Theresa May blames local councils for collapse of bus services despite huge government budget cuts

[Teflon Lettuce]

I would expect a driverless taxi to cost slightly more than the cost of fuel and therefore would probably cost less than what a bus costs now.

Ignoring of course the fact that a 10 mile journey by bus round here will cost about £3 whereas a taxi costs £20.. you really think that driverless taxis will be that much cheaper? Lesson of history.... bus operators went OPO in the 60's/ 70's on the theory that you halve the workforce and halve the wage bill... once they took into account having to pay the driver more, needing more drivers cos the service was slower etc etc the cost savings were negligible... the same will happen with driverless taxis... you own a driverless taxi you will probably have to pay a rental for the software to enable your taxi to be able to operate... then I should imagine that, at least initially, insurance for such a vehicle will be astronomical... and with a caveat that there must be a qualified human in the vehicle to intervene in case of emergency... of course said qualified human will be expected to be paid for their services....

 

[Harpers Tate]

.....on that route.....

THAT is the part you appear to be focussing on, and to do so is not relevant. Routes (plural) originating within each council's area - considered as a package - is where your consideration should focus.

...if the company involved wishes to provide that bus service for all it has to take what it is offered... like it or lump it...

and nobody is forcing them to choose to do so. They are at liberty to cease operating the service if they consider it unprofitable after accounting for pensioners' "fares" - even if they are at differing levels - and paying passengers' fares. It seems highly probable, then, that if a commercial service IS running then the fares and subsidies are sufficient to make it commercial.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

THAT is the part you appear to be focussing on, and to do so is not relevant. Routes (plural) originating within each council's area - considered as a package - is where your consideration should focus.

wrong... it is totally relevant... and in fact your analysis of my point is wrong as I have known it happen where an operator only has one route in both of the paying authorities! It can also happen where the route is only worked from one end... so the authority giving less is wrong to say that it's based on a different cost base.... and of course there is the ridiculous situation where it is the authority where the pass holder boards that is liable for the re-imbursement... meaning that the operator is paid a different amount for each leg of a return trip.
and nobody is forcing them to choose to do so. They are at liberty to cease operating the service if they consider it unprofitable after accounting for pensioners' "fares" - even if they are at differing levels - and paying passengers' fares. It seems highly probable, then, that if a commercial service IS running then the fares and subsidies are sufficient to make it commercial


Quite apart from the fact that, as I have already pointed out, the bus company has little to no recourse if it feels the reimbursement rate is unjust... To be a registered local bus service and gain BSOG the company legally HAS to accept concessionary passes. There is no equity in the way the scheme is set up... the councils have all the power... the operator none... it is notable that rural areas where the Local Authority has historically been stingy in it's payments are the areas that have seen the biggest cuts in their rural networks... THAT in itself should tell you something about the failings in the structure of the Concessionary fares scheme!

and nobody is forcing them to choose to do so. They are at liberty to cease operating the service if they consider it unprofitable after accounting for pensioners' "fares" - even if they are at differing levels - and paying passengers' fares. It seems highly probable, then, that if a commercial service IS running then the fares and subsidies are sufficient to make it commercial.

of course they can choose to NOT run a service... but that doesn't alter the fact that if they want to operate the service then they MUST accept concessionary passes... and they MUST accept what they are offered in recompense for doing so... this has actually caused problems where the service needs to be enhanced because of usage, but due to a large amount of that usage being by concessionary passes, and the re-imbursement rate has been so low, there haven't been the funds available to be able to enhance the service.... fare payers then get fed up of being treated as sardines and voting with their feet, thus undermining the viability of the route, leading to cuts/ withdrawal... and then the council crying foul that the operator is trying to be too greedy!

How would you like it if you owned a business and you was told that half your customers were entitled to help with paying for your services... and this was what you are going to be paid for that.... oh... and if you don't agree to the payment you have only one option... shut up shop! THAT is what the concessionary fares scheme amounts to!

