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

[py_megapixel]

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).

I am aware (well not of the specific figures but of the general ballpark), and I'd argue that this is fine.
The government paying money to provide a good quality service is a positive thing. I'm not expecting the GMCA to magically turn the entire bus network of Manchester into a self-sustaining, profitable enterprise. It will still run at a loss, albeit a smaller loss, which, again, is fine.

As you say it's entirely unsurprising that the majority of Manchester voted against a C-charge - why would they vote for it?

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.

No, it doesn't stack up.

Part of me feels a little sad that Manchester is taking such a half-a***d approach. The concept is good, but the excecution has holes in it, and if it fails in Manchester then other places won't even try.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

For all I do like Best Impressions and their "creating desire" for buses, if it's punctual, reliable, understandable, connections work and simple to use yes, I reckon people will use it.

Bus operations in Germany are the definition of drab, but they *just work*.

As for congestion charges, I'm really not sure what I think about them. As you have to park your car if you're going to drive it into central Manchester (and you're hardly going to choose to drive through it otherwise), and odds-on you're going to have to pay to do so unless you live there in most cases, there's already a stiff deterrent. Perhaps a workplace parking levy to hit the smallish number of people who have free workplace parking would help and be less controversial? As for funding public transport from congestion charges this makes little sense as it gives you a motivation not to be *too* good at it! It needs to come from general taxation - Council Tax and business rates in this case.

Is there a single German or Dutch city with a C-charge? The answer is they don't need it, because they provide quality, affordable, well-integrated public transport that people choose to use, and cycle infrastructure to go with it too.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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.

We had 50 years of cross-subsidy and that didn't work either. What happens is that you have a core of good profitable routes that are weighed down by a load of socially necessary but financially unsustainable ones. It then means that the good routes don't get the investment that they need so become less profitable. It becomes a less than virtuous circle.

Again, I point to Brighton or Reading or Nottingham where you have good local operators that are privately owned, a council owned and, in Nottingham, two operators of whom one is majority council owned and one that is private. They are recording strong passenger growth and it's got nothing to do with regulation or ownership. It has everything to do with how the council prioritise bus services and restrict private car use and, in Nottingham, penalise car parking.

 

[tramboy]

I am aware (well not of the specific figures but of the general ballpark), and I'd argue that this is fine.
The government paying money to provide a good quality service is a positive thing.

Forgive my slight cropping of your post above.

I think the difference is "good quality service" - the network in London is planned and organised by TfL, whose network changes cannot, in some ways, be said to be "good quality" for the travelling public who have recently had several bus routes cut in half. I appreciate closing major thoroughfares will cause disruption that may require change, but it shouldn't be at the expense of turning customers away from your network.

This, I believe, is where the London model falls down, in that there is no interest from private operators to show innovation and encourage custom.

As I suggested earlier, a middle ground (i.e. partnership) needs to be taken to allow both private company & local authority to meet their aims. All of this perfectly possible under current legislation (by which I mean the Transport Act 2000). There is no need to go back to the 1930s.

However, and I appreciate I'm repeating my earlier self - all of this distracts from regulating car use and prioritising your bus investment as a local authority in partnership.

For all I do like Best Impressions and their "creating desire" for buses, if it's punctual, reliable, understandable, connections work and simple to use yes, I reckon people will use it.

Bus operations in Germany are the definition of drab, but they *just work*.

Best Impressions is one part of getting custom. Running the thing on time, every time, will always be a key driver. Attractivity, however, is next. It's like advertising a Skoda Favorit (remember them!) against a current Lamborghini. I'd rather have an on time Lamborghini.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Best Impressions is one part of getting custom. Running the thing on time, every time, will always be a key driver. Attractivity, however, is next. It's like advertising a Skoda Favorit (remember them!) against a current Lamborghini. I'd rather have an on time Lamborghini.

Yes, that's true, and if you can deliver both, go for it! But the basics aren't optional - if they aren't delivered you're just turd polishing (ask FirstGroup about that one, they seem to like it).

