UK Bus Summit: ‘You’re on your own’

[overthewater]

In this weeks Passenger transport: The transport minister Andrew Jones has a point.


http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017/02/uk-bus-summit-youre-on-your-own/

The government will not provide extra funding to prevent the further erosion of bus services in England. The bus industry must instead accept that taxpayer support for local bus services is not sustainable. That was the tough message from transport minister Andrew Jones at this month’s UK Bus Summit in London.

In response to a question about funding for rural bus services, Jones said: “We shouldn’t be having an industry which relies endlessly upon public subsidy. We’re always going to see huge demand for public spending, you only have to look at how some of our public services are intense pressure, such as the health service.”

“So an industry which requires public subsidy is not an industry which has a healthy, robust, sustainable future.”

Jones said that “more bums on seats” must enable bus services to support themselves financially – but a survey of the audience found that less than one third agreed that UK bus patronage will increase over the next decade.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course rural bus services are an "industry" and not an "essential public service".

Of course they are.

Bloody Tories.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course rural bus services are an "industry" and not an "essential public service".

Of course they are.

Bloody Tories.

Yes, it's only taken 30 years of unsuccessful deregulation for them to admit it.

 

[AndrewE]

Unlike state expenditure on increasing road capacity for private cars - and road haulage - of course, which steams on regardless (minus a few bits trimmed off!)
A

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

considering the average tory mp wouldn't know what a rural bus looks like even if it runs them over should we be surprised at this blinkered view?

the problem is with the Tories that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. They want their cake and to eat it... they want buses to run what is essentially a social service... but at a profit...

of course what this idiot know nothing fails to realise is that if his Government were to pay a proper going rate for a service it forces bus companies to provide (free transport for concessionary pass holders) then the said bus companies would have less unprofitable mileage and would need less subsidy to provide their services... there are already many instances where local authorities have cut their support of subsidised services in order to be able to afford the concessionary schemes.

And if by saying bus services should not be subsidised by tax payers he means BSOG should be scrapped when, may I ask, is he going to propose that the rail and aviation industries start paying tax on their fuel? (both industries benefit from 0% duty)

 

[Busaholic]

In this weeks Passenger transport: The transport minister Andrew Jones has a point.


http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2017/02/uk-bus-summit-youre-on-your-own/

The spirit of Ernest Marples, Gerald Nabarro and the Right Honourable Nicholas Ridley lives on. Now they've won the Copeland by-election they'll think they're unTrumpable.

 

[ivanhoe]

considering the average tory mp wouldn't know what a rural bus looks like even if it runs them over should we be surprised at this blinkered view?

the problem is with the Tories that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. They want their cake and to eat it... they want buses to run what is essentially a social service... but at a profit...

of course what this idiot know nothing fails to realise is that if his Government were to pay a proper going rate for a service it forces bus companies to provide (free transport for concessionary pass holders) then the said bus companies would have less unprofitable mileage and would need less subsidy to provide their services... there are already many instances where local authorities have cut their support of subsidised services in order to be able to afford the concessionary schemes.

And if by saying bus services should not be subsidised by tax payers he means BSOG should be scrapped when, may I ask, is he going to propose that the rail and aviation industries start paying tax on their fuel? (both industries benefit from 0% duty)

Care to give meaningful examples of cuts made by LA's to subsidised services due to ENCTS? I am aware of cuts made to such services as a result of reduced Goverment settlements to Councils. There is a difference.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Care to give meaningful examples of cuts made by LA's to subsidised services due to ENCTS? I am aware of cuts made to such services as a result of reduced Goverment settlements to Councils. There is a difference.

ENCTS is something that councils HAVE to provide... subsidised services aren't a statutory obligation... if there is a limited amount of money available for funding of bus services then it is obvious and simple logic that when cuts need to be made to the funding of bus service provision then it is cuts to subsidised services that will take place... as legally the councils HAVE to pay for the ENCTS! of course your response ignores the fact that Lancashire, North Yorkshire and Surrey councils have all cited the unaffordability of the ENCTS as a reason why they have made cuts to subsidised services.

 

[Busaholic]

ENCTS is something that councils HAVE to provide... subsidised services aren't a statutory obligation... if there is a limited amount of money available for funding of bus services then it is obvious and simple logic that when cuts need to be made to the funding of bus service provision then it is cuts to subsidised services that will take place... as legally the councils HAVE to pay for the ENCTS! of course your response ignores the fact that Lancashire, North Yorkshire and Surrey councils have all cited the unaffordability of the ENCTS as a reason why they have made cuts to subsidised services.

