30th birthday Bus Privatisation in England

[TheGrandWazoo]

If you removed BSOG, regulated fares at a fair level and imposed Dutch/German/Swiss standards of service and vehicles, then you would have few if any profitable services as the cost of it would be too expensive. That is probably the case in most major cities where the primary corridors are served by metro/tram service with buses filling in the gaps. I suppose you could still define cross-subsidy as providing heavily loss making services at the detriment of routes which make smaller losses. Inevitably, some routes will be busier than others. We need to decide what routes are needed and provide those services.

You always quote pre-1986 regulation as a comparison. But there was huge public sector inefficiency back then so not comparable with the modern day. By now buses would surely be run by private companies under competitive tendering as that is what has happened in many other public services such as waste disposal and leisure centres.

The number of routes covered by Gold or Sapphire or similar brands is a small proportion of the network and generally is applied to main routes which are already reasonably profitable. Operators want more revenue and there's no need to advertise to their captive market so of course they will attempt to gain extra custom by reaching out to other market segments if it is cost effective. But are they seriously getting lots of ABC1s onto buses through this kind of marketing when little has really changed? Fares are still expensive, buses are still slow and still get stuck in traffic and vehicle quality is often little better than the British standard.

To respond in turn:

Point 1 - the idea that you can artificially structure or gerrymander the market to support your view is not a surprise. You've espoused this view before in that you can artificially increase the costs/reduce revenue to ensure that no bus service is commercial. This was, I recall, allied to your belief that there would be more and more supported services in the UK - of course, the opposite has now occurred as central government spending cuts have been rolled out (which I think was something that I predicted at the time).

In fact, while we're at it, why not legislate to maximise the margins that food producers make; after all, that would benefit every individual in the country as those savings are passed through to retailers and thence to the general public?

Point 2 - yes, I'm quoting the pre-deregulation world as that is perhaps the original point. Also, it was worth further illustrating some of the reasons as to why deregulation was actually introduced. Not least because some people just weren't around in those days and there is some extremely rose tinted recollections of those times when, in truth, the bus industry was failing badly in terms of performance AND passenger ridership

The fact is that private businesses have indeed transformed the world of many previously inefficient operations. Indeed, you mention waste and refuse services; interesting that Biffa and Veolia both have profit margins comparable to major bus groups.

Point 3 - I don't disagree about buses being caught in UK traffic. It is something that First and Stagecoach have been banging the drum about and the industry would love it buses did enjoy the same priority as on the continent. However, they don't and we've seen the move in Liverpool to suspend bus lanes so I don't hold out much hope there, and it doesn't have anything to do with regulation or otherwise.

As for quality, I know you keep going on about how brilliant bus services are on the continent and especially vehicle design. Now, I've never, ever, heard a customer on a bus talk about double glazing or the benefits it would bring. However, I have heard them comment on uncomfortable seats, heat (too much, too little) etc. Interestingly, I was in Valencia the other week and the buses there had poor air conditioning, plastic moulded seats - NOTE: these were on services that had little or no interaction with the metro/tram and had longer journey durations of c.20-25 mins. That said, most of the buses were predominantly standee so seating was only a fleeting opportunity!

However, seeing as you have taken a decision on principle NOT to travel on deregulated bus services, then your views are increasingly not based on experience. If you perhaps moved away from that, you might discover that UK bus specification and comfort is actually a damn sight better than many other countries in Europe. I might also add that the phenomenon of uncomfortable, barely padded seats is also evident in Pisa, Reyjavik and Cyprus, none of which have the excuse of being local short duration journeys feeding into a metro/tram/local train network!

Also, mentioning Sapphire and Gold, of course you're going to promote the services with the best growth potential. That makes perfect sense. Why on earth would anyone seek to invest and develop something that has limited potential (by geography, by population density etc)?

In fact, your comment there would illustrate the problem with your belief. If cross subsidy was to be pursued, then the rationale would have to be to invest in those profitable routes in order to create the funds to cross subsidise.

I strongly suspect that the Osborne inspired devo plans was to bribe the various local authorities into holding the baby, allowing central government to walk away from that responsibility and thereby following their dogma of hollowing out the state. Note: the local politicians haven't exactly rushed towards this and for good reason!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Taxis low cost?

I think you need to go back and read the comment in context.

Neil was advocated that there was the ability for people to buy a bus on the cheap and operate it as and when.

My comment was that entrepreneurs already have that option of a low cost, low barrier to entry service. That's why, and seemingly endemic in former coal mining areas, you have a raft of taxi and private hire operators.