Of course there are just too many British towns and cities where the turd hasn't even received a spray of Mr Sheen.

 

[py_megapixel]

it's got nothing to do with regulation or ownership.

Which brings me back to what I said earlier. I shouldn't have to care who operates my bus in order to make full use of the network.
As long as the system is integrated and provides a good service, I will use it.

Bus operations in Germany are the definition of drab, but they *just work*.

Precisely.

My ideal urban bus journey planning would be "I live in A and I need to get to B. Looks like I get bus x, then change at C for bus y. The bus routes run every 10 minutes and that's two buses so two flat fares of £1.60 or it would be slightly cheaper to get the £3 day ticket". I shouldn't have to worry about complicated fare scales, single-operator tickets, non-clockface timetables etc. It should just work.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I am aware (well not of the specific figures but of the general ballpark), and I'd argue that this is fine.
The government paying money to provide a good quality service is a positive thing. I'm not expecting the GMCA to magically turn the entire bus network of Manchester into a self-sustaining, profitable enterprise. It will still run at a loss, albeit a smaller loss, which, again, is fine.

As you say it's entirely unsurprising that the majority of Manchester voted against a C-charge - why would they vote for it?

You can argue it's fine but how's it funded? If you don't have a C-Charge and the sums don't stack up, how does it actually happen? How do you fund that smaller loss that you think it would make?

I'd suggest that the apparatus to manage the tender process and subsequent compliance will soak up any of the margin erosion that you hope to get from operators.

Instead, what would happen is that you'd see fewer buses as headways are widened on routes that are considered to compete with the Metrolink OR quite simply, services will cease to exist and/or passengers will be forced to interchange onto Metrolink at key locations so places like Patricroft will lose their direct services.

 

[py_megapixel]

You can argue it's fine but how's it funded? If you don't have a C-Charge and the sums don't stack up, how does it actually happen? How do you fund that smaller loss that you think it would make?

Honestly - and this is an incredibly controversial thing to say, I'm aware - you raise either income tax and/or vehicle tax and fund it, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country, from that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Instead, what would happen is that you'd see fewer buses as headways are widened on routes that are considered to compete with the Metrolink OR quite simply, services will cease to exist and/or passengers will be forced to interchange onto Metrolink at key locations so places like Patricroft will lose their direct services.

You speak as if those are bad things. There are indeed cases where it would be a bit silly, like dumping people at Gateshead and making them faff about with the Metro about a mile and a half over the bridge, and it would be similarly stupid to run the 42 to Levenshulme or something ridiculous instead of into the city. But moving away from those silly cases (and big German cities do have maybe 10 bus routes penetrating the city centre connecting the closest non-rail suburbs, often to a central bus station like the Rathausmarkt in Hamburg's case) it absolutely makes sense not to be duplicating your high-capacity rapid transit rail system with a million buses.

There will be cases where it makes sense, for instance, to have a route that effectively follows a rail route and provides the "local stopping service" for it - the 50, for example, is basically the local stopping service for the Styal Line. But in all seriousness, why should Patricroft have a direct, grindingly slow bus service to central Manchester? Why should Oldham have that either? What you want is a quick shuttle to the Metrolink stop for a high capacity, fast tram into town - and all at the same through fare, so people aren't priced off doing what simply makes sense.

It needs to be a transport system.

Honestly - and this is an incredibly controversial thing to say, I'm aware - you raise either income tax and/or vehicle tax and fund it, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country, from that.

No, to make it sustainable it should come from general taxation (local transport from Council Tax), and we should be willing to pay an appropriate level of it for proper public services. Yes, I know.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, that's true, and if you can deliver both, go for it! But the basics aren't optional - if they aren't delivered you're just turd polishing (ask FirstGroup about that one, they seem to like it).

Of course there are just too many British towns and cities where the turd hasn't even received a spray of Mr Sheen.

I agree that there's more to life than a snazzy livery. The main thing that passengers want is reliability; that the bus they want is there, on time and then arrives on time. That's the entry level requirement and it's something that operators struggle with because congestion destroys operational reliability.

