• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Institute for Public Policy Research report criticises bus deregulation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,152
Location
Switzerland
I can only support the analysis of bus deregulation offered by this report:

http://www.ippr.org/publications/greasing-the-wheels-getting-our-bus-and-rail-markets-on-the-move

This report focuses on the relationship between public and private stakes in rail services, and differences between bus services in London and elsewhere.

Our analysis examines the pros and cons of existing policy for both of these transport markets. While policy for London buses seems to be performing reasonably well, there are challenges facing rail which need addressing, though these pale in comparison to those facing bus markets outside London.

Policy recommendations for rail cover:

allowing public sector rail operators to compete for franchises, including as part of a joint venture with private companies
handing responsibility for franchising decisions to the Office of Rail Regulation
encouraging train operating companies (TOCs) to contribute more towards infrastructure costs and reduce the burden on taxpayers

Recommendations focused on bus services outside London include:

giving greater powers and responsibilities to local bodies to shape local bus markets
replicating the Transport for London (TfL) model at the city-region and combined authority level
greater integration of transport spending and services by health and education providers (such as hospital shuttles and school buses)
a new long-term, national transport strategy, to be written and owned by the Department for Transport.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Bus deregulation outside London has been a failure – thinktank report
Bus passenger journeys outside London have fallen by 32.5% since 1986, but within the capital they have risen by 99%


Millions of bus passengers who rely on services outside London have been let down by a lack of competition and the failure of deregulation, a report warns. They include the poorest fifth of all households, who cannot afford cars and yet who end up taking more taxi journeys each year than any other income group because of the unreliability and high fares of their local buses.

The report from the IPPR thinktank, Greasing the Wheels: Supporting and Improving Britain's Rail and Bus Services, calls for local transport authorities modelled on Transport for London to be introduced across the country, with powers to introduce more successful London-style bus regulation.

It is nearly 30 years since local bus services in Britain were deregulated by the Conservatives under the Transport Act 1985 to revive the flagging fortunes of an industry in decline. It was believed that by encouraging and opening up competition, services would improve, fares would fall and cross-subsidies would be removed.

But the IPPR says the policy has largely failed because outside London bus passenger journeys have fallen and fares are rising faster than inflation. One in eight people working in Britain rely on a bus to get to work, the report points out, with passengers making more than three times as many bus journeys as rail journeys – more than 5bn each year.

The poorest make more than three times as many trips a year by bus as the richest, it says. But while car ownership is nearly universal among wealthier people, only 30% of households in the poorest income decile own a vehicle. Poorer groups therefore rely on bus services or have to take taxis. The report shows that the poorest fifth of households take more taxi journeys per year than any other income group.

The report argues that liberalisation has not resulted in a competitive market: 37% of weekly services outside the capital do not face any effective head-to head-competition and just 1% of weekly services face effective competition over all or most of their routes. Bus fares outside London rose by 35% above inflation between 1995 and 2013, and by 34% in Wales and 20% in Scotland.

Over the past 30 years, bus passenger journeys have plummeted outside London but grown in the capital. Overall bus use outside London has fallen by 32.5% since 1986, but risen by 99% in London.

Will Straw, associate director of the IPPR, said: "London has the best buses in Britain and that's no accident. Transport for London has been a great success, while the deregulation of buses outside London has largely failed. Outside London, bus passenger journeys are down and fares are rising higher than inflation. Examples of successful bus markets outside London are all too rare, so local transport bodies should be given greater powers to hold uncompetitive providers to account."

The report recommends the creation of local transport bodies modelled on Transport for London at the level of city-regions and combined authorities. They should have a remit to take on the delivery of transport policy, including the regulation and contracting of bus markets where the private sector is failing to deliver an adequate service. The report argues that this would allow for better services and allow for greater integration.

Straw said that, as well as regulating bus services, routes and fares, "these new bodies should have a wider role of encouraging better integration between buses and other modes of transport including rail. This will help increase the number of passengers using public transport".

