• 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!

Should buses be operated by private operators or in public hands?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
Intrigued to know what people think of this question. I'm a bit in the middle on the subject so I'd love to know what people think and why
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't overly mind in terms of who operates them, but I do believe they should be part of a regulated system which mandates certain aspects of timetabling (to what extent may depend on area - in rural areas it might be a case of accepting whatever the bus company bids as long as it isn't obviously predatory[1]), and in urban areas mandates the full integration of fares across all transport modes with no mode or company-specific fares permitted at all.

[1] e.g. I would reject a bid to run just in front of or just behind another operator already in place - if they are hourly and you want to run hourly, offset from each other by about half an hour.
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
I don't overly mind in terms of who operates them, but I do believe they should be part of a regulated system which mandates certain aspects of timetabling, and in urban areas mandates the full integration of fares across all transport modes with no mode or company-specific fares permitted at all.

Yeah I fully agree on fare regulation. Definitely not anywhere near as cheap as it used to be
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
The cost is pretty much just about how much subsidy you're willing to put in. To me, the integration aspect in cities is more important.

Yeah definitely where I am subsidy is nowhere near enough for buses compared to trains so cost has crept up a lot. Yeah integration is key
 

Llandudno

Established Member
Joined
25 Dec 2014
Messages
2,178
Private operators on franchise routes, bit like London I supposebut without the three minute headways and 24 hour operation!

0630-2330 Daily, 0700 start on Saturdays, 0800 start on Sundays
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
Private operators on franchise routes, bit like London I supposebut without the three minute headways and 24 hour operation!

0630-2330 Daily, 0700 start on Saturdays, 0800 start on Sundays

Might need slightly earlier starts and slightly later finishes based on some people's work hours but I agree with something of that style
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
If you'd asked me ten years ago, I'd have said that everything should be in public hands and that the whole privatisation thing was nonsense. Let's face it, the whole idea behind the tory privatisation ideology was severely flawed. I don't think the free market idea works for buses, but the idea that you don't have to be stuck with an incumbent operator for years and years does.

I do feel we need a certain amount of regulation, particularly in areas where there isn't enough traffic to drive natural competition. I also think that ticket-acceptance should be a thing in areas where one operator happily operates a commercial service during the day, but another operator happens to successfully tender for the evening and weekend services on the same route.

When I was in my last year at school, Stagecoach had taken over my local bus company and Highland Scottish (still state owned at the time) successfully tendered for the early morning run and all of the evening services. My weekly CommuterCard no longer worked for my out of school journeys.

In short, I don't think it matters whether the services are provided by public or private sector, as long as there's some kind of integration between operators where there isn't a natural monopoly.
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
If you'd asked me ten years ago, I'd have said that everything should be in public hands and that the whole privatisation thing was nonsense. Let's face it, the whole idea behind the tory privatisation ideology was severely flawed. I don't think the free market idea works for buses, but the idea that you don't have to be stuck with an incumbent operator for years and years does.

I do feel we need a certain amount of regulation, particularly in areas where there isn't enough traffic to drive natural competition. I also think that ticket-acceptance should be a thing in areas where one operator happily operates a commercial service during the day, but another operator happens to successfully tender for the evening and weekend services on the same route.

When I was in my last year at school, Stagecoach had taken over my local bus company and Highland Scottish (still state owned at the time) successfully tendered for the early morning run and all of the evening services. My weekly CommuterCard no longer worked for my out of school journeys.

In short, I don't think it matters whether the services are provided by public or private sector, as long as there's some kind of integration between operators where there isn't a natural monopoly.

Yeah I agree on integration with tenders. SPT have made a mess of it here because there's been so many services operated by different operators yet they carry fresh air because it's too expensive for people to use as they need 2 different tickets because there's no acceptance at all
 

delt1c

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2008
Messages
2,125
For me I believe public transport should be operated for the public and in public hands. However it has to be run efficiently and any surplus returned to the operation. However it should not be operated under the old system where money was thrown at it regardless.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Ah yes.... the old "buses should be in public ownership" debate. Usually peppered with references to Lothian and London but fewer references to Newport or Halton. And, of course, the obligatory issue of franchising and centralised control/planning (rather than direct operation).