In January, First replaced their 2017 vehicles on the metrobus m3 route, the one that is supposed to be the future of transport in Greater Bristol. They had brand new vehicles, CNG powered, and from the off, service reliability was banjaxed because South Gloucestershire Council elected to remove some sections of bus lane at Hambrook where the bus is supposed to access the M32. When that happens, what's an operator to do?

I'm not giving operators a free hit on this. They have to play their part but getting people onto buses is a mix of different facets and even before Covid, it felt that many were fighting with both hands tied behind their back.

 

[py_megapixel]

There will be cases where it makes sense, for instance, to have a route that effectively follows a rail route and provides the "local stopping service" for it - the 50, for example, is basically the local stopping service for the Styal Line. But in all seriousness, why should Patricroft have a direct, grindingly slow bus service to central Manchester? Why should Oldham have that either? What you want is a quick shuttle to the Metrolink stop for a high capacity, fast tram into town - and all at the same through fare, so people aren't priced off doing what simply makes sense.

This is the most important thing. If I used buses in that area I would want to be able to buy a through ticket from a bus stop to a tram stop with no faff.

No, to make it sustainable it should come from general taxation (local transport from Council Tax), and we should be willing to pay an appropriate level of it for proper public services. Yes, I know.

OK, but the concept is the same. Public transport, funded publicly.

The idea that public transport should be required to make a profit is daft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, talking of Hamburg, it has a route that's basically exactly the same as the (1)4x Wilmslow Road services - going city-uni-student suburbs - what was the 102 but is now a Metrobus. It's a single numbered route, run using high capacity bendies on old tram infrastructure (so has priority). Just how that should be done! I believe that route is the busiest single number bus route in Europe, whereas the (1)4x is the busiest corridor with multiple numbers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea that public transport should be required to make a profit is daft.

I agree. If the cheapest and most effective way of delivering it is to tender it out to profit-making companies, fine - same as emptying the bins. But it shouldn't have to make a profit, and it should be organised as a public service, not as a commercial business. Of course, a well run public service will have attributes of a commercial business - while BR might have looked drab, it wasn't terrible at marketing at all.

I agree that there's more to life than a snazzy livery. The main thing that passengers want is reliability; that the bus they want is there, on time and then arrives on time. That's the entry level requirement and it's something that operators struggle with because congestion destroys operational reliability.

It does and it doesn't. City congestion is quite predictable, it's accidents that end up making things a bit random. What kills punctuality in day to day operation is operators that won't put enough vehicles in, and drivers that won't wait for time so operators feel they have to keep them running fast (though GPS tracking seems to have solved that, at least locally, and drivers indeed do now always wait for time). That, or an unwillingness to pay for active control of a frequent service route, feeding buses in (at several points, if necessary) to maintain a frequency. It can be done.

I do however agree dedicated infrastructure and priority works and is needed! The basic principle should be that (unless there's a conflict with another bus or tram that can't be avoided) the bus should only ever stop to load and unload or wait time, it should never have to stop for any other reason. If that means the cars have to wait, they wait.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Honestly - and this is an incredibly controversial thing to say, I'm aware - you raise either income tax and/or vehicle tax and fund it, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country, from that.

Which is why politicians have singularly failed to increase fuel duty for private cars in 10 years, whilst halving BSOG and reducing the funds to local authorities to fund concessionary passes and supported services.

You really think someone is going to come in with a tax raising agenda......? Political suicide. You might as well suggest that some Logans Run style gassing of 80 year olds to save on NHS, health care and pensions as a cost saving.

 

[Robertj21a]

Honestly - and this is an incredibly controversial thing to say, I'm aware - you raise either income tax and/or vehicle tax and fund it, and similar schemes elsewhere in the country, from that.

Do you honestly believe that the taxpaying public will be happy to pay increased taxes ?. Particularly when so many have never used a bus on a regular basis ?

 

[py_megapixel]

Do you honestly believe that the taxpaying public will be happy to pay increased taxes ?. Particularly when so many have never used a bus on a regular basis ?

