Institute for Public Policy Research report criticises bus deregulation

[radamfi]

The point I'm making is if the current subsidies (both direct and indirect) are removed that would lead mass withdrawing of services. However these would be relatively cheap to replace by tendering as they currently run commercially so are reasonably profitable. This might mean that only a few routes would remain commercial so it wouldn't be a great step from there to replace the remaining routes by tendering.

I think the Government have realised this so whilst they want to remove as much subsidy as they can, they have deliberately kept subsidy at a high enough level so that deregulation as we know it can still work.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The point I'm making is if the current subsidies (both direct and indirect) are removed that would lead mass withdrawing of services. However these would be relatively cheap to replace by tendering as they currently run commercially so are reasonably profitable. This might mean that only a few routes would remain commercial so it wouldn't be a great step from there to replace the remaining routes by tendering.

I think the Government have realised this so whilst they want to remove as much subsidy as they can, they have deliberately kept subsidy at a high enough level so that deregulation as we know it can still work.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up here. The current subsidies are direct (i.e. for tendered services). Why would that change from now? Costs and margin would remain the same broadly.

For indirect subsidies, you have ENCTS. Except that isn't a subsidy but a payment for the service that is used. This is where Nexus are very sneaky when they cite the amount of public money that is used. Whereby elderly passengers paid a fare (sometimes full, sometimes discounted), that is now paid by someone else. It is not a subsidy!!!

BSOG is a subsidy that is paid for all services. However, that basically enables some services to be maintained but remember that this is factored into tender prices anyway. You would still have to find that money as it is built into the tender prices.

I really don't buy the redistribution of wealth argument and the savings of franchising can release money that can be redistributed. First currently make approx 8% on their UK buses and are hoping to get back to 10%. Some areas are more profitable than others naturally. However, if franchising or tendering was brought in nationally, companies would still look for a c.5-6% return at least. And that is without the cost of recompensing the operators for essentially taking their business off them, businesses that they would say they legitimately bought from the government.

And I think you credit the goverment too much. They are in a situation whereby they can't remove ENCTS (as it's now regarded as a human right!), and can't remove BSOG. In fact, they can't reduce it otherwise operators would simply opt out and lay the blame at the government. No, they've basically reduced central government funding and said to local authorities "you decide where you want to cut", dressing it up as devolution to local bodies and letting them take the blame.

 

[radamfi]

Did many pensioners pay full fare before free passes came in? They paid full fare for longer trips (most operators had lower priced day tickets for pensioners) but within their home town they normally had discounted or free travel. Yes, operators were reimbursed for this, but whilst operators were supposed to be no better or no worse off, it is difficult to calculate a fair reimbursement rate under deregulation, so there was an undoubted subsidy here.

But you could make a case for requiring operators to carry pensioners for free, without reimbursement. Of course, the operators would complain, but I don't believe they would be successful in blocking that in the courts. If the Government could push that law through, that may cause most commercial routes to be unviable at a stroke.

BSOG is irrelevant for tendered services but makes a difference for commercial routes. If, say a route is just profitable enough after all costs (including vehicle purchase etc.) without BSOG, the BSOG is clear profit. So if that route became tendered, that subsidy would be saved.

The areas where this tactic would be most appropriate are the ex-PTE areas, and these were all bought by the major groups from the employees. So, strictly speaking, they were not bought from the Government.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Did many pensioners pay full fare before free passes came in? They paid full fare for longer trips (most operators had lower priced day tickets for pensioners) but within their home town they normally had discounted or free travel. Yes, operators were reimbursed for this, but whilst operators were supposed to be no better or no worse off, it is difficult to calculate a fair reimbursement rate under deregulation, so there was an undoubted subsidy here.

But you could make a case for requiring operators to carry pensioners for free, without reimbursement. Of course, the operators would complain, but I don't believe they would be successful in blocking that in the courts. If the Government could push that law through, that may cause most commercial routes to be unviable at a stroke.

BSOG is irrelevant for tendered services but makes a difference for commercial routes. If, say a route is just profitable enough after all costs (including vehicle purchase etc.) without BSOG, the BSOG is clear profit. So if that route became tendered, that subsidy would be saved.