With genuine respect, there is a current thread on ENCTS. I understand the point, absolutely, that councils have to provide ENCTS reimbursement whereas they don't have to subsidise bus services, but two wrongs don't make a right, imo. One does not have to go in order that the other survives, except in the view of (mostly) Tory councils who can't wait to get on with not providing a penny piece for either bus services or their users. The next excuse (I'll give it until Easter before the first council does so) will be 'oh, those polluting diesel buses, we've been reading all about them, the sooner they're sent for scrap the better: it's up to the bus companies to replace them with electric vehicles'.

 

[THarris123]

With genuine respect, there is a current thread on ENCTS. I understand the point, absolutely, that councils have to provide ENCTS reimbursement whereas they don't have to subsidise bus services, but two wrongs don't make a right, imo. One does not have to go in order that the other survives, except in the view of (mostly) Tory councils who can't wait to get on with not providing a penny piece for either bus services or their users. The next excuse (I'll give it until Easter before the first council does so) will be 'oh, those polluting diesel buses, we've been reading all about them, the sooner they're sent for scrap the better: it's up to the bus companies to replace them with electric vehicles'.

Lets give an example of a bus service that is being cut.

Service 67 (Wookey Hole to Wells to Burnham On Sea) used to be run by First with council funding. Then Webberbus won the tender. In order to ensure they kept it, Webberbus registered it commercially when it was never viable (especially at every 1.5 hours). Then Webberbus went bust and the council had to pick up the pieces. First took it on for a few weeks running it for the council. Then Bakers Dolphin won the tender. Hardly anyone uses this service at certain times of the day, but usually at peak and certain off peak journeys are fairly full. The council have been saying for a while that they can no longer support it financially and that either someone takes it on commercially again or the look for the community to fund it. The money is due to run out in March and the plan currently stands until July that Wookey Hole to Wells and Wells to Wedmore are being split off and run by the community transport company Mendip Community transport, whilst the other section (certainly the more unprofitable end) is being funded again by the council until July with Crosville running the service on tender.

First are not interested in this service, nor are very few other operators, unless they are paid to do it. The service could very easily be worked off college or school services, leaving the peak part of the service run in another way.

The council have had to step in again and again for this service, but very few operators are interested as the money just isn't there to fund it. The council is coming up with the money and they are trying their best, so I do think it is wrong to just judge the council and the national view as "can't wait to get on with not providing a penny piece for either bus services or their users". The councils are trying their best to step in, but the general government view is funding bus services is not a requirement and cars should continued to be used for many years, polluting the air and causing as much traffic and selfishness as possible, so they are unsympathetic. It is very unfortunate to see all these bus services go, but in the scheme of things many services are not well run or funded correctly so the opportunities are not there for people to use the services and therefore services become less and less viable.

Until the government changes this view, things will not change and I can assure you now whatever government, the only party that I can think of that would change the view is the Green Party and I dread to think what would happen if they ever got in. I do very much think though that Mr Jones' view is very unsympathetic and as has been said if they can afford to fund other transport methods, they can afford to fund vital bus services to rural communities.

 

[yorksrob]

Without public subsidy, the only viable alternative is regulation and cross subsidy.

 

[Stan Drews]

Without public subsidy, the only viable alternative is regulation and cross subsidy.

Cross subsidy? Is that from the nasty bus barons secret stash of £millions?

 

[GusB]

Without public subsidy, the only viable alternative is regulation and cross subsidy.

I see pigs with wings again.

I was extremely annoyed when I read that article today. I'm not in England, but things aren't much better in my part of the world either. No government of any colour seems to grasp how vital these routes are, and sadly I can't see anything changing soon.

I'm lucky enough in that my local route is run on an hourly frequency during the day from Monday to Saturday, but the evening and Sunday services bit the dust a few years ago. Every now and again the council will realise that they can afford to fund certain services, so they restart briefly, only to stop them again once the next budget comes around. By then the damage is done - people either have to move home or find alternative transport. I've seen people learning to drive because they've had to rather than because they wanted to, and once they have their own car, they're never going back to using public transport.

 

[THarris123]

I see pigs with wings again.

I was extremely annoyed when I read that article today. I'm not in England, but things aren't much better in my part of the world either. No government of any colour seems to grasp how vital these routes are, and sadly I can't see anything changing soon.

I'm lucky enough in that my local route is run on an hourly frequency during the day from Monday to Saturday, but the evening and Sunday services bit the dust a few years ago. Every now and again the council will realise that they can afford to fund certain services, so they restart briefly, only to stop them again once the next budget comes around. By then the damage is done - people either have to move home or find alternative transport. I've seen people learning to drive because they've had to rather than because they wanted to, and once they have their own car, they're never going back to using public transport.