Whether they are or not, they'll have to. Which applies to both paying taxes and using buses.

 

[duncombec]

Bus operations in Germany are the definition of drab, but they *just work*.

Having lived in small-town, fairly rural, non-Verkehrsverbund Germany, I can assure you that they "just work" when the bus company is so inclined to do. When they aren't, they don't. Such as the local bus company timing buses to depart the bus station 2 minutes after the train arrived... you would struggle to sprint in 2 minutes, let alone walk. Or when the bus sees the cross-canal ferry docking, and pulls away anyway. (Strange how the ferry always used to wait for the bus...). Or sizeable villages who get a bus in the morning, a bus at lunchtime and a bus in the evening, with nothing at the weekend, rather like rural areas of the UK. Or when they have timetables that require a degree to understand (e.g. https://www.dbregiobus-nord.de/regi...ch/mdb_316173_ak_4610_beide_neu_version20.pdf)

Is there a single German or Dutch city with a C-charge? The answer is they don't need it, because they provide quality, affordable, well-integrated public transport that people choose to use, and cycle infrastructure to go with it too.

However, they do control traffic in other ways, such as the Umweltplakate (lit. Environment sticker), which prohibits entry to certain older, more environmentally damaging vehicles into certain inner town and city areas. It may not be a charge, but it is a way of deflecting traffic.

 

[py_megapixel]

Or when they have timetables that require a degree to understand (e.g. https://www.dbregiobus-nord.de/regi...ch/mdb_316173_ak_4610_beide_neu_version20.pdf)

Unless I'm missing something that seems very simple to understand.

When there is a time next to the stop a bus stops there. When there is a line the bus passes but does not stop. When it's blank the bus doesn't go through that stop.

That seems pretty easy.

 

[cnjb8]

Agree with a London style of operating. I don't think many taxpayers would be happy if they knew that they'd been forced to fund a buswar between Lothian and First or Nottingham and Yourbus. But, if a system such as Transport West Midlands can make Diamond and National Express cooperate at the benefit of the passenger, then I don't see why this can't be replicated across the country with the current owners and operators of buses so that buses can have the current system and have a controller implementing changes on said routes to enable cooperation between competitors which benefit the passenger, as being done in the West Midlands at the moment.
What I'm trying to say is that the whole public and private debate can be put to rest if a controlling authority, such as TWM, makes operators work together for the benefit of the passenger.
Who can say that the steep decline in passengers wouldn't have happened if buses were in public hands? Council budget cuts still would have happened and routes would have still been axed!

 

[hst43102]

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

Quoting myself : Get a car. Or maybe move to another area. Lots of other countries manage without rural public transport, and over here it often barely gets used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Not choose to live in a rural area (or at least one that isn't on an obvious route between two reasonably sized towns, so it would get a service by virtue of that, e.g. the various villages the UCOC X5 serves) when you need the amenities of a town?

The volunteer stuff does work, but it's not about frequent services, it's about a weekly bus to the local market and similar.

Unfortunately our housing ownership model (and stupid taxes like stamp duty) make it difficult for people to move when it makes sense to do so. If you live in a rural area, can't afford taxis and can't be doing with the very occasional sort of service those places get, and have to give up driving, you need to move to a town. It'd be nice if it was made a bit easier to do that, and that people weren't charged for mobility of where they live.

 

[PaulMc7]

Who can say that the steep decline in passengers wouldn't have happened if buses were in public hands? Council budget cuts still would have happened and routes would have still been axed!

I'm glad someone says this. It's worrying how many people think cuts wouldn't happen if buses were ran by councils. They 100% would and given the current situation may actually happen at a quicker rate due to having to fund way more than just buses

 

[duncombec]

Unless I'm missing something that seems very simple to understand.

When there is a time next to the stop a bus stops there. When there is a line the bus passes but does not stop. When it's blank the bus doesn't go through that stop.

That seems pretty easy.

Now look at it through the eyes of someone who doesn't use a bus very often, if ever.