I'm surprised I haven't seen discussion of this on here already.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Well, there have been many reports into bus deregulation over the years which have all come to the same conclusion. So it really isn't newsworthy. Although one statistic I found stunning was that there are approximately 1,245 bus operators outside London.

It also claims that Quality Contracts in Yorkshire have been abandoned. West Yorkshire have clearly been procrastinating over many years but I didn't realise the plans have been officially cancelled.
 

subject1

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
7
Well, there have been many reports into bus deregulation over the years which have all come to the same conclusion. So it really isn't newsworthy. Although one statistic I found stunning was that there are approximately 1,245 bus operators outside London.

It also claims that Quality Contracts in Yorkshire have been abandoned. West Yorkshire have clearly been procrastinating over many years but I didn't realise the plans have been officially cancelled.

"https://www.wymetro.com/qualitycontracts/"

Not officially cancelled yet as the plans still appear on the website. Just procrastinating until Nexus has done it themselves, but Nexus is procrastinating too so this probably wouldn't happen any time soon.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,270
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I have heard of some such learned reports taking an inordinate time to enter into the public domain, but for the Institute for Public Policy Research not to have had enough factual information since bus deregulation was introduced in order to produce their findings beggars belief.

What next....an in-depth analysis by this august body of the pros and cons of the introduction of the turnpike tolls in 1717..<(
 

Oscar

Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
11 Feb 2010
Messages
1,152
Location
Switzerland
I don't find any of the report's findings a surprise, but I thought the statistics were interesting.
 

Surreyman

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
950
The report argues that liberalisation has not resulted in a competitive market: 37% of weekly services outside the capital do not face any effective head-to head-competition and just 1% of weekly services face effective competition over all or most of their routes. Bus fares outside London rose by 35% above inflation between 1995 and 2013, and by 34% in Wales and 20% in Scotland"

Interesting that once again a report focuses on the 'lack of competition',
if 37% of services (how ever they define/measure a service)"do not face head to head competition" it suggests that 63% do, presumably along a few short sections of common route in urban areas.
Whatever the pontifications of 'Market theorists' I don't see any political party making any real changes for the simple reason that it would cost too much.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I don't see why it would necessarily cost much more. Providing a similar level of service and charging similar fares, the economics would be about the same if routes were tendered - and could be slightly better if some of the wasteful overprovision on competing routes was removed. Typically margins are lower on tendered services to reflect the lower level of risk. Tendering might even introduce more competition, because anyone can bid to provide a service but in the deregulated market many places have a dominant commercial operator who can effectively exclude any competitor.

Costs might go up if the policy decision was made to reduce fares and/or expand services, as happened in London when the congestion charge was introduced and extra buses was the only possible method of increasing public transport provision in the short term. The regulated bus system made it possible to do this but doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere.
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I don't see any political party making any real changes for the simple reason that it would cost too much.

There appears to be an implied assumption here that bus deregulation is normal. Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't exist anywhere else in the western world.
 

Harpers Tate

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2013
Messages
1,680
One could, of course, lay the principal blame for the loss of business at the door of the Bus Operators themselves. The large players, it appears to me, have no idea whatsoever how to maintain nor grow their own business in the long-term. Their sole methodology is to increase profits in the very short term, by ramping up fares and deteriorating services; policies which will have the required effect immediately, whilst encouraging us to seek alternatives - a process which has a deferred effect. And, after going on 30 years of so doing, apparently they STILL haven't worked it out!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There's probably some truth in that. Here in Nottingham we have one of the largest mainly municipally-owned and one of the largest independent operators, both highly thought of in the industry, and virtually no presence from the big groups. Nottingham is one of the few places outside London where bus usage has grown, despite the introduction of trams on one of the main bus corridors.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Big elephant in the room is funding. London patronage was flatlining before a shed load of money was thrown at it.

It also ignores some of the other fundamental issues in wider demographics. There are fewer evening journeys from a lack of funding through to changes in drinking habits; how many closed pubs do you see? Even those who do go out drinking can now do so til the early hours rather than the 2300 cutoff.