The areas where this tactic would be most appropriate are the ex-PTE areas, and these were all bought by the major groups from the employees. So, strictly speaking, they were not bought from the Government.

No, the arrangements from pensioners were markedly different across the country. Some full fare, some half, some free. However, it is not a subsidy. It is, as it always has been, a payment to an operator in receipt of a fare except now, they arbitrarily apply a discount to offset the increase in usage from twirlies enjoying their passes.

"But you could make a case for requiring operators to carry pensioners for free, without reimbursement. Of course, the operators would complain, but I don't believe they would be successful in blocking that in the courts."

Firstly, that is demonstrably wrong. Legally, they cannot be forced to provide a service for free. There is no legislation for it. Make the argument for carrying pensioners for free? Why stop there? Why not free food from shops?

"If, say a route is just profitable enough after all costs (including vehicle purchase etc.) without BSOG, the BSOG is clear profit." Yes, but if that's not there, then how do bus companies make a profit of a level to finance investment? If not the bus company, then who does make the investment? Government borrowing? Tendering does not magically drive down margins; they are broadly comparable, perhaps slightly lower but not by much!

And don't play semantics. The major groups purchased the urban bus operations from public owned bodies (PTAs/councils), many directly and some via employee buyouts. If you want to take away their business, they will have to be compensated.

 

[radamfi]

For example, let's take the example of GM Buses North being bought from its employees. Firstbus (as it was) obviously bought that business so it could operate buses in the north of Greater Manchester. But they were not obliged to do that. They could have bought it for any purpose. They could have sold the buses and used the depots for, say, operating a long distance coach network.

When you go into any private business, you take the risk of a regulator imposing onerous conditions in the future. Water companies are stock market listed companies, and the share price is sometimes adversely affected by the fear that Ofwat will impose price caps or force them to do, say, expensive sewer maintenance. Cigarette manufacturers were not compensated for being banned from advertising or having huge taxes levied on their sale.

You may think that you can't legislate for operators to carry pensioners for free, but GMPTE were quoted as wanting to do that without legislation in an industry magazine I read a few years ago, around the time that free travel came in. They wanted to force routes to be deregistered so they could take control of more routes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

For example, let's take the example of GM Buses North being bought from its employees. Firstbus (as it was) obviously bought that business so it could operate buses in the north of Greater Manchester. But they were not obliged to do that. They could have bought it for any purpose. They could have sold the buses and used the depots for, say, operating a long distance coach network.

When you go into any private business, you take the risk of a regulator imposing onerous conditions in the future. Water companies are stock market listed companies, and the share price is sometimes adversely affected by the fear that Ofwat will impose price caps or force them to do, say, expensive sewer maintenance. Cigarette manufacturers were not compensated for being banned from advertising or having huge taxes levied on their sale.

You may think that you can't legislate for operators to carry pensioners for free, but GMPTE were quoted as wanting to do that without legislation in an industry magazine I read a few years ago, around the time that free travel came in. They wanted to force routes to be deregistered so they could take control of more routes.

No they didn't. They bought a business that ran buses and paid a price commensurate with that business. As well as the assets, they also paid for goodwill; the inherent value of the business. That was the basis on which they bought the business and you cannot just elect to remove a business (basically privatise it) on that basis, either legally or with any view to maintaining business confidence.

As regards OFWAT et al, that was part and parcel of the water privatisation process and therefore the prices paid for the business and all investment was made in the clear knowledge of that mechanism. This is not the case in bus operation. There is a clear understanding that legislation will be introduced, such as Working Time Directive. Those costs must be borne by the employer. The same as taxation or duty. However, you cannot simply take a business from a company.

As for GMPTE wanting to force bus operators to take passengers for free. They didn't and that perhaps illustrates the issue. Can they also force Morrisons to give away free bread? Perhaps they can force Mecca Bingo to allow pensioners in for free? No, they can't. There is no mechanism to force bus companies to take pensioners for free, and indeed, they have the right not to accept ENCTS. It is just that by doing so, they forego BSOG. The amount they gain in ENCTS is less than losing BSOG, hence why passes are honoured, and why the government realised that they couldn't wholly remove BSOG as they would lose their leverage over operators in that respect.

