Institute for Public Policy Research report criticises bus deregulation

[mbonwick]

As far as I am aware, Stagecoach do not object to the principle, but the implementation. Which as I said before is borderline dangerous.

 

[radamfi]

As far as I am aware, Stagecoach do not object to the principle, but the implementation. Which as I said before is borderline dangerous.

If it is dangerous, then the scheme will not be attractive to cyclists, and therefore Stagecoach won't lose money.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You are priceless... in one post, you state

"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." and when called on it, you say "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. "

Other gems in this are "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." Have you not noticed the 2015/6 spending cuts. £11.5bn is being taken from the public purse. Local authority funding is getting a 10% cut!

However, my personal fave is "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." Yeah, because we're all increasing Europhile. It's not like there's some rabid, anti-European political party that's polling rather well, and has just had a sitting MP defect to them?

Once again, as Jerry Maguire said, show me the money. Don't waffle about other countries. Talk about this one. The politics here. The political will for things to change. Given that in 2010, the good citizens of Manchester declined a congestion charge to fund better transport by 4 to 1, what makes you think the population wants more taxation for public transport? Or that the government is committed to increasing rail fares to attract more farebox revenue to reduce the burden on non rail users?

I'd love to see proper investment in public transport and it truly saddens me that the 1997 Labour administration had the size of majority, freedom to rule and the public finances to actually improve things in the bus industry. Instead, we had some rural bus challenge funding (a sop to calm down the rural voters who were being screwed unduly by the fuel duty escalator) and an ENCTS scheme that was poorly conceived and financed.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

Another factor may be that the congestion charge introduced in 2003 was said at the time to have reduced congestion in central London so that the buses could move more freely and probably carried more passengers for that reason. My subjective impression is that the amount of congestion in the centre has increased again in the last few years so buses are becoming too slow to be useful for many journeys.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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.

Exactly. I'm a keen cyclist but even where cycle infrastructure is built, it is often badly designed and poorly maintained.

 

[radamfi]

"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." and when called on it, you say "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. "

How is that illogical? Clearly if cycling is made very attractive then, whilst the main aim is to reduce car journeys, it will inevitably impact even more on bus journeys. Cycling in the Netherlands is often quicker than taking the car, and therefore much quicker than taking the bus, and that is not even taking into account waiting times. Therefore bus passengers are far outnumbered by cyclists in most Dutch towns.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or that the government is committed to increasing rail fares to attract more farebox revenue to reduce the burden on non rail users?

Whilst rail users are expected to pay more in the future, everyone expects passenger numbers to continue to rise dramatically. Improving rail was not really of great interest to politicians until about 10 to 15 years ago, but now all parties want to expand and improve the rail network. I don't know if you look at the rail part of this forum but you can find information about the numerous schemes that are planned and progressing at the moment.

So this is an example of how politics has changed in favour of improving public transport.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How is that illogical? Clearly if cycling is made very attractive then, whilst the main aim is to reduce car journeys, it will inevitably impact even more on bus journeys. Cycling in the Netherlands is often quicker than taking the car, and therefore much quicker than taking the bus, and that is not even taking into account waiting times. Therefore bus passengers are far outnumbered by cyclists in most Dutch towns.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whilst rail users are expected to pay more in the future, everyone expects passenger numbers to continue to rise dramatically. Improving rail was not really of great interest to politicians until about 10 to 15 years ago, but now all parties want to expand and improve the rail network. I don't know if you look at the rail part of this forum but you can find information about the numerous schemes that are planned and progressing at the moment.

So this is an example of how politics has changed in favour of improving public transport.

It's illogical to quote an example and then admit you don't know about it!

I am a cyclist and would love spending to be increased. I have cycled in the Netherlands and would love to see much better infrastructure in the UK.

And whilst expansion of the rail network (and public transport generally) is laudable, it still doesn't get away from the fact that the burden is being transferred to users through the farebox and NOT through investment with public spending being cut further and faster in future.

Where's the money coming from?

 

[radamfi]

You snipped the bit where I explained my source of information re Cambridge.

I have consistently explained that money could be found given political will. I have already admitted that we need to campaign in order to obtain that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You snipped the bit where I explained my source of information re Cambridge.

I have consistently explained that money could be found given political will. I have already admitted that we need to campaign in order to obtain that.

You quoted a blog (someone's opinion) but admitted you didn't have actual knowledge.

As for a campaign, all very lovely. However, the money isn't there as is apparent. Liam Byrne even left a note confirming that.

I'm sorry but when it's a decision to close a council run nursing home or reduce welfare services, they're more emotive to the vast majority of people. There is no evidence to support your supposition, in the same way that you hope to think we're becoming more europhile.

 

[Oscar]

You quoted a blog (someone's opinion) but admitted you didn't have actual knowledge.

As for a campaign, all very lovely. However, the money isn't there as is apparent. Liam Byrne even left a note confirming that.