Very true.

 

[GatwickDepress]

First they came for the bus services...

 

[radamfi]

Interesting that the article first started talking about rural services but ended talking about overall patronage levels. If you are interested in boosting patronage then you focus your attention primarily on urban services. Whilst providing the best possible rural service would help reduce social exclusion and is therefore desirable for that reason, it would only attract a small percentage of motorists, simply because high frequencies are not possible.

As an aside, I subscribed to Passenger Transport for a year soon after it started but before long I realised it was very pro-current UK industry practice and had little understanding of what actually works in Europe. I had correspondence with the editor to that effect but I cancelled my subscription soon after. The consultancy I was working for at the time was getting free issues but I recommended to my team not to start subscribing when the free issues ended.

 

[overthewater]

Thats five years ago, its changed a bit since then, there was a supplement about North African bus opeartions.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Interesting that the article first started talking about rural services but ended talking about overall patronage levels. If you are interested in boosting patronage then you focus your attention primarily on urban services. Whilst providing the best possible rural service would help reduce social exclusion and is therefore desirable for that reason, it would only attract a small percentage of motorists, simply because high frequencies are not possible.

What is often forgotten is that no service, whether commercial or subsidised, stands or falls on it's own... it is notable that in areas where councils and/or operators took a network approach to bus provision, services remained stable.. whereas in those areas where a non-holistic approach was taken are the ones that have ended up with a decimation of commercial services AND have seen a sharp reduction in deeply rural services whilst council budgets are diverted to try and keep previously commercial services going...

why would removal of subsidised services cause a downward spiral of commercial provision? quite simply a percentage of the passengers using subsidised journeys go on to use commercially provided journeys to complete their own journey... if they can't complete their whole journey by bus then they will either not make the journey at all... or, more likely, find another mode (car).

As an aside, I subscribed to Passenger Transport for a year soon after it started but before long I realised it was very pro-current UK industry practice and had little understanding of what actually works in Europe. I had correspondence with the editor to that effect but I cancelled my subscription soon after. The consultancy I was working for at the time was getting free issues but I recommended to my team not to start subscribing when the free issues ended.

oh? that's a rather Trumpite view of the world isn't it? "Their views don't coincide with mine so they have nothing valuable to say... furthermore I'll censor them by suggesting to anyone I meet that what they deliver is fake news and so NO-ONE should read what they have to say"

 

[GusB]

What is often forgotten is that no service, whether commercial or subsidised, stands or falls on it's own... it is notable that in areas where councils and/or operators took a network approach to bus provision, services remained stable.. whereas in those areas where a non-holistic approach was taken are the ones that have ended up with a decimation of commercial services AND have seen a sharp reduction in deeply rural services whilst council budgets are diverted to try and keep previously commercial services going...

why would removal of subsidised services cause a downward spiral of commercial provision? quite simply a percentage of the passengers using subsidised journeys go on to use commercially provided journeys to complete their own journey... if they can't complete their whole journey by bus then they will either not make the journey at all... or, more likely, find another mode (car).

Exactly this. I might be able to travel to work by bus, but I'm not going to be able to get home that way. It also means that the range of tickets I'm able to buy is limited. There's no point in buying a season ticket/commuter card if I'm only ever going to use the service one-way.

Even if the local authority does provide funding for evening/weekend services, there's no guarantee that it will be the regular commercial operator who gets the contract. I had experience of this in the early 90s when the neighbouring SBG company successfully (!) tendered for our local evening services, but refused to accept tickets issued earlier in the day by the "other" company.

There's no joined-up thinking.

 

[Marc]

Even if the local authority does provide funding for evening/weekend services, there's no guarantee that it will be the regular commercial operator who gets the contract. I had experience of this in the early 90s when the neighbouring SBG company successfully (!) tendered for our local evening services, but refused to accept tickets issued earlier in the day by the "other" company.

There's no joined-up thinking.

but that is not the fault of the operator who won the contract. the tendering authority should have written in to the contract that return tickets or seasons issued by the daytime commercial operator should be honored.

and i see the ususal voices claiming regulation will solve everything. how will you pay for millions of £worth of civil servants - offices - vehicles?? plenty of bus ops are not making a profit already so you would rather provide another layer of council interference than have buses running?? mental.

 

[SCH117X]

Exactly this. I might be able to travel to work by bus, but I'm not going to be able to get home that way. It also means that the range of tickets I'm able to buy is limited. There's no point in buying a season ticket/commuter card if I'm only ever going to use the service one-way.