 

[radamfi]

However, you cannot simply take a business from a company.

But you also say that companies are bound by legislation. So why can't they be bound by legislation that says for example, "e-cigarettes can only be obtained on prescription" or "commercial bus services must have a minimum of 50 km between at least two consecutive stops"?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't see that it would be taking business from a company - more saying if you want to stay in the bus business then it's now about bidding for contracts rather than just running what you want. There would have to be some kind of phased approach, because of the workload specifying and letting all all the contracts if nothing else, so the operator in a particular area would have time to prepare or close down if they don't like it.

 

[Mitch in Notts]

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.

Yes growth has occurred because the main routes now have the level of service that was needed 30 years ago. Prior to 1986 main routes couldn't cope with loadings as the extra buses (and money) needed for them were cross financed (i..e subsidising) with poor loading routes.
If you look at 'rural' villages which have lost direct bus services to Nottingham in the last 30 years there are lots - many of which had hourly daytime & at least 2-hourly Sunday services even then!

 

[edwin_m]

Yes growth has occurred because the main routes now have the level of service that was needed 30 years ago. Prior to 1986 main routes couldn't cope with loadings as the extra buses (and money) needed for them were cross financed (i..e subsidising) with poor loading routes.
If you look at 'rural' villages which have lost direct bus services to Nottingham in the last 30 years there are lots - many of which had hourly daytime & at least 2-hourly Sunday services even then!

(1) There are plenty of other cities with similar characteristics to Nottingham that haven't seen any growth in bus patronage despite operators similarly concentrating on the main routes. So what is different in Nottingham? The only factors I can think of are a council which is unashamedly pro-public-transport, and as I mentioned above the almost total absence of the large bus groups.

(2) Indeed the rural bus services have declined, yet another batch going in the last few weeks as the County tries to save some money. That's the flipside of cross-subsidisation and despite all the good things about buses around Nottingham, it applies just as much in this area as anywhere else. Perhaps this gives the lie to the proposal that the deregulated bus market can be made to work properly across a region?

 

[yorksrob]

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

Yes, it does need investment, but the point about London is that you have to have a planned network of bus services on which to spend your investment. There's no point investing in a bus route if the service can be withdrawn for commercial reasons at the drop of a hat.

"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" or cross-subsidy as I call it, is an extremely sensible way to run a public service. The reason why we can send a letter anywhere in the country for a flat rate is because of cross-subsidy.

As for Local Authorities, yes they blunder sometimes, but would you really trust a private concern to ascertain public and social need for a service and maintain it off of its own back ?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't see that it would be taking business from a company - more saying if you want to stay in the bus business then it's now about bidding for contracts rather than just running what you want. There would have to be some kind of phased approach, because of the workload specifying and letting all all the contracts if nothing else, so the operator in a particular area would have time to prepare or close down if they don't like it.

Ok, let me put it in more simple terms.

As my parents did in the late 1980s, you bought a house from the local authority under the right to buy scheme. It's freehold. You have undertaken the relevant due diligence in terms of surveys - you're walking into it with your eyes wide open. You then religiously pay your mortgage. Over time, the value of that property appreciates.

Then the government say "We are taking ownership of that house. You can stay in the house as a tenant, but under these strict terms and conditions such as no pets and no smoking". Oh, and you get no compensation for the money that you've invested over that time.

Can you imagine if that scenario actually happened?

Also, can you imagine how that would play out in business? Who would invest in whichever industry?

 

[radamfi]

Should the owners of those bendy buses that were prematurely withdrawn in London be compensated?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, it does need investment, but the point about London is that you have to have a planned network of bus services on which to spend your investment. There's no point investing in a bus route if the service can be withdrawn for commercial reasons at the drop of a hat.

"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" or cross-subsidy as I call it, is an extremely sensible way to run a public service. The reason why we can send a letter anywhere in the country for a flat rate is because of cross-subsidy.

As for Local Authorities, yes they blunder sometimes, but would you really trust a private concern to ascertain public and social need for a service and maintain it off of its own back ?