 

[radamfi]

Point 1 - the idea that you can artificially structure or gerrymander the market to support your view is not a surprise. You've espoused this view before in that you can artificially increase the costs/reduce revenue to ensure that no bus service is commercial. This was, I recall, allied to your belief that there would be more and more supported services in the UK - of course, the opposite has now occurred as central government spending cuts have been rolled out (which I think was something that I predicted at the time).

In fact, while we're at it, why not legislate to maximise the margins that food producers make; after all, that would benefit every individual in the country as those savings are passed through to retailers and thence to the general public?

Point 2 - yes, I'm quoting the pre-deregulation world as that is perhaps the original point. Also, it was worth further illustrating some of the reasons as to why deregulation was actually introduced. Not least because some people just weren't around in those days and there is some extremely rose tinted recollections of those times when, in truth, the bus industry was failing badly in terms of performance AND passenger ridership

I laughed when I read the word "gerrymander"! Many things have happened that make bus services more "commercial" than they would otherwise have been. A few are listed here:

1. Allow bus companies to raise fares to totally unacceptable levels.
2. Close virtually all tram networks. New ones only cover a small part of the city.
3. Put social housing far away from town centres meaning activities are too far to walk.
4. Throw in additional subsidy per mile.

Propping up deregulation in such ways is more like gerrymandering.

Yes, young people need to hear the facts. There are probably a lot of young people who think that bus deregulation is a conventional thing because they don't know any better. They need to know that bus patronage in Britain is particularly low and that successful bus/tram/metro networks exist in many areas of Europe and the world. These are either totally publicly owned or precured through tendering or franchising. Yes this is possible! Just because Britain couldn't run a decent publicly owned bus service in the 70s/80s doesn't mean it is impossible.

Bus deregulation as we know it doesn't exist in any other highly developed country.

 

[RT4038]

I laughed when I read the word "gerrymander"! Many things have happened that make bus services more "commercial" than they would otherwise have been. A few are listed here:

1. Allow bus companies to raise fares to totally unacceptable levels.
2. Close virtually all tram networks. New ones only cover a small part of the city.
3. Put social housing far away from town centres meaning activities are too far to walk.
4. Throw in additional subsidy per mile.


Yes, young people need to hear the facts. There are probably a lot of young people who think that bus deregulation is a conventional thing because they don't know any better. They need to know that bus patronage in Britain is particularly low and that successful bus/tram/metro networks exist in many areas of Europe and the world. These are either totally publicly owned or precured through tendering or franchising. Yes this is possible!

Just because Britain couldn't run a decent publicly owned bus service in the 70s/80s doesn't mean it is impossible.


Bus deregulation as we know it doesn't exist in any other highly developed country.

Point no.1- Fares are higher than unsuccessful networks, because of our requirement that they cover costs. Fares are market related like foodstuffs etc. None of Points 2 or 3 have occurred since de-regulation or immediately before. Any 'additional subsidy' [whatever that may be] mentioned in Point 4 has reduced or been virtually eliminated since deregulation

In Britain, a successful bus/tram/metro network is measured mainly by farebox revenue exceeding costs. This is our culture. By this measure, most bus/tram/metro networks in many areas of Europe and the world are unsuccessful. Highly developed countries do not have successful operations in the context of UK culture

We didn't have a decent publicly owned bus service in 70s/80s, nor is there any indication that it is any more likely to be decent [however that is defined] today.

 

[carlberry]

I laughed when I read the word "gerrymander"! Many things have happened that make bus services more "commercial" than they would otherwise have been. A few are listed here:

1. Allow bus companies to raise fares to totally unacceptable levels.
2. Close virtually all tram networks. New ones only cover a small part of the city.
3. Put social housing far away from town centres meaning activities are too far to walk.
4. Throw in additional subsidy per mile.

Propping up deregulation in such ways is more like gerrymandering.

Yes, young people need to hear the facts. There are probably a lot of young people who think that bus deregulation is a conventional thing because they don't know any better. They need to know that bus patronage in Britain is particularly low and that successful bus/tram/metro networks exist in many areas of Europe and the world. These are either totally publicly owned or precured through tendering or franchising. Yes this is possible! Just because Britain couldn't run a decent publicly owned bus service in the 70s/80s doesn't mean it is impossible.

Bus deregulation as we know it doesn't exist in any other highly developed country.

I don't know how most of the points can actually be connected with 'Propping up deregulation'.
Point 1 requires somebody to define 'unacceptable'. 1/3 of bus passengers (traditionally) have been pensioners and the return for these passengers now is 'unacceptable' to most bus companies but, legally, they cant do anything about it. For the other 2/3s bus companies/groups are not seen as great performers on the stock market so, therefore, cannot be seen to be making vast amounts of money. They make a profit which might be 'unacceptable' to some people but, otherwise, are just part of the norm of society.
2. Was a function of the governments of the 1960s and the 'white heat of technology' at the time. It might have been wrong but it was nothing to do with bus deregulation.
3, Again is a government function and was seen as moving people to 'nicer' place away from the inner city slums. Not really anything to do with bus deregulation and, by the 1980s, social housing wasn't even a term that anybody in government was allowed to use.
4. None of the subsidies has ever been applied per mile that I've been aware of. BOSG is the closest but it's applied by consumption and is balanced by the major part of consumption still being paid by the company. All other subsidies are applied by deliveries (journeys/services/network).

