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

[PaulMc7]

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.

Very beautifully put and there's definitely been a ton of council shouts about public hands for buses lately although cuts have driven that. Think there's a fear in the councils to do anything incase it annoys car users so I don't see much change soon

 

[overthewater]

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.

The trouble is those road were badly need, if not Glasgow even with less cars would have been awful with all the HGV etc traveling down past house etc,

however I do agree with you, Glasgow has become to car centric and the failures of first in the 2000s were a factor. For the last 40 years SPT seem to only care about its subway and its suburban rail lines which is the largest outside London, that no mean feat, so its clear where the money went.

I doubt they would be any political will and courage from any party to really make a big difference, If I was first I would have put my foot down and demand big improvements to the road layout or refuse to comply with LEZ. I would be fully behide making Hope street and Renfrew street full bus only roads.

The whole Greater Glasgow network needs to be overhaul completely and alot more direct links need to be introduced if you were to have a cat in chance hell of getting rid of the cars. Bus franchising won't solve that since there would just stuck to the same crappy routes as we have now. So much new routes would be needed I dare say first would need to double the size of the fleet just to be a decent dent.

 

[Jordan Adam]

When you consider inflation bus travel is cheaper. Generally speaking prices have increased at less than the rate of inflation. I'm against getting rid of all private operators as the current system despite it's flaws does work, many municipal operators have either went out of business or required a gov bail out, people always scream about the success of Lothian but that's only one example it's not the full picture. Lets not turn this in to another "Glasgow network needs overhauled" thread.

 

[upasalmon]

Without doubt public owned operation is the best method, but failing that private operation under REGULATION is a compromise. But the 1985 Transport Act must be repealed urgently and the 1930 Act restored.

 

[PaulMc7]

When you consider inflation bus travel is cheaper. Generally speaking prices have increased at less than the rate of inflation. I'm against getting rid of all private operators as the current system despite it's flaws does work, many municipal operators have either went out of business or required a gov bail out, people always scream about the success of Lothian but that's only one example it's not the full picture. Lets not turn this in to another "Glasgow network needs overhauled" thread.

Very good points. Yeah we don't need another thread like that. Lothian is the only thing people who 100% want public run buses seem to shout about

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Without doubt public owned operation is the best method, but failing that private operation under REGULATION is a compromise. But the 1985 Transport Act must be repealed urgently and the 1930 Act restored.

Yes, because the period from the early 1950s until 1986 was a golden age of state controlled and often state run excellence that resulted in much increased patronage, reduced subsidy and fleet footed responsiveness that reflected the changes in society over that time..... or maybe not

 

[Class465pacer]

My thoughts:

Fully private: No

Fully public: No

Private-Public coalition where the buses are run by private companies and regulated by a public company (aka London): Yes

 

[carlberry]

But the 1985 Transport Act must be repealed urgently and the 1930 Act restored.

A weird choice, however this would ensure every existing operator has 100% guarantee (i.e. monopoly) of it's routes, that the British Railways Board can object to any changes to coach services and all services that operate using local authority money have to stop. Plus sack anybody driving under the age of 21.

 

[PaulMc7]

My thoughts:

Fully private: No

Fully public: No

Private-Public coalition where the buses are run by private companies and regulated by a public company (aka London): Yes

This is pretty much how I see things. I don't hate private operators but I do think we need regulation and a lot of communication between government/councils and the operators themselves to find what services etc work best for the network and the public using it

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A weird choice, however this would ensure every existing operator has 100% guarantee (i.e. monopoly) of it's routes, that the British Railways Board can object to any changes to coach services and all services that operate using local authority money have to stop. Plus sack anybody driving under the age of 21.

As well as the myriad of limitations on where you can pick up and set down passengers within certain geographic boundaries.

 

[carlberry]

Private-Public coalition where the buses are run by private companies and regulated by a public company (aka London): Yes

London had massive issues with the loss of it's money tree (as the local population voted against government advice) before Covid.
It's now a massive political football between it's mayor and the government and, whoever wins afterwards, is looking at massive fare increases or massive service cuts. This in an area where car use was difficult and bus priority was good (until the whole place was dug up for bikes).

An excellent model to duplicate into other areas that don't have the starting point of a congestion charge and the knowledge that the government is always going to step in at the last minute if needed as they cant let London grind to a halt.

 

[Andyh82]

London’s bus service is just so different, in pretty much every way, I’m not sure it’s worth even bringing into the debate about the rest of the country.

You only have to look at how everywhere else passengers are encouraged to travel by advertising the routes, fare deals, new buses with high specs, catchy branding and slogans to try and persuade people to leave their cars at home.

In London the network is just there and passengers travel on it, with none of the above, and it’s as simple as that. It wouldn’t be the case anywhere else, even big cities.

 

[overthewater]

Could a London style work in other places like Manchester or newcastle?

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

I absolutely agree. In an ideal circumstance I wouldn't have to give a stuff who operates my bus, because it's all the same anyway.

I'll add that some adjustment to your concept is needed to eliminate the practice often described as cherry-picking, where operators only run profitable routes, cutting off bus service to smaller or less profitable areas.

Manchester's franchising proposal wants to tackle that by packaging up routes into franchises, rather than franchising each route individually, which I think is a reasonable solution, though I'm sure there are other equally reasonable ones.

 

[py_megapixel]

Could a London style work in other places like Manchester or newcastle?

Already planned, consulted on, accepted as a reasonable suggestion and probably fairly likely to go ahead given the Mayor's stance on the issue, in Manchester - https://tfgm.com/future-travel/bus

 

[Robertj21a]

Without doubt public owned operation is the best method, but failing that private operation under REGULATION is a compromise. But the 1985 Transport Act must be repealed urgently and the 1930 Act restored.