Sadly, experience showed that cross subsidy in the bus industry didn't work. Also, there are a number of investment models that can be employed. One of the better schemes was Kickstart, so why not have a gainshare mechanism where finance is provided but that the benefits of increased patronage are shared?

Would I trust a private enterprise to ascertain a public and social need? No, I'd expect them to understand a need in a commercial sense. Would I expect a local authority to ascertain a public and social need? Yes but experience is telling us that this isn't even the case. Look at the raft of council cuts - some authorities (e.g. Darlington, Hartlepool) have NO tendered bus services. Others have made sweeping cuts (e.g. Cumbria, North Yorkshire). Again, it comes down to money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should the owners of those bendy buses that were prematurely withdrawn in London be compensated?

Remind me...... who picked up the tab on the outstanding leases when TfL decided on the early termination of those???

CLUE: It wasn't the operators!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(1) There are plenty of other cities with similar characteristics to Nottingham that haven't seen any growth in bus patronage despite operators similarly concentrating on the main routes. So what is different in Nottingham? The only factors I can think of are a council which is unashamedly pro-public-transport, and as I mentioned above the almost total absence of the large bus groups.

(2) Indeed the rural bus services have declined, yet another batch going in the last few weeks as the County tries to save some money. That's the flipside of cross-subsidisation and despite all the good things about buses around Nottingham, it applies just as much in this area as anywhere else. Perhaps this gives the lie to the proposal that the deregulated bus market can be made to work properly across a region?

Half right. It's the pro-public transport approach of the council. You can say the same in Oxford or Brighton.

However, even in sleepy shires, there are services that have been massively improved. Service 66 Swindon to Oxford was an hourly service for many years. In conjunction with Oxfordshire Council (who improved roadside infrastructure etc), it was upgraded to half hourly with new single decks. Then upgraded with new Gold double decks, and is now going to every 20 mins.

It is a frustration that some local authorities take a view of maintain existing route networks rather than engage with operators with a view to actually making things more sustainable. I would also point out that some operators are equally culpable in this.

 

[radamfi]

Remind me...... who picked up the tab on the outstanding leases when TfL decided on the early termination of those???

CLUE: It wasn't the operators!

The point is, the operators and leaseholders were stuck with assets that they had no real use for, as a result of the actions of a public sector organisation.

Operators were obliged to implement the rule that trips longer than 50 km had to have a tacho. The operators bitched about that for ages, complaining it would hit the bottom line, although they found a loophole around it.

What if it became law that all buses needed tachos, or had to be zero emission, or some other regulation came in that meant that buses were no longer profitable?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The point is, the operators and leaseholders were stuck with assets that they had no real use for, as a result of the actions of a public sector organisation.

Operators were obliged to implement the rule that trips longer than 50 km had to have a tacho. The operators bitched about that for ages, complaining it would hit the bottom line, although they found a loophole around it.

What if it became law that all buses needed tachos, or had to be zero emission, or some other regulation came in that meant that buses were no longer profitable?

They were compensated. They weren't stuck with assets; TfL had to pay up the lease termination costs. Understand Essentially, the leasing businesses were given vehicles that were only 4/5 years old, but they had all the depreciation paid up on them.

And yes, operators did complain about that legislation, and yes it caused financial and operational problems. How about when VAT increased from 17.5% to 20%. How does any commercial business, from retailers to bus operators to widget manufacturers, cope with that? Cutting costs and/or increasing prices.

And if those costs that you mention were introduced, then they'd be costs for any operator, whether franchised or not.

 

[radamfi]

So what were the operators complaining about if they suffered no financial loss? The reason why the NBfL is TfL owned is because the operators would have no use for them if the same thing happened with them.

So there are scenarios where deregulation can end without compensation. I was beginning to think that decisions made in the 80s means we are powerless to do anything ever again. Obviously a franchised operation needs to be funded to pay for additional costs. Same as any other public transport system in the world.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So what were the operators complaining about if they suffered no financial loss? The reason why the NBfL is TfL owned is because the operators would have no use for them if the same thing happened with them.