Then you have a move from large employers in one location and defined shift patterns (e.g. shipyards, mines, factories) to a more fragmented picture in terms of both geographic location and working hours. Of course, you have the out of town issues. Not the big malls (e.g. Meadowhall) but the smaller retail parks and superstores that don't enable a critical mass of passenger volumes and are built around extensive free parking.

Bus companies do have to hold their hands up and admit their mistakes; to be fair, First have done that and are attempting to repair things but it's a long job. Stagecoach are pretty decent. Arriva have a modern fleet but are generally lacklustre whilst Go Ahead are patchy and NX have had their own problems (of their own making). However, it is oversimplistic and just wrong to place all the ills at their door.

And please don't anyone suggest cross-subsidisation of services. It didn't work in the past (good routes had crap service to prop up basket cases).
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Proper funding of public transport is a given. It is a prerequisite in a civilised western society. It seems to be assumed that funding for TfL is/was somehow extravagant. It isn't if you compare it to public transport systems outside the UK. For one thing, London runs a lot of major corridors with normal buses whereas elsewhere trams are normally chosen for trunk routes.

Also, TfL still follows some of the cost cutting features of buses outside London, such as buying low specification British made buses.

Presumably, cross-subsidisation exists on London's buses. I don't believe every route in outer London is profitable, even if fares were increased to the norm outside London. What should be done about them? What about rural and local train services? They aren't 'profitable'.

The worries about cross-subsidy is related to the pre-1986 situation. It is unfair to compare the deregulated bus system to that as there was no tendering then. The state-owned buses in Northern Ireland and Ireland are not that great either. It is almost universally accepted that tendering leads to better services at lower cost compared to those that are state-owned. Buses in some of the PTE areas were heavily subsidised before 1986 so imagine how good they would be now if that funding was sustained, together with tendering?
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Big elephant in the room is funding. London patronage was flatlining before a shed load of money was thrown at it.

It also ignores some of the other fundamental issues in wider demographics. There are fewer evening journeys from a lack of funding through to changes in drinking habits; how many closed pubs do you see? Even those who do go out drinking can now do so til the early hours rather than the 2300 cutoff.

Then you have a move from large employers in one location and defined shift patterns (e.g. shipyards, mines, factories) to a more fragmented picture in terms of both geographic location and working hours. Of course, you have the out of town issues. Not the big malls (e.g. Meadowhall) but the smaller retail parks and superstores that don't enable a critical mass of passenger volumes and are built around extensive free parking.

Bus companies do have to hold their hands up and admit their mistakes; to be fair, First have done that and are attempting to repair things but it's a long job. Stagecoach are pretty decent. Arriva have a modern fleet but are generally lacklustre whilst Go Ahead are patchy and NX have had their own problems (of their own making). However, it is oversimplistic and just wrong to place all the ills at their door.

And please don't anyone suggest cross-subsidisation of services. It didn't work in the past (good routes had crap service to prop up basket cases).

Some good points there, but cross subsidisation is vital to a network. It is the connectivity between routes that actually helps to make certain runs profitable, and the more dense/large the network is, the more cross subsidisation will be a feature in my opinion.

It also isn't just a question of simple profitability. Companies need to see a return on their investment in percentage terms. A route my make a profit of a few quid a day, but that won't be enough for shareholders, whereas another route may return 15% and make up for the less well perfoming one. So in a sense, cross subsidisation even exists for routes that make money.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Proper funding of public transport is a given.

Presumably, cross-subsidisation exists on London's buses. I don't believe every route in outer London is profitable, even if fares were increased to the norm outside London. What should be done about them? What about rural and local train services? They aren't 'profitable'.

The worries about cross-subsidy is related to the pre-1986 situation. It is unfair to compare the deregulated bus system to that as there was no tendering then.