 

[carlberry]

Perhaps bus operators and local authorities could look towards the way rail works. A 'Railcard' type system for seniors, young people, off peak travellers etc. to encourage and support people to use the bus. This would require either cooperation from bus operators or tighter regulation from higher authorities.

This was the way that a lot of local authorities worked before central government decided to change things.

 

[Mwanesh]

Then you have councils in Derby and Nottingham saying they cant pay for ENCTS passes on the Red Arrow because its a premium service.The scheme is skewed in favour of local councils.Bus companies are in a no win situation.These are Labour councils mind you.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

This thread is in danger of sinking into the usual round robin arguments about concessionary passes... but who is to blame for the lack of funding of bus services... that was the original question...

well let's look at the funding streams...

BSOG.... rate set by central Government.... rates cut by central Government... putting up fuel costs... whose to blame? Central Government

Concessionary fares scheme... Imposed by central Government.... rules set by central Government... not adequately funded by central government... leading councils to cut re-imbursement rates... whose to blame? Central Government

Tendered bus service payments... Central government says councils are to secure socially neccessary services... provide no separate funding for such, so funding has to come out of block grants... but Tendered bus services are not a statutory requirement for councils.... Central Government slashes Block Grants to councils so councils have to make hard spending decisions... they can't cut spending on statutory elements of their budget... so brunt of cuts borne by the non-statutory elements... including Bus services... whose to blame? Central Government...

It doesn't matter how much Theresa May might want us to believe it's all those nasty councillors fault that the rural bus network is being decimated.. at the end of the day all the problems with funding are down to central Government policy and spending decisions!

 

[Dai Corner]

It doesn't matter how much Theresa May might want us to believe it's all those nasty councillors fault that the rural bus network is being decimated.. at the end of the day all the problems with funding are down to central Government policy and spending decisions!

The 'nasty councillors' and central Government being elected by the people. At the end of the day, people don't care enough about (loss-making) bus services to use them or to want to pay for them out of their taxes. Compare with the railways or the NHS which politicians don't mind funding generously because they're popular and not doing so will lose them votes. It's tough on those who operate and use (or would like to operate and use) rural bus services but like I said before it's called democracy.

Here in Newport we've had a Conservative AM sitting in the Labour-governed Assembly complaining about the 'axing' of an urban bus route by a municipal bus company because a Labour- run Council decided not to fund it. It's not exclusively the 'evil Tories' fault.

 

[Jordan Adam]

Regarding re-nationalisation. I don't agree that it will be the answer, actually i think it will make things worse. What we need are more smaller local based private operators and less of the "big guys" such as First, Stagecoach, Arriva etc.

Considering Aberdeen City Clowncils main priorities right now seem to be demanding Hydrogen powered trains and arming residents with handheld speed cameras, i wouldn't want them touching a single bus service!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The 'nasty councillors' and central Government being elected by the people. At the end of the day, people don't care enough about (loss-making) bus services to use them or to want to pay for them out of their taxes. Compare with the railways or the NHS which politicians don't mind funding generously because they're popular and not doing so will lose them votes. It's tough on those who operate and use (or would like to operate and use) rural bus services but like I said before it's called democracy.

Here in Newport we've had a Conservative AM sitting in the Labour-governed Assembly complaining about the 'axing' of an urban bus route by a municipal bus company because a Labour- run Council decided not to fund it. It's not exclusively the 'evil Tories' fault.

I never said that it was the fault of the Tories... re-read my post... Theresa May is blaming local councils for the problems with bus service provision... but it is central Governments policies and funding decisions that are the real problem... not the local councillors... I know we live in a democracy.... but part of that democratic process is when the PM washes her hands of the problem and blames "somebody else" then she should be held to account and be called out for her terminological inexactitudes! I would do the same if it was a Labour, Plaid, Monster Raving Loony PM!

And no, I'm no fan of the WAG's bus strategy either!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Regarding re-nationalisation. I don't agree that it will be the answer, actually i think it will make things worse. What we need are more smaller local based private operators and less of the "big guys" such as First, Stagecoach, Arriva etc.