Britain did run a decent publicly owned bus network. The problems came when Britain decide to follow the US in regarding the bus as a 'lower' form of transport, and allowing it's provision to be decided by politicians (PTEs/local government) instead of the providers that had a better idea of what passengers wanted (most of the time - nobody is perfect!).

 

[radamfi]

Point no.1- Fares are higher than unsuccessful networks, because of our requirement that they cover costs. Fares are market related like foodstuffs etc. None of Points 2 or 3 have occurred since de-regulation or immediately before. Any 'additional subsidy' [whatever that may be] mentioned in Point 4 has reduced or been virtually eliminated since deregulation

In Britain, a successful bus/tram/metro network is measured mainly by farebox revenue exceeding costs. This is our culture. By this measure, most bus/tram/metro networks in many areas of Europe and the world are unsuccessful. Highly developed countries do not have successful operations in the context of UK culture

We didn't have a decent publicly owned bus service in 70s/80s, nor is there any indication that it is any more likely to be decent [however that is defined] today.

It doesn't matter when the events occurred, the fact is they happened and help the British bus industry. The closure of the tram networks in particular. The "additional subsidy" I refer to is BSOG.

I love the use of the word "culture" as an excuse for a disappointing outcome. It's OK for Britain to suck because of our culture. But there is a point there. Britain does have an insular culture and thus refuses to learn from best practice elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They make a profit which might be 'unacceptable' to some people but, otherwise, are just part of the norm of society.

Whether the companies make money is irrelevant. All most people care about is whether the fares are good value for the service you get. In my view they are not. As a young person I was an evangelist against the motor car and refused to learn to drive. Eventually I did learn to drive and buy a car but I would still go out of my way to support buses even if it took hours longer. Now I think it is more ethical to drive instead of taking the bus, outside London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

BSOG is an interesting one. In one sense it's just a rebate on tax for doing something useful with the fuel, in another case it's a subsidy that, if seen as such, should be more targetted in how it is spent rather than allowing people to claim it for any bus service they might happen to want to register, however useless.

I'm really not sure what my view on it is, TBH. In one sense it's an open ended subsidy, in the other a little more like Gift Aid which is a similar open-ended subsidy to charities for similarly (and in a much more open way) doing something useful.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

BSOG is an interesting one. In one sense it's just a rebate on tax for doing something useful with the fuel, in another case it's a subsidy that, if seen as such, should be more targetted in how it is spent rather than allowing people to claim it for any bus service they might happen to want to register, however useless.

BSOG is a subsidy to subsidise bus fares. However, BSOG only helps ease things a bit. The idea that people make money from registering useless services is laughable; you need to take more water with whatever you're drinking!

 

[radamfi]

BSOG is a subsidy to subsidise bus fares. However, BSOG only helps ease things a bit. The idea that people make money from registering useless services is laughable; you need to take more water with whatever you're drinking!

Strictly speaking, the bus companies can do whatever they want with the BSOG, not necessarily cut fares.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It doesn't matter when the events occurred, the fact is they happened and help the British bus industry. The closure of the tram networks in particular. The "additional subsidy" I refer to is BSOG.

I love the use of the word "culture" as an excuse for a disappointing outcome. It's OK for Britain to suck because of our culture. But there is a point there. Britain does have an insular culture and thus refuses to learn from best practice elsewhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Whether the companies make money is irrelevant. All most people care about is whether the fares are good value for the service you get. In my view they are not. As a young person I was an evangelist against the motor car and refused to learn to drive. Eventually I did learn to drive and buy a car but I would still go out of my way to support buses even if it took hours longer. Now I think it is more ethical to drive instead of taking the bus, outside London.

Sorry but it DOES matter as it is what you're saying. What you're coming out with is palpably, undeniably wrong.

The reasons why tram and trolleybus services closed over time are many and varied. Some were irrevocably damaged during the war. However, many were scrapped as they hadn't received any investment for 20 years or more, and that the penetration of post war housing estates was more easily performed by bus services. It was nothing to do with the promotion of bus services because they're buses, and certainly not to gerrymander support for bus services.