The theory being that a centralised regime of planning will improve integration and will remove wasteful competition, a single provision of information, etc etc.

Now the reality.

I have no confidence that PTEs and local authorities are fit for purpose in managing and coordinating bus operations. Let's look at Glasgow as our OP refers to that. Bus patronage has fallen but why? The clear inference would be through mismanagement and under-investment by First leading to the retraction on some routes and cutting of others. It cannot be denied.... there's truth in that. However, are these the only factors....?

Glasgow has become one of the most car centric cities in the UK. Look at the developments in the last 25 years...
  • M74 extension - cost £700m and massively improved commuting times
  • M77 extension - the Newton Mearns development (1997) and the extension in 2003 south - again making it easier for car travel
  • M80 Stepps extension - cost £320m
It might also be wise to consider the issue of on street parking in Glasgow that a) promotes public car usage whilst b) removing footprint that could be used for bus priority. GCC could remove some of this but like many councils, car parking charges are an important revenue stream; GCC made nearly £22m from it in 2018/9. This is typical and it's one of the main issues during the Covid crisis for local authorities....their parking revenues are massively down.

So you have a lack of road space and bus priority because as a society, we have become very car dependent. Whoever runs (or plans) the buses is irrelevant if they are going to be stuck in traffic. Local authorities could solve that NOW and you know what, the best local authorities (Brighton & Hove, Nottingham) ARE doing that. It's no surprise that the cities that are focusing on that (with good operators in partnership) are (or were) seeing patronage grow. Glasgow could do it tomorrow....if they had the political will.

Again, back to Glasgow (or Strathclyde in general), we are seeing the ongoing decline of our high streets. That is pretty undeniable and represents a substantial issue across the UK. The issue is more pronounced though for those secondary towns or locations (unlike the big city centres and towns). Glasgow still has a critical mass for shopping (irrespective of your own views on how good it is) so a 10% drop in footfall still means it's quite busy and so support a bus service whilst that might be the difference in a service in Clydebank or Motherwell being sustainable or not.

There are other macro-economic issues that are outside the control of bus operators or even local authorities. These aren't going to be changed by altering whoever runs or plans the buses. In the last 25 years, we've seen a welter of different legislation in respect of drivers hours/tacho regs, driver CPCs etc that have pushed up operator costs. Also, there have been taxation and other changes that have seen operator costs increase, such as stakeholder pensions, reduction of BSOG etc. At the same time, operators have had concessionary passes pushed onto them on a "no better no worse" basis yet clearly, the remuneration formula is such that it leads to a position that penalises the casual passenger. At the same time, the cost of running a private car has reduced in real terms with the freezing of fuel duty increases over the last 10 years. So you have bus operations having to lower income and higher costs whilst their main competition (the car) is ever cheaper.

The other competition, other than online shopping and the private car, comes from other public transport. Now, I'm pro PT so happy to see new rail and light rail. However, let's not be blind to the fact that when you develop rail lines etc, you are going to abstract patronage from buses. You can see the clear correlation in Greater Manchester where bus patronage falls in relation to the phases of Metrolink opening. It's entirely to be expected; it would be far more surprising if you opened the Borders Railway and 100% of the traffic came not from existing users of public transport (bus) and instead came from private car users.

Then you have the question of the competence of local authorities. Well, if the experience of Nexus/Cornwall Council/Dorset County Council is a guide, then it's a concern. Take Cornwall, who have traditionally been pro public transport and indeed, financed and owned some fleet that was operated by First to improve the quality of services in the county. They've recently been awarded a chunk of money to invest in improving buses in the county, allied to the changes to the main rail line. So what can go wrong? Well, they've awarded the contracts in a single package to a consortium headed by an operator that had no operations in most of the county so that was always a tough ask. That operator (Go Ahead) had three months from award to service commencement.... three months from nothing to a full countywide operation. CC have also introduced a number of new services.... the usual stuff of bold new links that get enthusiasts excited. However, these are links that in many instances were either already subsidised (so a two hourly tender becomes an hourly tender.... why?) or are totally new links based on seemingly no actual research but the whim of whatever PT Officer or (worse still) the lobbying of local politicians. Then, in the midst of the pandemic, they proposed a reduced fares experiment to stimulate patronage when the advice was to avoid all but necessary travel....it was crazy (and dropped before implementation).