Considering Aberdeen City Clowncils main priorities right now seem to be demanding Hydrogen powered trains and arming residents with handheld speed cameras, i wouldn't want them touching a single bus service!

well considering that De-reg and Privatisation was originally introduced with the intention of breaking up the "monopolies" what do you suggest?

And considering that First was built on the foundations of Grampian Regional Transport which provided services in er.... Aberdeen....

 

[Dai Corner]

I never said that it was the fault of the Tories... re-read my post... Theresa May is blaming local councils for the problems with bus service provision... but it is central Governments policies and funding decisions that are the real problem... not the local councillors... I know we live in a democracy.... but part of that democratic process is when the PM washes her hands of the problem and blames "somebody else" then she should be held to account and be called out for her terminological inexactitudes! I would do the same if it was a Labour, Plaid, Monster Raving Loony PM!

And no, I'm no fan of the WAG's bus strategy either!

The 'evil Tories' wasn't aimed at you, more at those who blame big business and Conservative politicians for all their woes. I agree that politicians should be held to account and regret that public ignorance over 'who does what' is so rife, particularly for devolved functions.

I could have added that at the same time the said route is being cancelled, Newport Transport are giving my nearest bus stop an extra four buses an hour although it already gets that from private operator NAT.

WAG have a bus strategy?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The 'evil Tories' wasn't aimed at you, more at those who blame big business and Conservative politicians for all their woes.

I could have added that at the same time the said route is being cancelled, Newport Transport are giving my nearest bus stop an extra four buses an hour although it already gets that from private operator NAT.

WAG have a bus strategy?

well if you mean NAT's x5 then from what I've seen on their facebook page that timetable is a total work of fiction lol

yes the WAG have a bus strategy... do everything they can to destroy the commercial network so they can get their hands on it and control it

 

[Jordan Adam]

well considering that De-reg and Privatisation was originally introduced with the intention of breaking up the "monopolies" what do you suggest?

And considering that First was built on the foundations of Grampian Regional Transport which provided services in er.... Aberdeen....

Regarding the first half of your reply. Clearly it didn't work, maybe there should have been some sort of cap on the size of the company. But then that could cause some disputes down the line. I'm not really sure what could be done other than what's currently happening with all the big operators slowly falling to their knees. While council operated services will work in some areas, for many it won't.

As for the second half of your message you'll have to elaborate...

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Regarding the first half of your reply. Clearly it didn't work, maybe there should have been some sort of cap on the size of the company. But then that could cause some disputes down the line. I'm not really sure what could be done other than what's currently happening with all the big operators slowly falling to their knees. While council operated services will work in some areas, for many it won't.

As for the second half of your message you'll have to elaborate...

my point was that you bemoan First, without showing any knowledge that it was originally formed by the privatisation of Aberdeen's council operator... Grampian Regional Transport... so the idea of breaking up the big boys, and maybe handing bits back to councils doesn't neccessarily equate to better services... indeed it could be said that of the big 5 First is certainly not first in any league table... quite the opposite in fact!

 

[Dai Corner]

well if you mean NAT's x5 then from what I've seen on their facebook page that timetable is a total work of fiction lol

yes the WAG have a bus strategy... do everything they can to destroy the commercial network so they can get their hands on it and control it

Off-topic (sorry) but the work at Jn 28 is messing up everybody's services. Yesterday I was approaching on the A48 and there was a 30 a few vehicles ahead of me and two more visible in my rear-view mirror (20 min service).

 

[carlberry]

Then you have councils in Derby and Nottingham saying they cant pay for ENCTS passes on the Red Arrow because its a premium service.The scheme is skewed in favour of local councils.Bus companies are in a no win situation.These are Labour councils mind you.

The only winner from the scheme is central government. They introduced it with a small amount of funding and they've subsequently reiterated that it would continue without any funding commitment centrally. This helps their 'grey' vote. Local councils are caught with something they've got no funds for, but has to be paid for. Operators often end up subsiding something they cant control at all, except in a few cases like Red Arrow.