So there are scenarios where deregulation can end without compensation. I was beginning to think that decisions made in the 80s means we are powerless to do anything ever again. Obviously a franchised operation needs to be funded to pay for additional costs. Same as any other public transport system in the world.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The issue with the operators was that for every bendi you remove, you need 1.5 double deckers, so an increased driver requirement? Therefore, as well as lease termination, there were/are increased operating costs that TfL have had to pay for!!!

And where do you suddenly draw the conclusion that deregulation can be unpicked without compensation? Like I said before, you wouldn't tolerate your house being taken by the government without compensation? Why would a company have an asset removed from them, that they've paid for in good faith, for nothing?

We are seeing more reliance being placed on the farebox for rail passengers in terms of operations and investment. We are seeing local authorities cutting spending on supporting local bus services. Overall, public spending is being cut and that will increase after the election as the cuts have been backloaded. Those are the realities in which we live

 

[radamfi]

And where do you suddenly draw the conclusion that deregulation can be unpicked without compensation?

You just said, costs imposed by, say, making all vehicles zero emission, would be borne by any operator whether franchised or not. So if that made all commercial services unviable, that would effectively be the end of deregulation.

Suppose good funding was made available to buses outside London, comparable to what London got in the early 2000s? Would you then approve of franchising? If not, how would you spend that money?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You just said, costs imposed by, say, making all vehicles zero emission, would be borne by any operator whether franchised or not. So if that made all commercial services unviable, that would effectively be the end of deregulation.

Suppose good funding was made available to buses outside London, comparable to what London got in the early 2000s? Would you then approve of franchising? If not, how would you spend that money?

No I didn't say that. At all.

Do you really think that you can legislate like that?

In fact, I have explained ad infinitum and every time, you ignore the realties and just pose more questions without ever answering any yourself.

Given that even when Railtrack was forced into administration, the shareholders still got compensated, do you honestly think that anyone could do it without compensation?

Given the pressure on public finances, where is this finance for expanded franchising coming from?

Where is the political will for anyone to do what you're advocating?

It comes back to money. Stop kidding yourself otherwise

 

[radamfi]

But surely you must agree that it is quite feasible that more and more routes will be deregistered as being unviable as the captive market continues to shrink? Surrey, for example, has almost no commercial services. External factors may hasten this trend.

You didn't comment on what you would do if buses got good funding.

You keep talking as if I'm somehow nuts but properly funded public transport exists everywhere else in the world. Even in the UK, trains are funded. Trams are funded. Buses in London are funded. Buses outside London are the sole exception. It is a bizarre anomaly.

 

[anthony263]

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.

Truth be told Greenback I did come up with a circular service around Swansea which was bassically combining the current 31 Swansea - Llansamlet - Morriston Hospital with service 43 Swansea - Townhill - Blaenymaes - Morriston.

It would bassically be similar to Birminghams outer circle service and likewise journey time for a roundloop would be 2 hours 15 minutes during the daytime.

I do think such a service would be popular since it would connect Llansamlet with Morriston Hospital and the DVLA etc.

 

[Greenback]

Truth be told Greenback I did come up with a circular service around Swansea which was bassically combining the current 31 Swansea - Llansamlet - Morriston Hospital with service 43 Swansea - Townhill - Blaenymaes - Morriston.

It would bassically be similar to Birminghams outer circle service and likewise journey time for a roundloop would be 2 hours 15 minutes during the daytime.

I do think such a service would be popular since it would connect Llansamlet with Morriston Hospital and the DVLA etc.

I remember there used to be a circular via Llansamlet, Morriston Hospital, Clase, Blaenymaes, Singleton Hospital and Townhill. I rode all the way around on it about twelve years ago. I think it might have been number 43, and the journey time was around 2-2.5 hours IIRC. I think it was split into two some years ago.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But surely you must agree that it is quite feasible that more and more routes will be deregistered as being unviable as the captive market continues to shrink? Surrey, for example, has almost no commercial services. External factors may hasten this trend.

You didn't comment on what you would do if buses got good funding.

You keep talking as if I'm somehow nuts but properly funded public transport exists everywhere else in the world. Even in the UK, trains are funded. Trams are funded. Buses in London are funded. Buses outside London are the sole exception. It is a bizarre anomaly.