Or returning to Scotland, the idea of pedestrianising Union Street in Aberdeen to meet Covid social distancing and so relegating bus services from the single busiest stops to a motley selection of back streets; shame they didn't think of regulating bars and football teams more closely??

So am I arguing that all is rosy in the bus world? Of course not. There is a clear need to improve integration and ticketing and that should be done via partnership in the first instance with the recourse that there is some form of legislative means should the children not play happily. However, if you believe that moving from the current market driven model to a franchise model will miraculously restore the high street, see the car centric policies not only pause but be reversed, and see some fantastic dividend from removing wasteful competition (that actually rarely exists outside of West Lothian and a few other selected spots) and sticking it to the man (aka Brian Souter), then it's a case of self delusion. The oft quoted London success came at a huge financial cost; that is demonstrable fact and again there is a clear correlation. Buses should have more spent on them (and it's heartening yet disappointing to see the amount being spent in these Covid days).

The argument of public vs. private is trying to ascertain a medical resolution when you haven't fully understood the true cause of the ailment.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Isn't reading buses a municipally owned operator they don't seem bad. Near London prices on the fares too
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Yes but why?
Just give a comparison what a publically owned operator is like. Everyone says London is publically owned. Actually they are not they are run by private companies with the route specifications and pricing set by a publically owned group
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think the quality of an operator is defined by the quality of their management, not who happens to own them. It seems clear to me that the highest quality operator in the UK at the moment is Transdev Blazefield (or whatever it's called now), and that's because of one specific manager who is obsessed with it and one specific bearded bloke in dodgy 1980s running shorts who's quite good at doing the marketing. (I think Trent Barton is slipping a bit now now the former has left?)

The key thing I think regulation could bring us in the UK is better integration of both timetabling and fares. That said, this could be substituted for if operators would stop overpricing single fares and accepted tap-in tap-out contactless, at which point it barely matters because there would be no signficant financial or convenience penalty of a completely non-integrated fares system. This is essentially the basis of the Dutch OV-Chipkaart system - each operator can pick a per-vehicle-kilometre rate for their services, and there's a "starting fee" which applies to each journey (I don't know how this is distributed, or if indeed it isn't and just pays for the scheme).

That said, I also quite like the idea of whole-area franchising (which works better for bus than rail because most journeys are within a town/city) - on the basis of "we want to spend £X, what package can you do for us" - that also means you get a nice refresh of everything every few years to keep the brand looking fresh.
 

cnjb8

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
2,113
Location
Nottingham
Just give a comparison what a publically owned operator is like. Everyone says London is publically owned. Actually they are not they are run by private companies with the route specifications and pricing set by a publically owned group
Readings loss making
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
Glasgow has become one of the most car centric cities in the UK. Look at the developments in the last 25 years...
  • M74 extension - cost £700m and massively improved commuting times
  • M77 extension - the Newton Mearns development (1997) and the extension in 2003 south - again making it easier for car travel
  • M80 Stepps extension - cost £320m
It might also be wise to consider the issue of on street parking in Glasgow that a) promotes public car usage whilst b) removing footprint that could be used for bus priority. GCC could remove some of this but like many councils, car parking charges are an important revenue stream; GCC made nearly £22m from it in 2018/9. This is typical and it's one of the main issues during the Covid crisis for local authorities....their parking revenues are massively down.

So you have a lack of road space and bus priority.

While you do raise some important points, it must be stated that these road improvements were badly needed, with old a77 being a very dangerous road.

The bus operators did benafit from these new roads. Stagecoach Ayrshire express network To Glasgow has seen massive growth do to speeded up running times.