Is proper funding a given? In many areas, we are seeing funding cut and sadly, political expediency means that public transport is an easy cut. Not arguing if this is correct but it is a statement of fact. Public transport is just not emotive in comparison with health, welfare, education, etc. Just today we hear of a £1bn shortfall in education funding from a baby boom that local authorities are having to make up. Even within public transport, buses do not have the same resonance or romance as railways, possibly on account of the "permanence" of infrastructure rather than the transcience of a bus. Withdrawing a bus service just doesn't register in the same way if you tried to withdraw a rail service. Not saying it's right, but it is the case.

London receives a massively disproportionate settlement for transport. The lesser services are just subsidised. Not cross subsidised.

Cross-subsidy doesn't work. If you've your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge, then on average you're fine :D Even if you went for tendering or franchising, it's still the case that good services are often exploited at their detriment for the benefit of basket cases (albeit that have a laudable social perspective).

What is needed is actual investment instead of back door cuts (BSOG reduction) and even more insidious tactics (such as promoting localism - cuts of central government settlements leading to local authorities having to decide what to cut). As the examples in Bristol and Greater Manchester prove, voters don't want to pay more tax so that's politically toxic and won't happen either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some good points there, but cross subsidisation is vital to a network. It is the connectivity between routes that actually helps to make certain runs profitable, and the more dense/large the network is, the more cross subsidisation will be a feature in my opinion.

It also isn't just a question of simple profitability. Companies need to see a return on their investment in percentage terms. A route my make a profit of a few quid a day, but that won't be enough for shareholders, whereas another route may return 15% and make up for the less well perfoming one. So in a sense, cross subsidisation even exists for routes that make money.

On bus services, interchanging is less of a factor than in rail, given the average longer journey durations. Perhaps where a major traffic objective exists (e.g. out of town shopping mall, university or hospital) but otherwise, hub and spoke connectivity is usually over-estimated. You could argue that if ticketing was improved and interchange facilities were better then that might improve. You may be correct but I think inter-mode transfer is really the most likely because of journey length. A journey of two hours with a 10 min interchange (20 min bus, 10 min change, 90 min train) is more palatable than a 50 min (20 bus, 10 change, 20 bus) because of the interchange disbenefit as a proportion of time taken and in true end to end. I digress :D

I was talking of cross-subsidy on a macro level and yes, there will be individual days/journeys that will run at a loss but operate for the overall benefit of the service. I just remember the days of the NBC when my main bus route was half hourly and was dying with talk of it going to hourly. It now operates every 20 mins with newer fleet and doesn't have to support a myriad of rural services (albeit important for those communities)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Proper funding of public transport is a given. It is a prerequisite in a civilised western society

Sorry, but it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously when you start with such statements. Do the United Nations specify exactly what level of "proper funding" we should be entitled to in their "Convention On The Rights Of The Passenger"?

As for the rest of the debate on here, the current situation clearly isn't perfect, but nobody has a decent alternative unless you throw large sums of money at it (and, if you are going to throw large sums of money at something then you could just throw large sums of money at what we currently have, without needing to nationalise everything).

The problem is money (as TheGrandWazoo says) - giving control of everything to cash strapped local councils doesn't sound like the way forward at the moment (would a council forced to abandon its libraries and care homes find the resources to buy some new double deckers?).

At least with the "nationalisation" debate on the railways, it is feasible that the railway could be controlled by national government - any "nationalised" bus network would have to be run at local levels, which would see huge discrepancies.

If there's to be any changes, then something like what we have in Sheffield seems sensible. Service changes are restricted to five times a year (end of January, end of April, end of July when the schools break up, start of September when the schools go back, end of October), there is an "all operators" pass (as well as cheaper ones for specific operators), there's an agreement for all "First" tickets to be valid on a couple of routes that they share with Stagecoach (and for all "Stagecoach" tickets to be valid on First buses on the same route), things have been pretty stable and we've seen passenger numbers increase as a result:

http://www.sheffieldbuspartnership.co.uk/information/

Information is much better now (we have the first "all operator" maps from the PTE I can remember), we have a few routes where the two big operators (First and Stagecoach) dovetail their timetables to provided a higher shared frequency, we've eliminated needless competition without giving any huge "monopolies" (a tricky balance).