Just as a matter of interest, are you fully aware of those Acts and all that they entail ?

 

[Robertj21a]

Could a London style work in other places like Manchester or newcastle?

Probably, until the local population realise the extra costs.

 

[py_megapixel]

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.

On-road competition is daft. It undermines the creation of a frequent, reliable, pleasant to use transport network in favour of silliness such as routes with two buses an hour having them within ten minutes of them, the possibility of buying fares which only work on one bus, and stupid gimmicks to try to win people over.

The argument that it puts fares down is clearly wrong, given that London has some of the cheapest in the country - £1.50, or free for children living in the GL area, for any length journey - and their buses are publicly managed!

If a private company can't turn a profit on it, is it really worth keeping?

Have you considered that people might actually... you know.... use these unprofitable routes?
That they might be their only connection to their nearest major town or city?

The purpose of public transport isn't - or rather, shouldn't be - to turn a profit.

 

[py_megapixel]

Probably, until the local population realise the extra costs.

Such as......?

 

[Stan Drews]

Already planned, consulted on, accepted as a reasonable suggestion and probably fairly likely to go ahead given the Mayor's stance on the issue, in Manchester - https://tfgm.com/future-travel/bus

Unfortunately the important part of the equation will be missing, as there won’t be any restrictions on car use!
So, whilst Mr Burnham and his disciples might think they’ll get a wonderful London like utopia, I fear there may be disappointment ahead!

 

[mmh]

Probably, until the local population realise the extra costs.

Public sector costs are never local.

 

[py_megapixel]

Unfortunately the important part of the equation will be missing, as there won’t be any restrictions on car use!
So, whilst Mr Burnham and his disciples might think they’ll get a wonderful London like utopia, I fear there may be disappointment ahead!

A congestion charge was proposed in Manchester a while ago, but it was voted against in a referendum, though that referendum also encompassed some other things.

Honestly I think it's time cities like Birmingham and Manchester had congestion charges imposed upon them. In fact, in the midst of this climate emergency it seems to me that it would be irresponsible not to introduce congestion charges.

 

[Andyh82]

Unfortunately the important part of the equation will be missing, as there won’t be any restrictions on car use!
So, whilst Mr Burnham and his disciples might think they’ll get a wonderful London like utopia, I fear there may be disappointment ahead!

Exactly, so there may be more buses, all painted the same colour, cheaper fares, costing the tax payer a fortune, but no incentive for anyone new to start using them.

There either needs to be intolerable traffic congestion where using the car is near enough impossible, or some sort of financial penalty for doing so.


The current situation in Cornwall is a good example of how heavy council influence will pan out. They think they are onto a winner with their new network, with buses painted plain red with a basic spec, new links introduced but with no Best Impressions style advertising just a network that exists in a plain corporate council way like it was a fleet of dustcarts, but it will be interesting to see if the passengers turn up, after Covid.

 

[Stan Drews]

A congestion charge was proposed in Manchester a while ago, but it was voted against in a referendum, though that referendum also encompassed some other things.

Honestly I think it's time cities like Birmingham and Manchester had congestion charges imposed upon them. In fact, in the midst of this climate emergency it seems to me that it would be irresponsible not to introduce congestion charges.

With London’s massive deficit despite the congestion charging regime, it really makes you wonder how on earth Burnham & Co think they’ll manage just fine in GM without any.
Although, as they don’t appear to be planning any new routes and plan to raise fares, that might get them through the first few months!

 

[py_megapixel]

With London’s massive deficit despite the congestion charging regime, it really makes you wonder how on earth Burnham & Co think they’ll manage just fine in GM without any.
Although, as they don’t appear to be planning any new routes and plan to raise fares, that might get them through the first few months!

The missing piece may be that currently, TfGM is paying for the operation of unprofitable routes but letting private companies take home the profits from the routes which make money. Perhaps they will be able to cross-subsidise.

Don't forget the current arrangement in London predates the C-charge by some time.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Such as......?

You do realise that London's bus network gets an annual subsidy of £722m and is aided by the £156m revenue that comes from the Congestion Charge but, as you say, the people in Manchester had a referendum on such a charge and not surprisingly, they voted against it (and it wasn't a 52/48 split).

The idea that they can deliver their promises in Manchester by some screwing down on operator margins and remove the minimal amount of overbussing that exists just doesn't stack up. And it still doesn't address the central issues of unrestricted car use which they aren't facing into now.

In fact, in the midst of this climate emergency it seems to me that it would be irresponsible not to introduce congestion charges.

At a time when people are losing jobs or at least working fewer hours in the midst of a Covid fuelled financial crash, it would be political suicide.

 

[Andyh82]

The missing piece may be that currently, TfGM is paying for the operation of unprofitable routes but letting private companies take home the profits from the routes which make money. Perhaps they will be able to cross-subsidise.

Don't forget the current arrangement in London predates the C-charge by some time.

Although I’m guessing the profits from the Northern First and ex-First parts aren’t particularly substantial

 

[hst43102]

Have you considered that people might actually... you know.... use these unprofitable routes?
That they might be their only connection to their nearest major town or city?

The purpose of public transport isn't - or rather, shouldn't be - to turn a profit.

I like the solution Southern Vectis has found to this problem. Community / Volunteer - run services using company-owned vehicles and marketed as part of a single network. I'd like to see this rolled out in places where people use services that aren't profitable. Otherwise....get a car?

 

[py_megapixel]

I like the solution Southern Vectis has found to this problem. Community / Volunteer - run services using company-owned vehicles and marketed as part of a single network. I'd like to see this rolled out in places where people use services that aren't profitable. Otherwise....get a car?

And when people can't get to work because there are no volunteers, what do you do?

 

[Robertj21a]

Public sector costs are never local.

Really ??