You're very good at asking questions. Not so good at answering. I've answered all your questions, in detail and at length. Meanwhile, you've singularly failed to answer the questions that I've posed:

• Given that even when Railtrack was forced into administration, the shareholders still got compensated, do you honestly think that anyone could do it without compensation?
  
• Given the pressure on public finances, where is this finance for expanded franchising coming from?
  
• Where is the political will for anyone to do what you're advocating?

In respect of what you've said, I'll reiterate. If funding was available, there are mechanisms such as investment in capital projects (bus priority, roadside infrastructure, bus stations, etc). There are also ways in which services could be supported a la kickstart with a gainshare mechanism.

However, I don't see where the money is coming from. We all want to see increased funding but look at the settlements for local authorities.

You seem to be driving at attempting to legislate to attempt to force bus companies into the public sector through excessive taxation. That won't happen. Why would you think that the government, of any persuasion, would do that. For lords sake, they've just sold the Royal Mail off on the cheap :roll:

I want to see better bus and public transport services in general. However, I am very pessimistic in the role that government will play in this. The fact is that the benefits and improvements that London got has a direct correlation with the funding it received. When it tried to live within its means, patronage flatlined.

In short, you need investment. Where is that going to come from....cos the situation will only get worse.

 

[radamfi]

Surely the law of the land is paramount? There is a law that allows Quality Contracts to be set up. So surely it is unacceptable for any person or organisation to try and override the law through legal action? If you can do that, then there's no point in making laws.

It is nonsense to suggest that there is no money, given that all other countries with even worse public finances can afford to fund their public transport. Money can always be found, given political will.

So, regarding political will. Of course, this is the main issue. Funding will follow from that. It is up to us to campaign for it. The insularity of the UK is a problem. We don't tend to look outside the country to see how good things can be. Hopefully as this country becomes increasingly populated by fellow European citizens, this issue will diminish. Luckily for us, we can simply copy best practice from elsewhere. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

When London was running at break even, before the formation of TfL, patronage didn't fall like it did in the PTE areas.

Tendering to private companies is actually a pretty neo-liberal thing to do. It is far from socialism. So in countries that are not as economically right-wing as the UK (i.e. almost everywhere else in Europe) it is hard to get the public to accept tendering, but nevertheless, it is common in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Places that are known for being high tax and spend. We only think of tendering as 'regulation' in the UK because we have gone to the far extreme of deregulation.

If deregulation was the way forward, then other European countries would have gone for that instead of going for tendering. They have had plenty of time to observe what has gone on in the UK, and decided against it. For a while, deregulation fans were pointing to Sweden as it looked like it they were going down that road. But the UK commentators misunderstood the language, as 'deregulation' is considered to be synonymous with 'tendering'. The end result is nothing like what we have here.

Switzerland has the best public transport in the world. But Switzerland is a conservative country. It has relatively liberal gun laws, almost American-style private healthcare and quite a limited benefits system. But they don't even tender out their transport! It is mostly state owned. Before rail privatisation in the UK, they were famous for having 'private' railway companies. But these are really family owned or owned by local authorities, and are regulated by the state.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Surely the law of the land is paramount? There is a law that allows Quality Contracts to be set up. So surely it is unacceptable for any person or organisation to try and override the law through legal action? If you can do that, then there's no point in making laws.

It is nonsense to suggest that there is no money, given that all other countries with even worse public finances can afford to fund their public transport. Money can always be found, given political will.

So, regarding political will. Of course, this is the main issue. Funding will follow from that. It is up to us to campaign for it. The insularity of the UK is a problem. We don't tend to look outside the country to see how good things can be. Hopefully as this country becomes increasingly populated by fellow European citizens, this issue will diminish. Luckily for us, we can simply copy best practice from elsewhere. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

When London was running at break even, before the formation of TfL, patronage didn't fall like it did in the PTE areas.

Tendering to private companies is actually a pretty neo-liberal thing to do. It is far from socialism. So in countries that are not as economically right-wing as the UK (i.e. almost everywhere else in Europe) it is hard to get the public to accept tendering, but nevertheless, it is common in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Places that are known for being high tax and spend. We only think of tendering as 'regulation' in the UK because we have gone to the far extreme of deregulation.