We're only around three years in to it, but it's evidence of what can happen when big operators, small operators and the council/PTE can organise things together (not heavy handed top-down stuff, not free-for-all anarchy).
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I don't think I'm particularly crazy or extreme when I say that public transport should be properly funded. Think of the countries that have suffered dramatically because of the Euro crisis. If they thought the same as we think in the UK, then they would remove all subsidy for public transport. But despite the predicament they are in, they haven't done that. It is an essential public service.

What about America? You might think I'm singling them out as being 'not civilised', as they are weak for public transport. Well, even they don't have deregulation. If they did, there would be no buses, except perhaps a few in the biggest cities on the east coast. Of course, the bus service in most of the US is not what we would expect in Europe, but it is highly subsidised.

Regarding demographic and employment changes. The UK is not alone in that. The rest of Europe also have high car ownership, out of town development and workplaces that are not in town centres. Because of that, buses can no longer be run without subsidy. In addition, in some countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, a lot of journeys are cycled which would be carried out by bus in other countries, so buses have no chance of being profitable.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
On bus services, interchanging is less of a factor than in rail, given the average longer journey durations. Perhaps where a major traffic objective exists (e.g. out of town shopping mall, university or hospital) but otherwise, hub and spoke connectivity is usually over-estimated. You could argue that if ticketing was improved and interchange facilities were better then that might improve. You may be correct but I think inter-mode transfer is really the most likely because of journey length. A journey of two hours with a 10 min interchange (20 min bus, 10 min change, 90 min train) is more palatable than a 50 min (20 bus, 10 change, 20 bus) because of the interchange disbenefit as a proportion of time taken and in true end to end. I digress :D

I was talking of cross-subsidy on a macro level and yes, there will be individual days/journeys that will run at a loss but operate for the overall benefit of the service. I just remember the days of the NBC when my main bus route was half hourly and was dying with talk of it going to hourly. It now operates every 20 mins with newer fleet and doesn't have to support a myriad of rural services (albeit important for those communities)

Again, you make some good points. Perhaps I have a different view of connectivity because of the way bus services run around here. Everything in Swansea, for instance, seems to be geared to journeys into and out of the city centre, there are very few cross city journeys and I regularly have to change buses to get to a hospital, retail park or even just a friends house on the other side of the city. A trip from the northern and eastern suburbs to Mumbles or Gower invariably involves at least two buses, which has probably led to lower usage in and of itself.

What I say may be less true in other places, and I may even be completely wrong :D
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
What about America? You might think I'm singling them out as being 'not civilised', as they are weak for public transport. Well, even they don't have deregulation. If they did, there would be no buses, except perhaps a few in the biggest cities on the east coast. Of course, the bus service in most of the US is not what we would expect in Europe, but it is highly subsidised.

I've ridden the buses in Seattle, San Francisco, Las Vegas, San Luis Obispo and Albuquerque, and I have been impressed with all of them. I found them to be far from the poor experience that I had expected. I agree that they are not as good as European bus services, but they are far better than what we have in some places in the UK.

Back on topic, deregulation hasn't worked, but no one seems to want to address it properly.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,825
Location
Yorks
The problem is money (as TheGrandWazoo says) - giving control of everything to cash strapped local councils doesn't sound like the way forward at the moment (would a council forced to abandon its libraries and care homes find the resources to buy some new double deckers?).

At least with the "nationalisation" debate on the railways, it is feasible that the railway could be controlled by national government - any "nationalised" bus network would have to be run at local levels, which would see huge discrepancies.

You say it as though it would be a liability for cash strapped local authorities. Given that they are effectively lumbered with all the unprofitable routes whilst the private sector cherry-picks the profitable ones, wouldn't giving control to LA's simply reunite local bus services with their income stream ?