Depends on how you manage your travel arrangements, what distance is involved and what tickets are available - When the office car park is closed (its only available to use 8 days in March for example) and if not cycling I typically walk one way and catch the bus the other way using a 12 journey ticket that is cheaper than 12 singles but more expensive than 6 returns.

Think the Transport Minister does know what a bus looks like, there are enough pictures kicking around of him with Alex Hornby of Transdev in front of Alex's latest acquisition or invention.

 

[radamfi]

and i see the ususal voices claiming regulation will solve everything. how will you pay for millions of £worth of civil servants - offices - vehicles?? plenty of bus ops are not making a profit already so you would rather provide another layer of council interference than have buses running?? mental.

When Britain introduced deregulation in 1986 the rest of the world was sceptical but kept an eye on how things worked out. The success of deregulation was obvious as patronage boomed whilst costs were dramatically reduced. So every other country in the world followed suit and now there are no countries left that have regulated operations. Either fully owned or tendered out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When Britain introduced deregulation in 1986 the rest of the world was sceptical but kept an eye on how things worked out. The success of deregulation was obvious as patronage boomed whilst costs were dramatically reduced. So every other country in the world followed suit and now there are no countries left that have regulated operations. Either fully owned or tendered out.

The funny thing about deregulation is that it didn't achieve what was intended - owner operators and small businesses - it just achieved what was effectively a service regulated by agreement between large PLCs. That hasn't been all bad (in profitable areas it has really been quite good - think Oxford and the likes) though I think it has its issues. Yet there are many rural cases where you might get a service if Bob could use his minibus for it when he felt like (by local agreement) provided he simply had the appropriate driving licence (not applicable if it was a 9-seater which might actually work well in some cases), hire and reward insurance and a valid MoT.

Should we actually look to deregulate further in some cases, e.g. for services with one or both ends outside cities? The long-distance coach system doesn't seem to be an anarchistic free for all despite having very little regulation.

I'm totally unconvinced that the 56 day requirement does an awful lot other than prove a barrier to entry (as if you make a bad decision you've got to carry on with it for 56 days even if you bankrupt yourself doing so). With modern technology, it could be replaced with a requirement to enter into a central timetable system and penalties if you don't operate what you enter. How early you enter it would depend on how much you want to give passengers a chance to plan to use it!

I also fairly strongly believe Driver CPC is a waste of space (I think it will go away post-Brexit, it provides no value whatsoever in its UK implementation), and that the process of setting up a bus company is overcomplicated.

 

[radamfi]

The long-distance coach system doesn't seem to be an anarchistic free for all despite having very little regulation.

I'm totally unconvinced that the 56 day requirement does an awful lot other than prove a barrier to entry (as if you make a bad decision you've got to carry on with it for 56 days even if you bankrupt yourself doing so). With modern technology, it could be replaced with a requirement to enter into a central timetable system and penalties if you don't operate what you enter. How early you enter it would depend on how much you want to give passengers a chance to plan to use it!

The start of coach deregulation was before my time, but as I understand it National Express faced stiff competition in the early days from a consortium of firms called British Coachways. But yes, for most of the period since 1980 the coach network has remained remarkably stable especially until the start of Megabus. Even after Megabus started, National Express has basically kept their network largely unchanged. Coach deregulation has been adopted in much of Europe after having proved to be beneficial in Britain.

But we are talking about a very small part of the overall inter-city travel market. For example, London to Birmingham has coaches roughly 2 to 3 per hour across the two companies. Even if you assume they are all full, you are talking about a maximum of around 200 passengers per hour. In an hour between the same two cities you have 3 Virgin trains, 2 Chiltern trains and 2 London Midland trains, carrying potentially thousands. Obviously there is a lot of private car traffic too.

A lot of the loss in patronage has been attributed to bus companies regularly changing times and routes especially in metropolitan areas. Some areas have voluntarily agreed to change routes on certain days in the year but even now, over 30 years after deregulation, we still have a large number of changes happening on each of these dates. In other countries, they manage to confine most changes to one day a year, often coinciding with the annual train timetable change date.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

A lot of the loss in patronage has been attributed to bus companies regularly changing times and routes especially in metropolitan areas. Some areas have voluntarily agreed to change routes on certain days in the year but even now, over 30 years after deregulation, we still have a large number of changes happening on each of these dates. In other countries, they manage to confine most changes to one day a year, often coinciding with the annual train timetable change date.

So a lot of the loss of patronage is attributable to bus companies continually changing routes and times is it? You are just regurgitating a mantra spouted by the re-regulation lobby that is not based in any fact. IF it were true then bus use wouldn't have been spiralling downwards for the 30 years BEFORE deregulation would it? the FACT is that, even when bus services were heavily regulated and were, to all intents and purposes, unchanging bus patronage was plummetting like a stone!

