountable and even when there is huge backlash against a proposed change to the bus network, it goes ahead anyway.

Both areas are a dictatorship disguised as an accountable democracy. What they say goes, publics views don't matter.

 

[Harpo]

I discovered that Stagecoach has been charging me £3 for a £2.60 journey despite stating my destination.

It’s worse with many smaller operators where fares are not on their websites.

The laws of economics cannot be suspended for public transport.

That depends on the scope of those laws. Cost of bus operation vs Fares plus subsidy would be a false narrow scope if the environmental and infrastructure costs of increased traffic are ignored.

 

[johncrossley]

You seem to be putting ideology over reality here. There's no accountability in TFL or in Manchester and it's really showing and almost anyone who deals with these organisations knows full well, they aren't accountable at all. As proven with the lack of information and lack of backlash over huge cuts to services in Trafford as part of the network moving into Bee Network (instead everyone patting Burnham on the back despite now many people having only half (or 1/4) the service they had pre Bee Network.

Apart from cross-boundary routes, which rely on funding from neighbouring authorities, which "huge cuts" in Trafford are you talking? TfGM have largely kept the old routes and frequencies the same.

At least TfL have consultations. In some cases, that leads to changes to what was proposed and occasionally the change doesn't go ahead. Whereas in the rest of the country, operators change whatever they want, when they want, just giving the statutory notice. The rare cases that there is a consultation, such as the X43 route change in Manchester, this is noteworthy because it is so rare.

 

[mangad]

London also no one held accountable and even when there is huge backlash against a proposed change to the bus network, it goes ahead anyway.

I used to live in London. TfL wanted to redirect a half hourly minibus service down a road near I lived on to better serve the community. There was a huge backlash from the residents on that road because they'd lose something like two parking spaces. One of them knocked on my door, told me a load of mistruths about the proposal, which were based on a previously withdrawn proposal. There'd be parking chaos. HGVs would be running down the road left right and centre. We wouldn't be able to move due to double deckers clogging up the road. When I told him what he was telling me was inaccurate and wrong and that I wouldn't sign, he shrugged and carried on knocking on doors spouting the lies.

To this day the bus remains un-rerouted. It goes down a road that has no houses, no bus stops, instead of going close to peoples houses. So I can tell you from experience that not every proposed change goes ahead anyway. Many of them do. But not all by any means.

 

[RT4038]

That depends on the scope of those laws. Cost of bus operation vs Fares plus subsidy would be a false narrow scope if the environmental and infrastructure costs of increased traffic are ignored.

No, Cash in has to equal or be more than cash out.

At least TfL have consultations. In some cases, that leads to changes to what was proposed and occasionally the change doesn't go ahead. Whereas in the rest of the country, operators change whatever they want, when they want, just giving the statutory notice. The rare cases that there is a consultation, such as the X43 route change in Manchester, this is noteworthy because it is so rare.

If consultations is the only issue, these could be carried out now by Local Authorities when the 28 day statutory notice is received. But generally they don't. In my county of residence this is primarily due to a lack of funding, both for Officer posts to carry out this work (the consultation, evaluating the results, negotiating with operators), and for maintenance of existing facilities, often used by small numbers of passengers.

 

[Harpo]

No, Cash in has to equal or be more than cash out.

Undoubtedly, but the balance of cash paid in subsidy versus the additional infrastructure costs of not having subsidised buses needs to be part of the bigger picture.

 

[RT4038]

Undoubtedly, but the balance of cash paid in subsidy versus the additional infrastructure costs of not having subsidised buses needs to be part of the bigger picture.

Good luck with getting that. Quite a niche application to major urban areas only, but I think unlikely to be applicable to the swathes of middle England where most people don't want to use buses, subsidised or not.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Undoubtedly, but the balance of cash paid in subsidy versus the additional infrastructure costs of not having subsidised buses needs to be part of the bigger picture.

However, in practice, that never happens. When looking at subsidising buses, authorities aren't thinking of the cost of building a new road vs the alternative. When a new road is considered, the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't look at the impact of improving local bus and rail services in any meaningful way.

We do seem to going off at tangents in this discussion though...

Perhaps the cap should have been increased in smaller increments - 50p now and another 50p later. However, we'd still have people wailing about a "massive" 25% increase to begin with; in 6 months time (or whenever the cap was planned to rise again) you'd have the same people crying about a "massive" 20% increase.

What did you pay for a single before the original £2 cap, and does the new £3 cap still provide you with a saving on the actual, uncapped, fare?

I'll no doubt get shouted down, but this isn't a fares hike; it's a reduction in the discount you've been receiving.

Back on topic, this is the nub of the issue. If you look at things in terms of percentages, any increase was going to look disproportionately severe given the unsustainably low level of the £2 fare and your point is well founded. One example that the government picked out is Newcastle to Middlesbrough - Jan 2025 fare increases by 50% from £2 to £3. However, compare Dec 2022 (£8) to Jan 2025 and that's a 266% less.