 

[InspectorBloke]

Privatisation works in the right conditions, if operators have the muscle and ability to provide competition and therefore, improve their offering. However, with razor thin margins, you end up with operators wanting to maintain the Status Quo, because going into battle with a competitor risks damaging their already small margins.

 

[Martin2012]

I fully recognise that the ENCTS is of enormous benefit to a lot of people. However it was introduced by a different government during a time of economic boom and given how all of Labour's other spending commitments were reviewed by the coalition, the ENTCS scheme also should have been.

Am not saying it should be scrapped entirely but given the economic climate and the pressure on public finances the government should have reviewed it in order to ensure public transport operators and local authorities didn't loose out financially and maybe there are passengers out there who would rather pay a fare and have a bus to ride on.

 

[InspectorBloke]

I fully recognise that the ENCTS is of enormous benefit to a lot of people. However it was introduced by a different government during a time of economic boom and given how all of Labour's other spending commitments were reviewed by the coalition, the ENTCS scheme also should have been.

Am not saying it should be scrapped entirely but given the economic climate and the pressure on public finances the government should have reviewed it in order to ensure public transport operators and local authorities didn't loose out financially and maybe there are passengers out there who would rather pay a fare and have a bus to ride on.

I agree, ENCTS needs to be reviewed and amended to reflect reduced funding. Champagne can't continue to be provided by bus operators if they continue to receive lemonade money.

Any change needs to be simple to implement, without burdening operators.

 

[Jordan Adam]

my point was that you bemoan First, without showing any knowledge that it was originally formed by the privatisation of Aberdeen's council operator... Grampian Regional Transport... so the idea of breaking up the big boys, and maybe handing bits back to councils doesn't neccessarily equate to better services... indeed it could be said that of the big 5 First is certainly not first in any league table... quite the opposite in fact!

You honestly have me confused now, Yes of course i'm well aware where First got it's origins.
Where exactly did i "bemoan" First... I mentioned nothing specifically about them, other than "What we need are more smaller local based private operators and less of the "big guys" such as First, Stagecoach, Arriva etc." And that was aimed at all the big national operators not First specifically.

"so the idea of breaking up the big boys, and maybe handing bits back to councils doesn't neccessarily equate to better services"
Where the heck did i say that, You're just creating words i never said now! I just think we'd be better off with more smaller operators Craig Group for example and less big national operators.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You honestly have me confused now, Yes of course i'm well aware where First got it's origins.
Where exactly did i "bemoan" First... I mentioned nothing specifically about them, other than "What we need are more smaller local based private operators and less of the "big guys" such as First, Stagecoach, Arriva etc." And that was aimed at all the big national operators not First specifically.

"so the idea of breaking up the big boys, and maybe handing bits back to councils doesn't neccessarily equate to better services"
Where the heck did i say that, You're just creating words i never said now! I just think we'd be better off with more smaller operators Craig Group for example and less big national operators.

and of course, that ignores the fact that many smaller operators have failed/ sold out because they cannot make ends meet, long gone are the days when smaller meant lower cost...

 

[PeterC]

Ministers look out of their office windows and see lots of big red buses with lots of people on them. They see over 60s getting their free tube travel. Problem? What problem?

 

[Dai Corner]

Ministers look out of their office windows and see lots of big red buses with lots of people on them. They see over 60s getting their free tube travel. Problem? What problem?

I'd bet they don't get many letters or emails about buses from constituents either. The sort of people who use buses in the provinces aren't generally the type who write to their MPs.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'd bet they don't get many letters or emails about buses from constituents either. The sort of people who use buses in the provinces aren't generally the type who write to their MPs.

to be fair.. Elin Jones AM does fight for rural bus services in her constituency

 

[carlberry]

I fully recognise that the ENCTS is of enormous benefit to a lot of people. However it was introduced by a different government during a time of economic boom and given how all of Labour's other spending commitments were reviewed by the coalition, the ENTCS scheme also should have been.