I can't comment about your ethics really, as they are particular to you. However, the simply fact is that your narrow, myopic view means that you a) automatically ignore anything that the bus industry management say and b) ignore anything that is contrary to your view and c) deny yourself the experiences to adequately comment. How can you talk about Gold or Sapphire services if you've not travelled on them?

The fact is that the countries that you continually mention are NOT the same as the UK. The most evident being the amount spent on cycling - £24 per capita in Netherlands vs £4 in the UK. We don't spend the money on non-car travel options whether it be cycling or public transport. And quite frankly, I don't see any justification for believing such a cultural change to tax and spend in the UK is going to happen within the population. Therefore, ignoring commercial profit, the fact that we will need to fund the gap between revenue and cost is still the elephant in the room that you continually seem to ignore.

As for things that are "found funny", I still chuckle to your statement c.6 months before the election that Ed Miliband becoming PM was "fairly likely". So, that went to plan.....

 

[radamfi]

The reasons why tram and trolleybus services closed over time are many and varied. Some were irrevocably damaged during the war. However, many were scrapped as they hadn't received any investment for 20 years or more, and that the penetration of post war housing estates was more easily performed by bus services. It was nothing to do with the promotion of bus services because they're buses, and certainly not to gerrymander support for bus services.

The default position is to maintain and develop tram networks. That wasn't done in the UK. That is most convenient for the bus companies as they get to serve major city corridors previously served by tram.

Also, big cities normally get comprehensive metro/underground systems. The UK outside London didn't do that. That's another departure from the norm which helps buses enormously.

Bus fares could have been regulated. That was, is and always has been in the gift of the government. If bus fares were kept at ethical levels then that would have prevented bus deregulation being viable.

How can you talk about Gold or Sapphire services if you've not travelled on them?

I can see with my own eyes what kind buses they are using. I can see inside the bus from outside and there are plenty of pics on the internet. I can see that they are still charging excessive fares. I can see the timetables on the internet which are still slow and when I see them I can see how late they are. If they provide real time info (which still isn't universally available, even on such "premium" routes) then I can see the punctuality there too.

The fact is that the countries that you continually mention are NOT the same as the UK. The most evident being the amount spent on cycling - £24 per capita in Netherlands vs £4 in the UK. We don't spend the money on non-car travel options whether it be cycling or public transport. And quite frankly, I don't see any justification for believing such a cultural change to tax and spend in the UK is going to happen within the population. Therefore, ignoring commercial profit, the fact that we will need to fund the gap between revenue and cost is still the elephant in the room that you continually seem to ignore.

So you agree that Britain is bad. Any country with behaves like that doesn't deserve support. That's the main point of all this. The right way is therefore to boycott Britain where possible. Not just for buses but in all industry.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure why the default should be developing tram networks. Tram networks started to be shut down in the 30s, with most going in the 50s. Virtually all of them publicly owned at closure (and had been for some time). Private bus companies generally didn't benefit from tram closures at all - they were mostly replaced by buses run by the tram public owners (Municipalities).

In the Anglo-Saxon (English speaking) world (most closely aligned to our culture and psyche), comprehensive metro/underground systems are not really the norm outside of the very largest cities, and many cities make do with a mixture of an odd metro line and/or suburban rail and ..... buses. [Bit like our cities outside London]. Perhaps the differences in 'norm' between us and continental Europe is reflected in the Brexit vote?

Yes, Government could have regulated fares (and indeed did prior to de-regulation, keeping their own companies in penury and a downward spiral). In spite of this, passenger numbers were plummeting. It is not really in the gift of government to regulate fares without paying the shortfall between costs and revenue (unless you are somewhere like Zimbabwe), and there is no political will to pay this shortfall.

Whether Britain is 'good' or 'bad' in public transport provision vs. state expenditure on public transport is an entirely subjective view. You can either seek to change this through the political process (and good luck on making bus transport an issue to capture votes) or move to another country with a different culture/outlook. Boycotting sounds like a sure fire way of eliminating the whole issue, because taken to extreme bus services will stop without replacement, as nobody would be using them!

 

[Robertj21a]

So you agree that Britain is bad. Any country with behaves like that doesn't deserve support. That's the main point of all this. The right way is therefore to boycott Britain where possible. Not just for buses but in all industry.

It may just be me but we seem to have somehow joined a parallel universe.

So, I'm British, and live in Britain. You suggest that I should boycott Britain.......... can you at least give me a starter for 10 as I'm clearly useless at understanding what I should now be doing.

 

[radamfi]

So, I'm British, and live in Britain. You suggest that I should boycott Britain.......... can you at least give me a starter for 10 as I'm clearly useless at understanding what I should now be doing.