If I look at my niece's journeys, if she wanted to go to work nearby, her fare is £1.70 each way so the cap is neither here nor there. If she wanted to go to Darlington (as she used to work there), her fare would have "rocketed" from £2 single £4 per day to £3 single £6 per day.... which is still less than the £5 single or £7.70 day that she would otherwise incur. Of course, were she still working in Darlington 5 days/wk, her weekly ticket would be £24.70 or less than a fiver a day.

The upshot is that 50% is a soundbite statistic. Like all such soundbites, it needs context!

 

[Ghostbus]

One example that the government picked out is Newcastle to Middlesbrough - Jan 2025 fare increases by 50% from £2 to £3. However, compare Dec 2022 (£8) to Jan 2025 and that's a 266% less.

The upshot is that 50% is a soundbite statistic. Like all such soundbites, it needs context!

Context rarely helps the government when it comes to bus policy outside of London.

Paying £8 to spend 1h45m on a bus when that same journey can be done by train for as little as £5.20 on the day or even £2.60 when booked in advance and is also going to be faster (1h7m to 1h25m) and more comfortable, and comes with a break of journey, looks like sheer insanity.

It's not as simple as that obviously. But to bang on about pre-Covid end to end bus singles as if they were the norm, won't help anyone. I have no doubt the profitability of this bus was either massively cheaper commuter tickets compared to the train, cheap single operator network tickets, or door to door journey times far below the train.

If the economics of that has now changed, and the train is a poor alternative even at these prices and journey times, say hello to ever more cars on the roads. The north east might be able to cope with such things, the south east most definitely can't. That's the best case.

The worst case is less job opportunities for the least well off in an increasingly mobile workforce where those who can better themselves will, while others are left behind. Quite literally.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Context rarely helps the government when it comes to bus policy outside of London.

Paying £8 to spend 1h45m on a bus when that same journey can be done by train for as little as £5.20 on the day or even £2.60 when booked in advance and is also going to be faster (1h7m to 1h25m) and more comfortable, and comes with a break of journey, looks like sheer insanity.

It's not as simple as that obviously. But to bang on about pre-Covid end to end bus singles as if they were the norm, won't help anyone. I have no doubt the profitability of this bus was either massively cheaper commuter tickets compared to the train, cheap single operator network tickets, or door to door journey times far below the train.

If the economics of that has now changed, and the train is a poor alternative even at these prices and journey times, say hello to ever more cars on the roads. The north east might be able to cope with such things, the south east most definitely can't. That's the best case.

The worst case is less job opportunities for the least well off in an increasingly mobile workforce where those who can better themselves will, while others are left behind. Quite literally.

Yes but we have people who were saying on this forum about a 50% increase when the reality is that many people are STILL getting a massive discount against what they were paying.

To use that example again (and you're right that it is more nuanced - many of the passengers come from Stockton and Billingham as the travel times are more competitive), then let's look at someone working in Newcastle and travelling from Middlesbrough. What will they pay and what is their travel time NOW with these changes - they can pay £6 for the slower bus or £16 for an anytime return on the train.

I think we all know that there has been a benefit to many from the fare cap. It will definitely have benefitted existing users and perhaps it may have attracted the odd journey that may not have been undertaken before? However, has it really impacted car usage... whilst kms run are still lower than Mar 2020, car kms travelled have continued to increase since Jan 2023 at the same pace as they were beforehand and are now at 2016 levels.

As for this groundswell of outrage... it simply doesn't have the cut-through of the Winter Fuel Allowance or the Farmers Inheritance Tax changes. That and the news cycle just moves on.

 

[RT4038]

Context rarely helps the government when it comes to bus policy outside of London.

Paying £8 to spend 1h45m on a bus when that same journey can be done by train for as little as £5.20 on the day or even £2.60 when booked in advance and is also going to be faster (1h7m to 1h25m) and more comfortable, and comes with a break of journey, looks like sheer insanity.

It's not as simple as that obviously. But to bang on about pre-Covid end to end bus singles as if they were the norm, won't help anyone. I have no doubt the profitability of this bus was either massively cheaper commuter tickets compared to the train, cheap single operator network tickets, or door to door journey times far below the train.

To be fair, the Government announcement: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...s-across-the-country-as-bus-fares-capped-at-3 does refer to their examples as 'some of the biggest bus savings' - they are not implying that everyone is getting this size of reduction compared to 2022 (not 'pre-Covid') levels. You were just as selective in quoting the train fare levels 'as little as' £5.20; when I looked the fares in the morning peak period (at the time your less well off would be going for job opportunities) the fares ranged from £9.80 to £17.60.)

If the economics of that has now changed, and the train is a poor alternative even at these prices and journey times, say hello to ever more cars on the roads. The north east might be able to cope with such things, the south east most definitely can't. That's the best case.

The worst case is less job opportunities for the least well off in an increasingly mobile workforce where those who can better themselves will, while others are left behind. Quite literally.

I think it unlikely that the fare cap change will tip the balance very much to more cars. Outside the big cities bus travel is pretty much restricted to a distressed purchase. Yes it will bring difficulty to a small minority. Your representatives have decided that the money that was being spent on the £2 rather than £3 fare cap is prioritised to somewhere else, but you make some valid points about the social effect of that decision.