I'm sorry but when it's a decision to close a council run nursing home or reduce welfare services, they're more emotive to the vast majority of people. There is no evidence to support your supposition, in the same way that you hope to think we're becoming more europhile.

The Government can choose to set taxes how it wishes and give financial support to what it wishes. This Government has chosen a strategy of austerity and deficit austerity. Other macro-economic strategies could be Keynesian economics (investments to promote growth) or a transition to a post-growth economy with significant re-distribution of wealth. All of these decisions lead to different (and not entirely predictable) outcomes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The Government can choose to set taxes how it wishes and give financial support to what it wishes. This Government has chosen a strategy of austerity and deficit austerity. Other macro-economic strategies could be Keynesian economics (investments to promote growth) or a transition to a post-growth economy with significant re-distribution of wealth. All of these decisions lead to different (and not entirely predictable) outcomes.

Entirely agree with you. Then can spend their revenues where they wish - I just don't see that public transport is an area where they want to. It isn't something that's in the forefront of people's minds.

The latest IPSOS/MORI poll shows the top 10 issues in the mind of the electorate are:

• Immigration
• Economy
• Unemployment
• NHS
• Defence/terrorism
• Law and order
• Education
• Poverty
• Housing
• Welfare

Public transport is important to us but to the majority of the electorate, it barely rates a mention.

 

[Oscar]

Public transport is important to us but to the majority of the electorate, it barely rates a mention.

Yes, I agree, public transport does not feature highly in political discourse. I do think a lot of people (mainly non-car owners and more younger people I suppose) are frustrated and disillusioned by the state of local transport outside of London but it is hardly discussed in the media or by politicians. Therefore I agree with radamfi that it's something worth campaigning on. Campaigns like Save Our Buses are useful but fail to address the underlying causes of the problem.

Politics is surely the only way to make any progress on this. Christian Wolmar is standing for the Labour nomination for Mayor of London and would be interested and London has huge potential for public transport even if the offer is already very good. The problems are mainly elsewhere though. Expect Jonathan Tyler to stand in the General Election, but he won't be elected. Can you think of anyone else in politics with the knowledge and interest to make any progress?

 

[edwin_m]

I think public transport is an issue in London Mayoral elections, partly because everyone realises London won't work without decent public transport and partly because the transport network is by most measures the Mayor's most important area of responsibility.

Elsewhere it doesn't really figure. Rail is predominantly controlled by national government, so has to find its place in a long list of national issues, or by indirectly elected joint bodies in metropolitan areas. With most buses being commercial the ability of local authorities to influence bus services is pretty small.

 

[Oscar]

I agree, the only way the nation's bus services will improve is through statutory change from national government, and buses (and to an extent rail) are not at the forefront of the public's mind.

 

[radamfi]

The easiest place to work with could be Surrey, as there are few commercial routes there and TfL have already taken over quite a few routes near the boundary.

In fact, it probably makes a lot of sense for TfL to take over the responsibility for transport into a wider area of the Home Counties. The Greater London boundary was defined in 1965 and since then a vast number of people have moved into the surrounding area.

The immediate built up urban area, defined by ONS based on the proximity of buildings from each other, now stretches as far as Guildford at the 2011 Census.

 

[Surreyman]

Been following this post with some interest, does anyone know what has happened re the Tyne & Wear proposals? - This project seems to have 'gone quiet'.
Can't help thinking that we perhaps need a real live 'Re-Regulation' experiment to find out what works/doesn't work and its impact on finances/local politics/practical implementation.
With a general election due in May 2015 and the Labour party or a Labour-Lib Dem coalition currently leading the polls to win, I wonder what impact this might have?
It used to be the case that the Labour Party was the natural supporter of Public Transport, their record on Rail investment is poor and I fear that Ed Balls might be tempted to cut back/defer the current Electrification/Modernisation plan for CP5.
My personal guess is that Labour would maintain the Status Quo re the 1986 act .

 

[mbonwick]

All gone quiet on Tyne & Wear because Nexus realised they were wrong and would lose any appeals etc..

 

[radamfi]

There have been many threats from local authorities about QCs. They are intended primarily to cajole operators into making improvements. Once the operator has made some modest change, then the threat is dropped. This tactic has been tried too many times now so operators are now wise to it. You can only cry wolf so many times.

Another problem is the great lobbying power of the major groups. In Scotland, the SNP appeared to be quite serious about reregulation but after a big donation from Souter, the policy was dropped.

 

[mbonwick]

Or perhaps local authorities have realised that working in partnership (QBPs) with companies is preferable and achieves better results than forcing them into QCs?

 

[radamfi]

Should buses in London be deregulated? Or maybe in part of London? Should there be bus deregulation in Belfast, Zürich or Amsterdam?

 

[Oscar]

Or perhaps local authorities have realised that working in partnership (QBPs) with companies is preferable and achieves better results than forcing them into QCs?

How can they know when they haven't been able to "force them into QCs"? See page 12 of the IPPR report and comment 78.