Look at journey variations. Do they run every day? Will the bus have the same number on it as the one I travelled that morning? Are my connections guaranteed if the bus runs late? Are they connections, or does the bus change number but I can stay where I am? Why am I told that it is a small bus? Might I be able to get on? Are there connections "through" on Saturdays to the section of route not served?

A common reason for not using the bus - regardless of ownership - is complexity and not understanding a timetable. As has been said throughout this thread, if you cannot persuade people onto the bus to begin with, it doesn't matter who runs it or what ownership it is in. These are franchised systems, yet what is done to persuade the car owner to use the bus?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Who can say that the steep decline in passengers wouldn't have happened if buses were in public hands? Council budget cuts still would have happened and routes would have still been axed!

Well, given that bus patronage more than halved between 1956 and 1986....

 

[PaulMc7]

Now look at it through the eyes of someone who doesn't use a bus very often, if ever.

Look at journey variations. Do they run every day? Will the bus have the same number on it as the one I travelled that morning? Are my connections guaranteed if the bus runs late? Are they connections, or does the bus change number but I can stay where I am? Why am I told that it is a small bus? Might I be able to get on? Are there connections "through" on Saturdays to the section of route not served?

A common reason for not using the bus - regardless of ownership - is complexity and not understanding a timetable. As has been said throughout this thread, if you cannot persuade people onto the bus to begin with, it doesn't matter who runs it or what ownership it is in. These are franchised systems, yet what is done to persuade the car owner to use the bus?

I'm glad timetables have come up and I thank you for mentioning it. If you use the bus regularly they become easier to read and understand but as you say there are a lot of questions that come with that and if your connection bus is 5 mins after the first one gets there it could end up late without congestion being a factor. All it takes is bad timing at traffic lights or someone taking too long to get onto the bus and it causes problems that cars don't.

Timetable layouts can be a nightmare for people too especially if your vision isn't the best. I've seen many colours used for different variants before and at times I've had to look very closely 4 or 5 times just to spot the difference with say a dark green timing or a black one. I've also seen ones where a letter key is used for each variant but the same timetable also has a core section served by all variants therefore just lists it as "every 10 mins or better" when it reality each variant could be every 30 mins/ hourly.

Routes can be a problem too with variants especially because some don't go through different areas but instead through the same areas but different parts of the area. People can get easily confused by that if they just see via "insert random town here" but don't know what each variant takes as its route

 

[Megafuss]

I think if folk realised the lack of knowledge at Local Authority level when it comes to buses they'd realise that most private operator are the lesser of two evils.

My own opinion is extremely clouded by experience though. I recall explaining to a councillor that sat on a transport committee why we couldn't just "put another bus" on a certain route to serve a different road in an estate. After explaining to him at length that for that one extra bus we'd need 3 extra duties a day over 6 days - so 4 drivers a week - we'd not recoup cost of the extra resource to save around 25 households a five minute walk to a main road bus stop. He wouldn't believe me and accused me of putting profit above people.

I'd be terrified if he ever got close to levers of bus planning power.

 

[markymark2000]

Personally, I support more private companies running buses. Council make a big enough hash of the tendered network half the time and a number of councils are stuck in the stone ages running buses because 1 man and his dog have shouted loud enough. Private operators are very good at running the routes and innovating.


The reason that we are in this difficult situation I would say is that in all sectors, companies come and go. In the bus industry though, the costs of starting up are astronomical so as companies go, no one is coming in to replace them. That has lead to the monopoly areas which in turn causes the astronomical fares.
Combine all of that with the below which are all out of bus operators hands and in the hands of the public organisations, that is why we can't get anywhere.

• 
  Councils aren't prepared to invest in the infrastructure to make buses more competitive
  Car centric councils and government
  Councils budgets have been cut so bus networks have been reduced (Reducing the value for money and connecting passengers)
  Where councils do have the funds to subsidise buses, the money is wasted on routes which are not used simply to keep the minority happy while making the majority suffer from stupidly long journey times or confusing route variations)
  Rural and out of the way housing developments (lower density means less people reached per stop so longer journeys, more buses or reduced viability).
  Concessionary fare reimbursement is very low and thus routes which are pass heavy aren't viable any more.
  Too many uneducated prats (AKA councillors and MPs) who have no knowledge of how the industry works or the costs involved keep trying to tell operators where buses should run and then set up huge hate campaigns to try and force them out of a town/city simply because the village of 50 people isn't served by a bus every 10 minutes.

