tbtc
Veteran Member
Buses are important. If they are funded by the local council, and that funding is cut by forty percent, then there is going to be a decline in service. The conservative government, which secured a far smaller proportion of votes in the North of England, is inevitably going to receive criticism.
Well, the Conservative government receive a smaller proportion of votes in London too AIUI (I think Labour have around two thirds of the parliamentary seats?), but London seems to do okay transport wise.
The problem is though that if councils are going to have chaotic/vulnerable funding then I don't know that bus provision would sit best with councils. I mean, in an ideal world, I'd have councils well funded with stable income etc etc, but realistically local government spending isn't great these days so I don't know if the average council would do a better job (yes, there's Nottingham, but there's also Warrington). Any expenditure on a new vehicle would always be money that could be used to fund Meals On Wheels or keep a Library open.
Would Northern still be such a basket case if the Government hadn't removed the best routes to make Transpennine Express a separate franchise? I agree the North needs investment but can see the point about subsidies being a factor against it happening.
The routes that Northern operate would still be basket cases, whichever franchise they were part of. Nobody on here seems interested in what we do with so many loss making routes where heavy rail isn't fit for the modern market (the Victorians left us lines that don't serve town centres particularly well or are on the wrong side of the valley to most of the population or aren't flexible enough to cope with the huge changes over the past couple of generations).
Carve up the franchises however you want but it's like Northern Rock parcelling up toxic debts with good debts to try to hide them away. Maybe the argument is the other way round and TPE would still be making do with 158s if it was still shackled to the rest of the "Provincial" franchise in northern England.
Rural transport is a red herring really. Rural areas in all developed countries rely almost exclusively on the private car. There are still places in western Europe where good rural public transport still exists, but this does not translate into high modal share. Even an hourly bus service 7 days a week is not going to get many people out of their cars. Urban and inter-city travel is where the focus should be
I completely agree that public transport is much better at serving areas of higher population density - rail isn't going to be competitive between small towns - a bus route will struggle to penetrate a village where people live long distances from the nearest stop - we'd be much better focussing on urban areas.
It's just that the OP was an article about rural public transport provision in the UK (and how it's equally bad in northern and southern England).
Some people on here think that train stations should be liberally sprinkled around the country, rather than targeted in the areas most suitable though. I'm perfectly relaxed about whole parliamentary seats or even counties not having a train station if there's no effective way of providing one. Rail should pick the battles it can best win.
What I am saying is that the emphasis should be on funding urban transport as that is where there is a lot of scope for cutting car use. Other countries subsidise their urban transport heavily. Currently, funding for buses in Britain is focused on areas of low demand.
Agreed - which is why I roll my eyes when people's great schemes typically involve re-opening heavy rail between small rural places - we'd be much better investing in urban areas. But that's probably less "romantic" to the misty-eyed people still grumbling about Beeching...
You have correctly identified the reason that the fares are higher in London. The fact is that too many Government buildings, Universities, seat of Government, foreigner destination of choice, theatres and event places. Too many people in general live and work in London and despite the costs seemingly want to.
The problem is constantly made worse by the vast majority of Government spending being made in London. This in itself makes London a MORE desirable location. Eg, airports, northerners expected to travel to Heathrow, despite there being planes to many destinations from Manchester, how many Londoners consider going to Manchester. The flights are often cheaper and more frequent from Heathrow, but without building a third runway, the capacity could be easily made available at Manchester. Whilst the airlines would moan they would soon offer more flights from Manchester if there was no alternative. The percentage of hoilday flights from Heathrow which could be moved from their is around 35%, so no extra capacity would actually needed for business flights if these were moved to other airports. Try Bradford, one sizeable theatre, apart from curry houses and a few nightclubs it shuts down at 18.00. London has well over 50 theatres.
The idea of having a dominant single city wherever leads to concentration of resources whichever Government, because they cant win an election without some of the London vote. What is needed is to devolve Government offices to the regions (and preferably not like BBC Salford where their self-entitled staff luvvies refused to move, despite vast investment. The BBC should have recruited, trained and replaced their 'star' presenters with (cheaper) and likely just as good locals from Salford.
I still doubt HS2 commuter line will get any farther north than Birmingham (if as far as that).
So many points but... I'm not sure that public transport is ever going to solve the problems that you raise.
I know Sheffielders who never use local buses/trains around here but are happy using the red buses and Underground of London, in the way that I know Sheffielders who never visit the Cruicible/Lyceum theatres but will always want to go see a "show" when they are in London. That's just the way things are.
I'm not sure that the number of Universities in London are too many. Compared to the size of the place, the London Universities seem on the low side - huge numbers of Students can have a huge effect on places like Manchester/ Leeds/ Sheffield/ Newcastle but London's Student population seems a lot more invisible. If you can afford to be a Student in London then good luck to you, given the living costs etc!
Tourists want to visit the capital city (with it's palaces/ monuments/ history etc)? Fair enough. That's how it works, isn't it?
Not enough people are being encouraged to use Manchester Airport? Well, it's got a strangle hold on railways in northern England because of the obsession with running direct trains there. And the Airport is going to have a very fast rail link to London in the next decade or so...
Lots of things to criticise London for (as there are of any capital city) but the fact that they've got too many Students and Bradford doesn't have enough theatres seems a bit thin.