 

[radamfi]

So a lot of the loss of patronage is attributable to bus companies continually changing routes and times is it? You are just regurgitating a mantra spouted by the re-regulation lobby that is not based in any fact. IF it were true then bus use wouldn't have been spiralling downwards for the 30 years BEFORE deregulation would it? the FACT is that, even when bus services were heavily regulated and were, to all intents and purposes, unchanging bus patronage was plummetting like a stone!

No one disputes that patronage fell before 1986. Indeed, I do not propose a return to the pre-1986 situation. I'm not asking for nationalisation. Indeed, I would probably insist on privatisation of the remaining municipals. Obviously a lot of the patronage loss before and after deregulation is a result of increasing car ownership but most people accept that patronage fell particularly quickly in the first few years after 1986.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No one disputes that patronage fell before 1986. Indeed, I do not propose a return to the pre-1986 situation. I'm not asking for nationalisation. Indeed, I would probably insist on privatisation of the remaining municipals. Obviously a lot of the patronage loss before and after deregulation is a result of increasing car ownership but most people accept that patronage fell particularly quickly in the first few years after 1986.

You're missing Teflon's point. You're blaming de-reg for the reduction of patronage.

Teflon rightly points out that bus patronage was going through the floor for 20-30 years beforehand.

The fact is that the government are NOT going to stump up money. Moving to some semi-regulated world is probably the worst of all worlds. More bureaucracy, central control and even less money to pay for it.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

No one disputes that patronage fell before 1986. Indeed, I do not propose a return to the pre-1986 situation. I'm not asking for nationalisation. Indeed, I would probably insist on privatisation of the remaining municipals. Obviously a lot of the patronage loss before and after deregulation is a result of increasing car ownership but most people accept that patronage fell particularly quickly in the first few years after 1986.

but you advocate council control of routes and times and franchising of said services... leading to a stable unchanging network... that essentially is what we had before 1986.... and supporting that had become unaffordable to the Thatcher government, hence deregulation. I won't pretend that dereg and privatisation was about the passenger... it wasn't... it was about saving tax payers money.

to say that most people accept that patronage fell sharply because of dereg is a gross oversimplification and generalisation.

There were many factors at work in 1986 apart from dereg... It is notable that many of the areas where the period 1986-91 saw a dramatic drop in patronage were traditionally heavy industry areas is very telling... in 1986 we were at last seeing (and feeling) recovery from the deepest recession since the depression of the 30's... and it was the heavy industry areas that had had the most pain. As people in these areas started to feel more secure financially there was a boom in car ownership... something that had been repressed by high unemployment...

of course bus companies and the PTE's in particular didn't do themselves any favours... who can forget fares in S yorks going up 250%... or GMPTE's ostrich impression and last minute slash and burn of the network...

Also telling is that London's buses were not deregulated but put onto the controlled franchising regime that re-regulators advocate... and was told it had to break even... strangely the buses in London were also losing passengers hand over fist during that same period.

 

[radamfi]

You're missing Teflon's point. You're blaming de-reg for the reduction of patronage.

Teflon rightly points out that bus patronage was going through the floor for 20-30 years beforehand.

The fact is that the government are NOT going to stump up money. Moving to some semi-regulated world is probably the worst of all worlds. More bureaucracy, central control and even less money to pay for it.

The question is whether patronage would have fallen faster in the last 30 years if we had an alternative system in place since 1986. Obviously the only way to prove one way or the other conclusively is to live in two parallel universes where we have deregulation and not in the other. Clearly you can't compare 1956-1986 with 1986-2016 as car ownership was much lower in the former period. The best we can do is compare 1986-2016 in GB outside London with 1986-2016 in other places.

Without proper funding we will be in no better position than we are now so discussion of that scenario is largely moot as we already know what will happen. It is more interesting to discuss what we would do if proper funding became available, even if such an idea seems quite fanciful at the moment. In the 90s rail transport was perceived to be on its way out but now we invest billions in trains, and rightly so. The level of usage and investment the railways now see would be a surprise to someone who had been transported from 20 years ago. Whilst some people on here would prefer an alternative to the current franchised rail system, such as a return to BR, I don't think many people on here see investing in the railways as a bad thing.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Without proper funding we will be in no better position than we are now so discussion of that scenario is largely moot as we already know what will happen. It is more interesting to discuss what we would do if proper funding became available, even if such an idea seems quite fanciful at the moment.

it may be "interesting" to discuss what we would do IF the funding were to be available... BUT it is more important to discuss what we can do to improve services etc with the little funding that is currently available after all we have to live in the real world.