If you really didn't trust LA's you could ringfence any bus takings by law to go back into bus services.

With regard to huge discrepancies, with the exception of those few hardy pensioners who like to test their bus passes to the limit, bus is largely a local transport mode (as much as some would like to imagine otherwise) so it seems more sensible to apecify services locally.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Again, you make some good points. Perhaps I have a different view of connectivity because of the way bus services run around here. Everything in Swansea, for instance, seems to be geared to journeys into and out of the city centre, there are very few cross city journeys and I regularly have to change buses to get to a hospital, retail park or even just a friends house on the other side of the city. A trip from the northern and eastern suburbs to Mumbles or Gower invariably involves at least two buses, which has probably led to lower usage in and of itself.

What I say may be less true in other places, and I may even be completely wrong :D

No, that's fairly typical. There may well be a reasonable number of people who will travel from Oystermouth to Morriston Hospital for example. However, is there a market for people travelling from Oystermouth to Pontardulais Road Retail Park or Townhill. I suspect probably not.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
There used to be a cross city service from Oystermouth to Morriston Hospital. In fact, originally the new 4 and 4A buses were meant to terminate at Oystermouth rather than Singelton Hospital.

I doubt there's a market for Oystermouth or West Cross to Townhill, but there should be a market to the retail park, which is very popular, as is the one at Morfa and the one at Morriston Vale. In fact, what used to be known as the Enterprise Park is poorly served, yet people from all over the area work and shop there.

The new SA1 quarter seems to be better served, but again only from the city centre and the east. Anyone from the north or west needs to take quite a long walk or catch another bus.

The levels of integration between services are very poor. This may be because each route has to stand on its own merits financially, rather than the network being considered as a whole. It's quite possible that a circular service around the periphery of the city centre, extended out in different directions may be profitable, but not sufficiently so to warrant an operation. It's ironic that the central bus station may also be a disincentive to do this.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
You say it as though it would be a liability for cash strapped local authorities. Given that they are effectively lumbered with all the unprofitable routes whilst the private sector cherry-picks the profitable ones, wouldn't giving control to LA's simply reunite local bus services with their income stream ?

If you really didn't trust LA's you could ringfence any bus takings by law to go back into bus services.

With regard to huge discrepancies, with the exception of those few hardy pensioners who like to test their bus passes to the limit, bus is largely a local transport mode (as much as some would like to imagine otherwise) so it seems more sensible to apecify services locally.

It still doesn't get away from the central issue. That being "commercial communism" doesn't work as you get a good service being downgraded to support services that are socially desirable but commercially unsustainable. It needs real investment, not robbing Peter to pay Paul. The correlation between investment into London's bus services (net increase in spend) vs increase in patronage is very, very apparent.

Another concern is how such funding is managed locally. An example in Bristol currently happening is First cutting a local service. It's largely duplicated by other routes and isn't sustainable but does have a genuine social requirement. However, the council aren't stepping in (yet) to save it yet can afford a spurious Park and Ride service into Clifton to (unsuccessfully) appease local businesses who are losing on-street car park facilities as a result of the Mayor's wider plans. I can think of few local authorities who I'd trust to manage things correctly and not what is politically expedient, even with ringfencing ;)
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
What is needed is actual investment instead of back door cuts (BSOG reduction)

Arguably, BSOG is one of the tools that has enabled deregulation to continue for so long.

Deregulation is also propped up by free bus passes, despite complaints from operators that they aren't being reimbursed sufficiently. Local authorities are expected to pay for infrastructure improvements whilst operators are only expected to buy new buses, which they would probably have needed to buy anyway. The hostile environment for cycling also helps buses, as do high parking charges in town centres, as does the placing of social housing at the periphery of towns.

All these things combined means that buses can continue to enjoy a sufficiently large captive market that will pay any fare that the operator needs to make the service profitable. That still isn't enough in large parts of southern England, where deregulation is largely defunct and most routes are tendered.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I don't think I'm particularly crazy or extreme when I say that public transport should be properly funded.