Ideally leave the UK. If you can't, then don't use British bus services outside London. Don't holiday in the UK. Avoid British products and services where possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure why the default should be developing tram networks. Tram networks started to be shut down in the 30s, with most going in the 50s. Virtually all of them publicly owned at closure (and had been for some time). Private bus companies generally didn't benefit from tram closures at all - they were mostly replaced by buses run by the tram public owners (Municipalities).

But that clearly was a mistake which could have been remedied at any subsequent time.

In the Anglo-Saxon (English speaking) world (most closely aligned to our culture and psyche), comprehensive metro/underground systems are not really the norm outside of the very largest cities, and many cities make do with a mixture of an odd metro line and/or suburban rail and ..... buses. [Bit like our cities outside London]. Perhaps the differences in 'norm' between us and continental Europe is reflected in the Brexit vote?

There is certainly a trend that English speaking countries can't do transport. But in terms of how we live we are more European. We live in compact towns and generally live in small houses and flats. We drive compact cars. Even our culture is closely aligned with Europe in many ways. For example, we share our national sport with most of Europe and not America/Canada/Australia.

Whether Britain is 'good' or 'bad' in public transport provision vs. state expenditure on public transport is an entirely subjective view. You can either seek to change this through the political process (and good luck on making bus transport an issue to capture votes) or move to another country with a different culture/outlook. Boycotting sounds like a sure fire way of eliminating the whole issue, because taken to extreme bus services will stop without replacement, as nobody would be using them!

We can objectively look at public transport modal share. It is low in the UK. Hardly anyone uses local buses outside London anyway. It would probably take a full cessation to finally make people sit up and take notice. Certainly, what we've got at the moment is totally unacceptable so we don't have much to lose by a boycott.

 

[ooo]

Ideally leave the UK. If you can't, then don't use British bus services outside London. Don't holiday in the UK. Avoid British products and services where possible.
.

Can I ask why you are still living in Britain then if you are so keen to boycott it all? Do you work for a British company?

More on topic, surely boycotting public transport will just make it worse and worse as ridership goes down along with income.

 

[radamfi]

Can I ask why you are still living in Britain then if you are so keen to boycott it all? Do you work for a British company?

More on topic, surely boycotting public transport will just make it worse and worse as ridership goes down along with income.

Believe me, I would have left Britain long ago if I could. I still want to leave at some point but Brexit threatens to imprison me in the UK. I have largely retired young but do some freelance work now and again for companies of various nationalities.

We've tried deregulation for 30 years. It doesn't work. So let's try something else.

 

[Robertj21a]

Ideally leave the UK. If you can't, then don't use British bus services outside London. Don't holiday in the UK. Avoid British products and services where possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.
.

It seems that I will be well and truly st*ffed then - I don't live in London and need a bus to get to the nearest town.

Highly amusing, stuff. I needed a good laugh.

 

[radamfi]

It seems that I will be well and truly st*ffed then - I don't live in London and need a bus to get to the nearest town.

Highly amusing, stuff. I needed a good laugh.

Learn to drive and get a car or go by bike. A lot of people are already "st*ffed" because of the poor service we get so they are already forced into alternatives.

 

[JamesRowden]

Learn to drive and get a car or go by bike. A lot of people are already "st*ffed" because of the poor service we get so they are already forced into alternatives.

The bus fares which you think are unethically high are still substantially cheaper than running a car. Unlimited bus use on Stagecoach within Hastings, Bexhill and Battle costs £50 per month. Unlimited bus use across the whole of Stagecoach South East is £84.50 per month.

The more people use the buses, the better the service the bus operator can provide at these ticket prices. These benefits would include a greater service frequency on routes, and a greater variety of routes. More people using buses rather than cars would also speed journeys up by reducing congestion.

 

[Robertj21a]

Learn to drive and get a car or go by bike. A lot of people are already "st*ffed" because of the poor service we get so they are already forced into alternatives.

I have a car, and have driven about 500,000 miles in recent years. I choose to use the bus at times because it is far cheaper for where I want to go, and the time I need to be there. As it happens my bus service is very good and I have no complaints about it.

 

[radamfi]

The bus fares which you think are unethically high are still substantially cheaper than running a car. Unlimited bus use on Stagecoach within Hastings, Bexhill and Battle costs £50 per month. Unlimited bus use across the whole of Stagecoach South East is £84.50 per month.

The more people use the buses, the better the service the bus operator can provide at these ticket prices. These benefits would include a greater service frequency on routes, and a greater variety of routes. More people using buses rather than cars would also speed journeys up by reducing congestion.

Weekly/monthly passes aren't that expensive but compare the perceived marginal cost of using the car with single bus fares. If you are getting a top quality, fast and reliable service then you can better justify higher fares. For example, train travel is getting more popular despite pretty eye-watering fares. At least you are getting a bit of speed for your money. But why pay for a slow and late bus if you've got a car?