When M77 first opened Stagecoach made a killing with X8 x9 x10 its just a shame most parts of the estates were knock down, these routes were only made possible thanks to m77. Of course cumbernauld has seen also improved running times becuase the road was upgrade.

Motorways are not overall bad, they is no extra capacity on m80/M73/M74 (south) sections it was just upgraded, while a majority of the traffic elsewhere is for airport or the induatrail estates. Its also worth noting rail passengers within greater glasgow has skyrocketed with many coming from the buses.

Thats not to say i don't agree with many of your other points and infact your right Glasgow cc do need a good kick up the backside. More needs to be done to give buses prioty, espical in city centre and places like breahead or silverbrun. If your down in North Lanarkshire like the raith interchange it has alot of car traiffc however your notice very little public transportation servering any useful links.. Sounds like Marbury road or the Edinburgh bypass.

The Simple fact is the Greater Glasgow bus network does need to be altered to help keep up with passengers demands ie follow the car drivers, in many cases car drivers have no access to any alternatives.

Personnel the best answer to the op question is

Have all bus compaines operate like Lothian or Reading ie privately run but the councils have 100% of the share or be like London were comapnies bid for lots however this can only go so far and ideas like go2 down in Kent would be better suited for rural areas.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Just give a comparison what a publically owned operator is like. Everyone says London is publically owned. Actually they are not they are run by private companies with the route specifications and pricing set by a publically owned group

No, you miss the fundamental point. Why is Reading successful (though it is in difficult straits at the moment)? Not simply because it's publicly owned.... otherwise Halton would still be going, Cardiff wouldn't be a loss maker, and Newport wouldn't be running 2002 ex London Darts. EDIT: Newport have just been called to a public enquiry

Conversely, you have Brighton and Hove who are privately owned who are excellent and bus patronage was increasing markedly. Dare I suggest it might be those councils who are actively looking to make their towns and cities more sustainable and better places to live, and happen to be in the South of England where the economy is more buoyant, are doing more to overcome some of the challenges of today's bus operating environment.


I think the quality of an operator is defined by the quality of their management, not who happens to own them. It seems clear to me that the highest quality operator in the UK at the moment is Transdev Blazefield (or whatever it's called now), and that's because of one specific manager who is obsessed with it and one specific bearded bloke in dodgy 1980s running shorts who's quite good at doing the marketing. (I think Trent Barton is slipping a bit now now the former has left?)

The key thing I think regulation could bring us in the UK is better integration of both timetabling and fares. That said, this could be substituted for if operators would stop overpricing single fares and accepted tap-in tap-out contactless, at which point it barely matters because there would be no signficant financial or convenience penalty of a completely non-integrated fares system. This is essentially the basis of the Dutch OV-Chipkaart system - each operator can pick a per-vehicle-kilometre rate for their services, and there's a "starting fee" which applies to each journey (I don't know how this is distributed, or if indeed it isn't and just pays for the scheme).

That said, I also quite like the idea of whole-area franchising (which works better for bus than rail because most journeys are within a town/city) - on the basis of "we want to spend £X, what package can you do for us" - that also means you get a nice refresh of everything every few years to keep the brand looking fresh.

I think you're right that the calibre of local and corporate management is a crucial factor in the success of bus patronage.

Where I worry is the dead hand of regulation. As we can see in Cornwall, money is being wasted by an organisation who have arbitrarily elected to specify routes for no demonstrable reason.

Technology is a threat given the increase in internet shopping and decline of the high street but there are opportunities there. Were a restoration of BSOG to the old levels be made, then you could tie that into a capping system that takes advantage of the ticketing systems (and revenue apportionment thereof) that can support this. As for overpriced singles....well, we know the issue with that and it's again a fundamental funding issue.

However, I come back to the central issue that if we don't tackle the causal issues behind congestion, it's Emperors New Clothes time. It's why I'm annoyed with Andy Burnham (who I used to like) who is citing collapsing bus patronage figures (whilst ignoring the impact of Metrolink on those) and believes that there is some fantastic margin dividend that will fund not only a raft of new regulated services AND the mechanism to manage it. Meanwhile, this can all be achieved without facing into the main issues of allowing unfettered car use into the centre of Manchester.