They have reviewed it and committed to keeping it.
It's a very simple equation for central government.
How much does it cost: nothing.
Who does it benefit: the 'grey' vote, the people who are most likely to vote.
Who complains about it: local government (who cares) and bus operators (again, who cares: how much do they give to party funds?)

 

[Rod_259]

I never said that it was the fault of the Tories... re-read my post... Theresa May is blaming local councils for the problems with bus service provision... but it is central Governments policies and funding decisions that are the real problem... not the local councillors... I know we live in a democracy.... but part of that democratic process is when the PM washes her hands of the problem and blames "somebody else" then she should be held to account and be called out for her terminological inexactitudes! I would do the same if it was a Labour, Plaid, Monster Raving Loony PM!

And no, I'm no fan of the WAG's bus strategy either!

It’s not to do solely with any party it is quite simply how much tax do you want to pay? We could all live in the utopia that some politicians try to peddle if we are so selfish that we are happy for our children, grandchildren or even great grandchildren with the bill. This applies to bus services as well as other services. However, increasing funding for bus services will save money. Double deckers can carry 80-100 people meaning less congestion and fumes with reducing time wasting and improving people’s health. Unfortunately, our politicians have mess common sense than my 5 year old granddaughter and all they want to do is score points like a bunch of kids in the playground. Sad but true. Enjoyed my rant by the way

 

[Dai Corner]

It’s not to do solely with any party it is quite simply how much tax do you want to pay? We could all live in the utopia that some politicians try to peddle if we are so selfish that we are happy for our children, grandchildren or even great grandchildren with the bill. This applies to bus services as well as other services. However, increasing funding for bus services will save money. Double deckers can carry 80-100 people meaning less congestion and fumes with reducing time wasting and improving people’s health. Unfortunately, our politicians have mess common sense than my 5 year old granddaughter and all they want to do is score points like a bunch of kids in the playground. Sad but true. Enjoyed my rant by the way

Good luck finding 100 people all wanting to travel from market town A and villages B and C to County town D and back at the same time. The nearest you'll get is the school run, which leaves D too late for shoppers and too early for workers.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Good luck finding 100 people all wanting to travel from market town A and villages B and C to County town D and back at the same time. The nearest you'll get is the school run, which leaves D too late for shoppers and too early for workers.

and there you touch upon another reason why rural services are in such a parlous state. Traditionally, what kept a rural service going was the fact that one or 2 school contracts would be attached, keeping a vehicle busy all day.. however, over the last 20 yrs or so many councils have split their tendered bus and school transport budgets... here where I live we have many villages with no public service and school buses.. whilst main road routes have a regular bus running half empty followed by a school bus running along the same route... ie duplication of effort leading to poorer service for all.

 

[Dentonian]

I'd bet they don't get many letters or emails about buses from constituents either. The sort of people who use buses in the provinces aren't generally the type who write to their MPs.

Precisely, we would be wasting our time - and we have little time to waste. Like someone said; Trains are vote winners, buses aren't. Its the form of democracy we have where the balance of power is with the middle class, middle income floating voter with the sympathy of the Media and the support of very powerful lobbies.

 

[Dentonian]

It’s not to do solely with any party it is quite simply how much tax do you want to pay? We could all live in the utopia that some politicians try to peddle if we are so selfish that we are happy for our children, grandchildren or even great grandchildren with the bill. This applies to bus services as well as other services. However, increasing funding for bus services will save money. Double deckers can carry 80-100 people meaning less congestion and fumes with reducing time wasting and improving people’s health. Unfortunately, our politicians have mess common sense than my 5 year old granddaughter and all they want to do is score points like a bunch of kids in the playground. Sad but true. Enjoyed my rant by the way

No. Its not simply how much tax we want to pay, but where (in every sense) we want to benefit. Why does the Treasury value a Prisoner (ie a major criminal) higher than a cancer patient? Why are London's schoolchildren deserving of £1300 a year more than the rest of the UK?