I use buses all the time. When outside the UK. For example, I went to the Netherlands last week and travelled more or less non-stop on buses/trams/metros from 9am to 9pm.

I've been campaigning for 20+ years and trying to educate Brits how good things can be. But to no avail. Patronage continues to go down, fares continue to go up and services keep getting cut.

 

[JamesRowden]

Weekly/monthly passes aren't that expensive but compare the perceived marginal cost of using the car with single bus fares. If you are getting a top quality, fast and reliable service then you can better justify higher fares. For example, train travel is getting more popular despite pretty eye-watering fares. At least you are getting a bit of speed for your money. But why pay for a slow and late bus if you've got a car?

I use buses all the time. When outside the UK. For example, I went to the Netherlands last week and travelled more or less non-stop on buses/trams/metros from 9am to 9pm.

I've been campaigning for 20+ years and trying to educate Brits how good things can be. But to no avail. Patronage continues to go down, fares continue to go up and services keep getting cut.

A bus service can take me the nearly 3 miles to the local station in 6 minutes. Unfortunately the bus is only hourly, towards London there are not good connections with the 2tph service and there are no evening bus services. A bus day ticket is cheaper than the station car park costs. I told Stagecoach about the potential market I could see for Bus-Rail journeys if a better bus service was provided. They have not taken up my suggestion thus indicating that they didn't see a business opportunity. This indicates to me that the problem is rooted in the fact that the bus company (probably correctly since they are the experts) believe that the people aren't willing to use such services. The politicians also don't seem to want council tax used to fund such services since I told the council about the potential benefits of such services during a consultation and they didn't even comment on the idea (but perhaps they didn't comment on the idea because it contradicted their no supported evening bus services policy and knew that commenting on it and rejecting it might act negatively upon them politically).

 

[Robertj21a]

I use buses all the time. When outside the UK. For example, I went to the Netherlands last week and travelled more or less non-stop on buses/trams/metros from 9am to 9pm.

I've been campaigning for 20+ years and trying to educate Brits how good things can be. But to no avail. Patronage continues to go down, fares continue to go up and services keep getting cut.

Plenty of us have travelled abroad, over very many years. Some countries, such as Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Poland etc run excellent bus and tram services - some countries don't. What us Brits are not good at is developing tram networks in our bigger cities. If it can work in Manchester, Sheffield, Croydon etc then there's no reason why it shouldn't work in a whole range of other places like Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds etc etc - I'd agree that we could do a lot better in respect of trams.

 

[MedwayValiant]

The bus fares which you think are unethically high are still substantially cheaper than running a car. Unlimited bus use on Stagecoach within Hastings, Bexhill and Battle costs £50 per month.

It depends where you are, though. Arriva operate about 90% of the bus network in the Medway Towns, and their four week ticket costs £65.
Even then, you'll need to buy separate tickets if you need to go to Medway City Estate - the largest business park in the Medway Towns - because Arriva don't go there. Another operator, Nu-Venture, does go there, but doesn't offer anything longer than a week for £15. So if I needed to travel from my home to Medway City Estate five times a week, a journey requiring one Arriva bus and one Nu-Venture bus, it would cost £125 per four weeks to do it by bus. (£9.50 per day if I were doing it rarely enough not to make a period ticket worthwhile.)

These prices do not encourage people to use the bus rather than the car.

Unless, that is, I were to go the ridiculous way about it. A monthly train ticket from Newington to Rainham (being the cheapest season into the Medway area) with a monthly PlusBus can be had for £110.70 - and that is for a calendar month, which is longer than four weeks. The PlusBus is the only ticket accepted by both bus companies - and it is cheaper to buy this and throw the train ticket element away than it is to buy bus tickets!

I don't know if anyone actually does this, but I suspect not. Wouldn't one or both of the bus companies just withdraw from PlusBus if they were?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I've kept out of this debate so far, but now think it's time to add my four penny worth..

The debate tbh is a sterile one... it doesn't matter what regulatory framework there is it will never change the standard of bus services in this country... there are only TWO things needed for there to be a decent bus service... an operator or operators that know how to provide a decent service AND a local political will to support the company(s) in their desire to provide that service...

unfortunately there are few decent companies and even fewer councils that fit the criteria... and the instances where the 2 come together in the same place can probably counted on the fingers of one hand.

When the re-regulators make their case for re-regulation they conveniently forget that we had stringent regulation for 56 years and by the time of D-day it was, in general, failing miserably. People point to London and the wonderful bus service there... HOWEVER it costs shed loads of money that no other political body can afford to throw around....

Deregulation was not and is not the cure all and hasn't been an unmitigated success... but nor has it been an unmitigated disaster...