While you do raise some important points, it must be stated that these road improvements were badly needed, with old a77 being a very dangerous road.

The bus operators did benafit from these new roads. Stagecoach Ayrshire express network To Glasgow has seen massive growth do to speeded up running times.

When M77 first opened Stagecoach made a killing with X8 x9 x10 its just a shame most parts of the estates were knock down, these routes were only made possible thanks to m77. Of course cumbernauld has seen also improved running times becuase the road was upgrade.

Motorways are not overall bad, they is no extra capacity on m80/M73/M74 (south) sections it was just upgraded, while a majority of the traffic elsewhere is for airport or the induatrail estates. Its also worth noting rail passengers within greater glasgow has skyrocketed with many coming from the buses.

Thats not to say i don't agree with many of your other points and infact your right Glasgow cc do need a good kick up the backside. More needs to be done to give buses prioty, espical in city centre and places like breahead or silverbrun. If your down in North Lanarkshire like the raith interchange it has alot of car traiffc however your notice very little public transportation servering any useful links.. Sounds like Marbury road or the Edinburgh bypass.

The Simple fact is the Greater Glasgow bus network does need to be altered to help keep up with passengers demands ie follow the car drivers, in many cases car drivers have no access to any alternatives.

Personnel the best answer to the op question is

Have all bus compaines operate like Lothian or Reading ie privately run but the councils have 100% of the share or be like London were comapnies bid for lots however this can only go so far and ideas like go2 down in Kent would be better suited for rural areas.

I'm not saying that there weren't some upsides to new roads. However, all those existing and additional cars that were then being enabled into the centre of Glasgow then filled up already busy roads.... the overall impact has been to fuel additional cars. That's what new roads do.

In Greater Glasgow, there's no denying that the failures of First in the 2000s were a factor, as was the instability of the initial dereg years. No one can dispute that. Also that as the rail service has been invested in, in terms of more stations and newer, more reliable rolling stock, rail has undoubtedly had an effect. Yes, you'll have tempted a few car drivers but often its those non car drivers who used to get the bus who are now on the train.

However, the fact is the city is car orientated. Take Hope Street.... not a metre of bus lane (though there are stops) but down one site, a load of roadside parking. Or Argyle Street - lots of roadside parking on both sides and no bus priority. Even an inbound bus lane (with cycle usage) at the expense of one lot of car parking would be a start. Whether the political will and courage is there..... I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,489
Its generally a case at looking at a poor private operator and thinking the current situation is rubbish, any change will be better.

There are many good private operators around (Lothian, Reading, Transdev Blazefield, most of Go Ahead, Trent Barton, First WoE, Kernow, Buses of Somerset, Eastern Counties to name a few) so I think good private operators working with good pro-transport councils who will put money in to things they control such as bus stations, publicity and tender budgets is the best way of doing things

Cornwall is a good example of councils getting too involved not looking like it is working well. They don't do well at marketing and publicity for a start and are too driven by councillors wanting services in their areas
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Erm, while Lothian and Reading are "arms length" they cannot be considered private operators per-se in the UK context.

If they are private, so's Network Rail.
 
Last edited:

alex397

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
1,546
Location
UK
I haven’t quite got the time to write a detailed reply, but overall I think the best answer is good partnership between local authorities and operators. It doesn’t matter if it’s public or private, I don’t think that’s the issue
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
I'd definitely be in favour of private operation in towns/cities large enough to support a good bit of competition. Possibly with some regulation to stop fares going through the roof, but probably without subsidies for loss-making routes. If a private company can't turn a profit on it, is it really worth keeping?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'd definitely be in favour of private operation in towns/cities large enough to support a good bit of competition. Possibly with some regulation to stop fares going through the roof, but probably without subsidies for loss-making routes. If a private company can't turn a profit on it, is it really worth keeping?