What about America? You might think I'm singling them out as being 'not civilised', as they are weak for public transport. Well, even they don't have deregulation. If they did, there would be no buses, except perhaps a few in the biggest cities on the east coast. Of course, the bus service in most of the US is not what we would expect in Europe, but it is highly subsidised.

Regarding demographic and employment changes. The UK is not alone in that. The rest of Europe also have high car ownership, out of town development and workplaces that are not in town centres. Because of that, buses can no longer be run without subsidy. In addition, in some countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, a lot of journeys are cycled which would be carried out by bus in other countries, so buses have no chance of being profitable.

No, I don't think you're being crazy. It's all very laudable. Thing is....we want good public transport but, as a nation, we don't want to pay for it. That is the truth.

The same goes for cycling - contrast facilities in Netherlands vs UK. However, they decided as a nation to stop killing children in RTAs and introduce better cycle infrastructure to reduce car use
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
By me we have a number of routes that take S106 funding. That's fine while it lasts, but eventually that funding will run out and the services almost certainly will be chopped.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Arguably, BSOG is one of the tools that has enabled deregulation to continue for so long.

Deregulation is also propped up by free bus passes, despite complaints from operators that they aren't being reimbursed sufficiently. Local authorities are expected to pay for infrastructure improvements whilst operators are only expected to buy new buses, which they would probably have needed to buy anyway. The hostile environment for cycling also helps buses, as do high parking charges in town centres, as does the placing of social housing at the periphery of towns.

All these things combined means that buses can continue to enjoy a sufficiently large captive market that will pay any fare that the operator needs to make the service profitable. That still isn't enough in large parts of southern England, where deregulation is largely defunct and most routes are tendered.

This is where I must correct you. BSOG is a payment to essentially subsidise all fares and has been around since 1965 as Fuel Duty Rebate! Prior to 1981, bus companies also received New Bus Grant to essentially pay for c.45% of the cost of a new vehicle.

I might also add that before deregulation, the amount of money that was being paid in subsidy and underwriting the NBC/SBG/PTEs was very high!

ENCTS was a poorly thought election bribe and the fact was that it was based upon bus companies being no worse off with little increase in patronage, ignoring one of the central tenets of business economics (i.e. elasticity of demand). Fine if you merely filling spare capacity when, in some areas, they were faced with replacing single decks with DDs (higher capital and operating costs) or increasing frequencies.

The only reason why BSOG wasn't abolished was that it would remove the leverage that the government has over ENCTS
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
I do have to disagree on some points in this, I've notice on a good number of route frequency is up and so is the standard of the buses. Yes some routes have been lost but that the market for you. TheGrandWazoo has pointed out, Factorys have moved locations, shifts have changed and retail parks have popped up.

Do we really want to go back to an age where the stupid local council has full say? We cant prop up every crap route going. Thats what caused half the trouble in the first place during the 1970s and 80s.

I think a half way house might be an option to look at but im not sure how that would work.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
But if you scrapped BSOG and no longer subsidised pensioners' travel, then a lot of routes would no longer be commercially viable.

A major problem with deregulation is that it is hard to get value for money from public subsidy and difficult to ascertain the 'correct' level of reimbursements for reduced price travel. It is possible to set a level for BSOG that would make almost any route profitable, whilst charging low fares. But would that be a good use of taxpayers' money?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,972
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
But if you scrapped BSOG and no longer subsidised pensioners' travel, then a lot of routes would no longer be commercially viable.

A major problem with deregulation is that it is hard to get value for money from public subsidy and difficult to ascertain the 'correct' level of reimbursements for reduced price travel. It is possible to set a level for BSOG that would make almost any route profitable, whilst charging low fares. But would that be a good use of taxpayers' money?

Yes, but BSOG/FDR did that before deregulation.

Sorry to be an arch pessimist but I don't see where the political will (and hence the money) is coming from. Like I say, London didn't have patronage increases until increased investment came.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top