The problem in the UK is that we want our bus service to be a social service, and yet it is required to meet the criteria of a purely profit making exercise.

Until the law is changed and councils have a STATUTORY obligation to ensure a nationally agreed minimum of service provision AND the funding is put in place to ensure that it can be achieved then we will NEVER have the bus service we want or need... no matter what regulatory framework is in place.

as an aside, BSOG is often quoted as being a subsidy to bus operators.. BSOG (IIRC) pays back approx 25% of the duty paid on fuel.... I wonder how the same critics of BSOG feel about the fact that rail operators pay 0% duty on their diesel?

 

[JamesRowden]

It depends where you are, though. Arriva operate about 90% of the bus network in the Medway Towns, and their four week ticket costs £65.
Even then, you'll need to buy separate tickets if you need to go to Medway City Estate - the largest business park in the Medway Towns - because Arriva don't go there. Another operator, Nu-Venture, does go there, but doesn't offer anything longer than a week for £15. So if I needed to travel from my home to Medway City Estate five times a week, a journey requiring one Arriva bus and one Nu-Venture bus, it would cost £125 per four weeks to do it by bus. (£9.50 per day if I were doing it rarely enough not to make a period ticket worthwhile.)

These prices do not encourage people to use the bus rather than the car.

Unless, that is, I were to go the ridiculous way about it. A monthly train ticket from Newington to Rainham (being the cheapest season into the Medway area) with a monthly PlusBus can be had for £110.70 - and that is for a calendar month, which is longer than four weeks. The PlusBus is the only ticket accepted by both bus companies - and it is cheaper to buy this and throw the train ticket element away than it is to buy bus tickets!

I don't know if anyone actually does this, but I suspect not. Wouldn't one or both of the bus companies just withdraw from PlusBus if they were?

One can coordinate where they live and where they work to provide a simpler/cheaper daily commute.

 

[RT4038]

I've kept out of this debate so far, but now think it's time to add my four penny worth..

The debate tbh is a sterile one... it doesn't matter what regulatory framework there is it will never change the standard of bus services in this country... there are only TWO things needed for there to be a decent bus service... an operator or operators that know how to provide a decent service AND a local political will to support the company(s) in their desire to provide that service...

unfortunately there are few decent companies and even fewer councils that fit the criteria... and the instances where the 2 come together in the same place can probably counted on the fingers of one hand.

When the re-regulators make their case for re-regulation they conveniently forget that we had stringent regulation for 56 years and by the time of D-day it was, in general, failing miserably. People point to London and the wonderful bus service there... HOWEVER it costs shed loads of money that no other political body can afford to throw around....

Deregulation was not and is not the cure all and hasn't been an unmitigated success... but nor has it been an unmitigated disaster...

The problem in the UK is that we want our bus service to be a social service, and yet it is required to meet the criteria of a purely profit making exercise.

Until the law is changed and councils have a STATUTORY obligation to ensure a nationally agreed minimum of service provision AND the funding is put in place to ensure that it can be achieved then we will NEVER have the bus service we want or need... no matter what regulatory framework is in place.

as an aside, BSOG is often quoted as being a subsidy to bus operators.. BSOG (IIRC) pays back approx 25% of the duty paid on fuel.... I wonder how the same critics of BSOG feel about the fact that rail operators pay 0% duty on their diesel?

I think it is a mistake to single out certain elements and put all the blame on them ..... the bus companies are the way that they are because of the financial constraints that they work under. It is difficult to attract sufficient innovative, committed people to work for an industry that has no money and is constantly criticised. We know already (a) the sort of people attracted, in our culture, when these financial constraints are removed and (b) the constant criticism about the cost of propping up the system (waste of public money etc.)
Even if there was local political will, there would not be any money to do anything about it.

Be careful what you might wish for having at STATUTORY obligation to provide services - the minimum would of necessity be a 'one size fits all' fudge that would end up giving everybody a few buses a day (never mind what times they run or where they go/how long they take to get there!). Local councils are already overburdened with the cost of minimum provision of existing STATUTORY obligations (such as social care/education/education transport etc.) almost to the point of cutting out everything else..

In short, we get the local transport system we deserve. There are not enough of the electorate who care, wish to insist that something is changed, and wish to commit to the funding implications..

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Good lord - Radamfi has jumped the shark!

Working on the basis that I merely need to look at a photo, I needn't bother flying to Rio to view Christ the Redeemer, or to Agra to see the Taj Mahal. In fact, I may extend that food, being able to gain all the nutrition I require, and enjoy the full sensory pleasure, by looking at an image whilst ignoring the need to taste or smell it. Incredible.

Then we have the idea that a boycott of deregulated bus services will, in some way, be a good idea. What a wholly counterproductive and unworkable thing to suggest.