I don't see on-road competition as good, rather I think it as actively bad. Bus-war-style spats don't benefit anyone, they result in overbussing on those corridors and underbussing elsewhere. The competitor is the car, and the city public transport industry as a whole needs to work together (and including walking/cycling) to compete against the mode we really want to stop people using.

That applies regardless of who owns it. TBH, in my view, just about the best thing that could happen to public transport would be a law change that removed the application of anti-monopoly rules to the industry with regard to collusion, because collusion is actually co-operation in terms of public transport and is pretty much always of benefit.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
I don't see on-road competition as good, rather I think it as actively bad. Bus-war-style spats don't benefit anyone, they result in overbussing on those corridors and underbussing elsewhere. The competitor is the car, and the city public transport industry as a whole needs to work together (and including walking/cycling) to compete against the mode we really want to stop people using.
Good point. However, large operators having bus-wars on specific corridors can open areas for smaller, independent operators to serve.
 

PaulMc7

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2019
Messages
4,029
I don't see on-road competition as good, rather I think it as actively bad. Bus-war-style spats don't benefit anyone, they result in overbussing on those corridors and underbussing elsewhere. The competitor is the car, and the city public transport industry as a whole needs to work together (and including walking/cycling) to compete against the mode we really want to stop people using.

Fully agree with this. If we want people out of cars and onto buses the government and councils alike need to get serious and tackle the major issues like congestion, bus priority etc to make it happen
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Good point. However, large operators having bus-wars on specific corridors can open areas for smaller, independent operators to serve.

Er, wha? How do bus wars achieve that? Large operators aren't interested in low-profit areas whether they happen to be involved in a bus war or not.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I don't see on-road competition as good, rather I think it as actively bad. Bus-war-style spats don't benefit anyone, they result in overbussing on those corridors and underbussing elsewhere. The competitor is the car, and the city public transport industry as a whole needs to work together (and including walking/cycling) to compete against the mode we really want to stop people using.

That applies regardless of who owns it. TBH, in my view, just about the best thing that could happen to public transport would be a law change that removed the application of anti-monopoly rules to the industry with regard to collusion, because collusion is actually co-operation in terms of public transport and is pretty much always of benefit.
There's so little genuine on-road competition and little overbussing, it's a bit of a red herring. It was true perhaps 20 or 30 years ago but not now.

I do take your point on when co-operation is equated to collusion. You end up with a third party (such as an LA) having to be the intermediary to enable inter-availability of tickets. IIRC, that was the role of BaNES council who had to broker a deal whereby tickets between Bristol and Keynsham are valid between First and Abus. There are other examples.
 

tramboy

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
367
The argument of public/private isn't really the fundamental, as "The Grand Wazoo" has suggested in his earlier post. Ownership of the actual bus business is the current distraction from actually sorting out the roads so that they provide an environment in which buses can flourish for whoever owns them.

Franchising won't make it any better - in fact, putting more cost into the public purse really doesn't seem to be the way forwards at the moment. I'd like to retire sometime, and not die whilst at work, and given the amount of money spent recently, we'll all be paying for it for many years to come.

So, let's go back to if the current system is broken? In places it's perhaps suffering, but in others it clearly isn't. Innovative operators, working with innovative partners in councils/local authorities can see to make buses an attractive place to be. The operator should provide the product (a la Transdev etc), the Council provides the road space to make the bus more attractive than the car.

You will always get commercial businesses focussing on areas where they can make money - that's a fact, and if they're doing so, why would you want to take the risk public? We've all now got the revenue risk on the railways for running empty trains around, and taking that on bus wouldn't help return them to what people see as their former glories - conveniently forgetting that at that time, they also didn't have such a car-centric society as we have now.

So, you want good commercial operators to drive innovation, and good local authority partners to drive road improvements etc that will increase customer volumes. De-regulation isn't broken - the model just needs working on slightly to get the best of both worlds, and as long as Councils keep shouting about "franchising" or "public ownership", they aren't solving the bigger problem of the car - just distracting from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top