I think think that Cumbria and Oxfordshire are good examples of where private companies thrive and people are relatively happy. No council funded buses there as they refuse to fund them and the majority of areas are served. There are some areas which need improvements but on the whole, the areas are quite well served with high spec buses and thriving competition.

An area which is less successful is Manchester where 4 items from the above list apply. You also have Stagecoach who are extremely greedy in Manchester for no reason. Routes which do make money aren't ran commercially simply because they don't make enough. Very high profit margins wanted and they don't like the commercial risk on some of the less busy (but still profitable) routes (Basically why run a route where there is a risk it might only break even in a few years if instead you can have a guaranteed funding for it all year around).


There are a lot of issues in the bus industry however the majority stem from government (national and local) and on that basis, I support private companies as if the governments are messing up the small sections which they do have a say on, imagine how much of a f up it will be if it was nationalised.


Of the current municipal bus operators:
Blackpool: Very smart fleet and very good network. Prices are fair. They do duplicate the trams with buses though which shows they have money to waste. Very weird timings as well, I can't see how bus journey times are the same at all hours of the day.
Cardiff: Decent network, fair fleet. Can't be that good as there is a lot of competition and money is being made by the other operators so passengers aren't loyal and are showing they will use alternatives where they exist. Lack of transparency
Halton: Though not a current one, it only recently went. Went because the council didn't want to keep funding the buses. Fleet was outdated and was being ran down slowly for years.
Ipswich: Exact fare system. Quite a few reports online about poor customer service
Lothian: Some areas are good, others aren't.
Newport: Exact fare system. Confusing network and very user unfriendly. Poor customer service. Only got usage because there is no alternative in most areas.
Nottingham: Exact fare system, Lots of routes lots of variations for them.
Reading: Exact fare system on most original Reading Buses routes
Warrington: You could remortgage your house and still only have enough money for a single into town. Astronomical fares, outdated fleet in general, unwilling to listen to residents.

The best Municipal operators are Blackpool and Reading. Both of these are quite close to how private companies run with their routings and their customer service. For every Blackpool and Reading though, you have a Halton and Warrington and with councils being as incompetent as they are these days, there will be more bad than good bus networks in the end.

 

[PaulMc7]

I think if folk realised the lack of knowledge at Local Authority level when it comes to buses they'd realise that most private operator are the lesser of two evils.

My own opinion is extremely clouded by experience though. I recall explaining to a councillor that sat on a transport committee why we couldn't just "put another bus" on a certain route to serve a different road in an estate. After explaining to him at length that for that one extra bus we'd need 3 extra duties a day over 6 days - so 4 drivers a week - we'd not recoup cost of the extra resource to save around 25 households a five minute walk to a main road bus stop. He wouldn't believe me and accused me of putting profit above people.

I'd be terrified if he ever got close to levers of bus planning power.

Yeah there's definitely a case of passion and being seen to serve their community in councillors and how they think of buses. I'm pretty confident that with enough resources from a financial point of view everyone on this forum combined could put together a better network and plans to get people onto buses than most local authorities could

 

[markymark2000]

Yeah there's definitely a case of passion and being seen to serve their community in councillors and how they think of buses. I'm pretty confident that with enough resources from a financial point of view everyone on this forum combined could put together a better network and plans to get people onto buses than most local authorities could

You could give a toddler a map and some crayons and get a better network than most local authorities.

 

[PaulMc7]

You could give a toddler a map and some crayons and get a better network than most local authorities.

I wouldn't even be surprised by that these days. Always wondered why if councils care so much about cuts etc they don't try and find out more from the operators about cost vs passenger numbers etc. They'd soon realise it's expensive to operate though