The fact is that we don't spend the money on transport. It doesn't actually matter if it's regulated, deregulated or some sort of hybrid. As RT4038 says "we get the local transport system we deserve. There are not enough of the electorate who care, wish to insist that something is changed, and wish to commit to the funding implications.." - remember the Greater Manchester congestion charge referendum - 79% voted NO.

Likewise, Teflon Lettuce is also on the money when he says "When the re-regulators make their case for re-regulation they conveniently forget that we had stringent regulation for 56 years and by the time of D-day it was, in general, failing miserably. People point to London and the wonderful bus service there... HOWEVER it costs shed loads of money that no other political body can afford to throw around....

Deregulation was not and is not the cure all and hasn't been an unmitigated success... but nor has it been an unmitigated disaster..."

The idea that re-regulation is some sort of panacea is a myth. George Osborne talked of London style franchising but without the money when it is clear that there is a correlation between the money spent and the success of London's buses.

Without the money, it has to be a partnership approach between the operators and councils.

 

[radamfi]

Good lord - Radamfi has jumped the shark!

Working on the basis that I merely need to look at a photo, I needn't bother flying to Rio to view Christ the Redeemer, or to Agra to see the Taj Mahal. In fact, I may extend that food, being able to gain all the nutrition I require, and enjoy the full sensory pleasure, by looking at an image whilst ignoring the need to taste or smell it. Incredible.

You obviously missed the other bits I said, such as looking at the vehicles with my own eyes, observing the punctuality and looking at the timetable. I was next to an Arriva Sapphire route on Saturday. It was a 58-reg single decker, so they even use middle-aged buses on a so called "premium" route. What's special about this? What more do I need to know?

Then we have the idea that a boycott of deregulated bus services will, in some way, be a good idea. What a wholly counterproductive and unworkable thing to suggest.

Why? The worst case scenario is no buses ever again. That's only a little worse than what we have now given that hardly anyone uses buses now anyway. It's got to be worth a try.

 

[Bletchleyite]

hardly anyone uses buses now anyway

Eh? The bus is by far the most-used mode of public transport in the UK.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You obviously missed the other bits I said, such as looking at the vehicles with my own eyes, observing the punctuality and looking at the timetable. I was next to an Arriva Sapphire route on Saturday. It was a 58-reg single decker, so they even use middle-aged buses on a so called "premium" route. What's special about this? What more do I need to know?



Why? The worst case scenario is no buses ever again. That's only a little worse than what we have now given that hardly anyone uses buses now anyway. It's got to be worth a try.

I didn't miss anything. As I said "I may extend that food, being able to gain all the nutrition I require, and enjoy the full sensory pleasure, by looking at an image whilst ignoring the need to taste or smell it". The idea that you can accurately understand the quality of a bus service by looking at a stationery bus or reading a timetable is frankly ludicrous. You're not the only person on this board to use transport abroad. However, the idea that you can dismiss something whilst not actually experiencing it is foolish and undermines any cogent argument you may have.

In fact, if you were to clamber down from your position of moral outrage and travel on a new Stagecoach or First e400mmc, you'd find it more comfortable than most European citybuses.

The fact is that, as has been said by myself and others, other countries have identified the need to invest in public transport. Amount spent per capita (2011) illustrates this

• Vienna $407
• Amsterdam $393
• Stuttgart $298
• Zurich $279
• London $271
• Berlin $183
• Manchester $28
• Glasgow $20
• Newcastle $11

Clearly, only London in the UK enjoys the level of expenditure on public transport and that is where bus travel has enjoyed increased patronage. THAT is the issue - we don't support public transport at the ballot boxes and our politicians are seldom brave enough to make difficult decisions.

As for "worst case scenario is no buses ever again. That's only a little worse than what we have now given that hardly anyone uses buses now anyway. It's got to be worth a try." Well, apart from c.2.3 billion journeys outside London. Of course, you may espouse being able to boycott local bus services. There are a great many people cannot effect such a boycott and many more who would identify that it would cause much greater pain in terms of congestion and pollution.

As for the "it's not working, we may as well try something different - what can the harm be?" - well, sadly, that was a view that quite a few people who chose Brexit had!

I am a passionate advocate for public transport. I use it on holiday, whether that be Catalunya or Cornwall, both places I've visited and used the local bus services. I really want to see all forms of public transport improved. The need to have some sort of Keynsian infrastructure plan to offset the ill effects of Brexit (allied to historic low rates for borrowing) may help in the expansion of various rapid transit schemes. However, I am also a realist - we never spend the money we need to and certainly whilst infrastructure gets politicians good press, the ongoing support needed is never funded sufficiently (see ENCTS). Going for London style franchising without London style funding will change nothing.