If deregulation was the way forward, then other European countries would have gone for that instead of going for tendering. They have had plenty of time to observe what has gone on in the UK, and decided against it. For a while, deregulation fans were pointing to Sweden as it looked like it they were going down that road. But the UK commentators misunderstood the language, as 'deregulation' is considered to be synonymous with 'tendering'. The end result is nothing like what we have here.

Switzerland has the best public transport in the world. But Switzerland is a conservative country. It has relatively liberal gun laws, almost American-style private healthcare and quite a limited benefits system. But they don't even tender out their transport! It is mostly state owned. Before rail privatisation in the UK, they were famous for having 'private' railway companies. But these are really family owned or owned by local authorities, and are regulated by the state.

More questions, no answers.

No point in continuing this.

 

[radamfi]

Regarding London bus patronage 'flatlining'. Surely what counts is the patronage per person? London only contains about 20% of England's population, but now accounts for over half of all bus journeys, which means the average Londoner uses the bus more than twice as much as the average person in England.

If the rest of England doubled patronage in a year, but London stayed the same, then you could boast that the patronage outside London went up 100% and London 'flatlined', but London would still have more patronage.

A lot of London's buses are overcrowded now so can't take any more passengers. Indeed, TfL are looking to improve cycling as a way of attracting people out of buses to alleviate overcrowding. In the Groningen province of the Netherlands, teenage school pupils who travel a long way to school by bus are being given electric bikes as a trial to see if they can switch to cycling to ease bus overcrowding. If successful, they will be allowed to buy them at a discounted rate.

Trying to do this in the deregulated environment is difficult due to pressure from operators who would lose money if more people did cycling. That's the experience in Cambridge.

 

[WatcherZero]

Looking at the latest quarterly statistics London did indeed flatline from start of 2012 to mid 2013, since then its picked up again and risen by 2.7% but its growing slower than the population of Lodon is growing so the per capita usage is falling. This trend of per capita falling each quarter kicked in late 2008, up until then it had been meteroic annual rises. London is just shy of the bus usage figure peak in the rest of the England which occured at the end of 2008.

Bus usage outside London was growing slow but steady from 2005 to late 2008, since then there was a steady decline in usage until start of 2013 where it levelled off, it grew 0.3% in the last year which is again growth but slower than the population is increasing.

Over the last decade fares in Metropolitan cities have risen fastest and well above inflation with London fares not far behind the PTE areas, rural fares have been bumping along basically tracking with the rate of inflation. Commercial industry spread the fares rises to cover the loss of BSOG grant evenly over a year, TFL put them up to cover a third of the amount after one year had passed then 2/3rds after the end of the second year.

 

[mbonwick]

Trying to do this in the deregulated environment is difficult due to pressure from operators who would lose money if more people did cycling. That's the experience in Cambridge.

That's not the case at all. The problem in Cambridge is a poorly thought out, borderline dangerous scheme.

It's all very well saying more people should cycle - but the reality is UK roads are not safe enough for that to happen.

 

[radamfi]

When discussing patronage, it makes sense to look at all public transport in an area, not just buses. There are more bus passengers than rail/Tube passengers in London, but in inner London the rail/Tube proportion is higher. In the early 2000s, the emphasis was on growing bus passengers as that was the only thing that could be done quickly. As Tube improvements have gradually been rolled out, Tube passengers have grown significantly in that time, up by a third in 10 years. So there may have been a bit of a switch from bus to Tube, made possible by the capacity increases in the Tube. The revamped and expanded London Overground rail network has also probably pinched quite a few bus passengers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not the case at all. The problem in Cambridge is a poorly thought out, borderline dangerous scheme.

It's all very well saying more people should cycle - but the reality is UK roads are not safe enough for that to happen.

I'm not aware of particular schemes in Cambridge, but Stagecoach do not want improvements to Cambridge's streets to make cycling attractive, as they would lose business. Ex-resident, David Hembrow, who moved to the Netherlands because of the good cycling, regularly comments on the situation in Cambridge on his well known blog and has mentioned that hostility from the bus company undermines campaigning for better cycle facilities in the city.