Time to end competition on buses due to pandemic?

[Westcountryman]

Until a couple of years ago we had a lot of competition locally between Bournemouth and Poole. Morebus were running the M1 and M2 services at a combined frequency of ~20 buses an hour. Yellow Buses, who had been trying to muscle in on the Bournemouth to Poole corridor for years were running their 1 and 3 service at 8 buses an hour. All 4 routes had very similar routes, iirc the 3 and M1 were more or less identical. What actually happened was that the Morebuses were running with good loads, the Yellow buses were shifting fresh air. Eventually Yellow buses more or less gave up, reducing their service to 2 per hour on the 1 only, shifting the Pool terminus from the bus station to give a loop round the Old town. I suspect that this has lost Yellow Buses even more passengers. Bournemouth and Poole are towns that both need a joined-up service. Although this kind of competition is supposed to be good for the travelling public, I sometimes wonder whether Go South Coast buying up Yellow Buses would be better for the towns. Although I know it isn't going to happen.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Deerfield - What we do is freeze the current route pattern and only allow those operators who can prove they can run vehicles no older than 7 years old, have adequate maintenance facilities, adequate staff/funds to run services and replace 7% of their fleet per year. Cross subsidy to be legalised and those with inadequate standards BARRED
Effectively casting Mr Ridley to the used ticket box of history.

Seven years..... Are you having a giraffe? Even in NBC days, they were looking at 13 years for heavyweight vehicles.

Where's this money coming from?

 

[upasalmon]

I was referring to NEW COMPANIES so as we only get quality operators and not the free for all so there are no further UK Norths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

I was referring to NEW COMPANIES so as we only get quality operators and not the free for all so there are no further UK Norths.

I can only comment on the Liverpool plus surrounding area situation. There is a situation of driver shortage (obviously I wish all those with COVID19 a speedy recovery). addandd

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

I was referring to NEW COMPANIES so as we only get quality operators and not the free for all so there are no further UK Norths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==


I can only comment on the Liverpool plus surrounding area situation. There is a situation of driver shortage (obviously I wish all those with COVID19 a speedy recovery). and to rationalise bus routes so as to end over supply. When this awful virus has gone and the need to social distance ends perhaps drivers can come off furlough but without the excess.

 

[radamfi]

Where's this money coming from?

The government seems to have found a way of bankrolling deregulated bus operations indefinitely. For years the operators have criticised the whole concept of public funding, saying that it is better to have buses run without subsidy. Now they are lapping up the subsidy like a dog licking a bowl. How hypocritical. They should have been left to cancel all their bus services. The money that the government is pouring into the operators at the moment could then have been given to the local authorities to tender out a proper bus network. No more issues with one company accepting a ticket and the other one not. No unnecessary duplication.

 

[Bletchleyite]

gnolife - If the 142/143 are needed and they should stay. It's just that there are some empty 82s and 86s in Liverpool serving a similar market. I am about whittling down empty buses not removing busy ones.

The bus company themselves will remove empty buses in due course as they don't make any money. The present situation, where subsidy is being paid over and above BSOG to prevent bus companies collapsing, is a bit of an exception.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

The money that the government is pouring into the operators at the moment could then have been given to the local authorities to tender out a proper bus network.

The problem was that there wasn't time for that, and if the bus companies collapsed who would run the buses?

 

[radamfi]

The problem was that there wasn't time for that, and if the bus companies collapsed who would run the buses?

Emergency tenders are often generated at short notice. It would be chaos in the beginning for sure but in time it would settle down. Very few people were using buses at the time anyway. They wouldn't collapse if they knew they were going to be paid to run tendered buses almost immediately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Emergency tenders are often generated at short notice. It would be chaos in the beginning for sure but in time it would settle down. Very few people were using buses at the time anyway. They wouldn't collapse if they knew they were going to be paid to run tendered buses almost immediately.

They collapse if the money runs out, simple as that. Do you expect local authorities to be able to do all that work at short notice?

 

[radamfi]

They collapse if the money runs out, simple as that. Do you expect local authorities to be able to do all that work at short notice?

Most of them are huge corporations. They can withstand no revenue for a few weeks. At worst they could have been bankrolled by the government for a month or two while the local authorities sort out the new network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of them are huge corporations. They can withstand no revenue for a few weeks. At worst they could have been bankrolled by the government for a month or two while the local authorities sort out the new network.

I just think you're being unrealistic. It may be a good thing to do this now, but the interim funding had to go in place nearly immediately, so I can't argue that it wasn't the right thing to do.

 

[radamfi]

I just think you're being unrealistic. It may be a good thing to do this now, but the interim funding had to go in place nearly immediately, so I can't argue that it wasn't the right thing to do.

So why not do it now, then? This is surely a once in a generation chance to scrap deregulation.

 

[Deerfold]

I was referring to NEW COMPANIES so as we only get quality operators and not the free for all so there are no further UK Norths.

Perhaps you should have said that?

If you are, it will provide an effective barrier to new entrants to the market.

I'm not a fan of untrammelled competition in buses - I'd prefer a system like the London franchises, but with operators free to run additional non-competing services if they think there is an unserved need, but your plans seem certain to consolidate the current big players - who are largely not who I'd look to see how to run a quality bus service (there are spots of brilliance within all the big groups, but plenty of poor examples too).

 

[158756]

So why not do it now, then? This is surely a once in a generation chance to scrap deregulation.

It might be, but aside from the improbability of such legislation passing through Parliament any time soon, how would it be done? How long would it take to implement a new structure if the process started today? Who decides what this structure should be - is there any existing structure in the UK fit for purpose? Andy Burnham's efforts in Manchester have taken years already and still we don't know exactly how it will work.

If deregulation is to happen surely it should be properly thought through, rather than based on legislation rushed through without scrutiny and dumped on incompetent councils with insufficient funds in the middle of a pandemic?

 

[radamfi]

It might be, but aside from the improbability of such legislation passing through Parliament any time soon, how would it be done? How long would it take to implement a new structure if the process started today? Who decides what this structure should be - is there any existing structure in the UK fit for purpose? Andy Burnham's efforts in Manchester have taken years already and still we don't know exactly how it will work.

If deregulation is to happen surely it should be properly thought through, rather than based on legislation rushed through without scrutiny and dumped on incompetent councils with insufficient funds in the middle of a pandemic?

You don't need any legislation. If you cut the revenue to the operators then they will withdraw all services anyway, so it can all be done through tenders like normal. Then Parliament can go through the process of banning commercial services at its leisure.

 

[Deerfold]

It might be, but aside from the improbability of such legislation passing through Parliament any time soon, how would it be done? How long would it take to implement a new structure if the process started today? Who decides what this structure should be - is there any existing structure in the UK fit for purpose? Andy Burnham's efforts in Manchester have taken years already and still we don't know exactly how it will work.

If deregulation is to happen surely it should be properly thought through, rather than based on legislation rushed through without scrutiny and dumped on incompetent councils with insufficient funds in the middle of a pandemic?

This sounds good.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

You don't need any legislation. If you cut the revenue to the operators then they will withdraw all services anyway, so it can all be done through tenders like normal. Then Parliament can go through the process of banning commercial services at its leisure.

And once those service are cut and before they come back, a good proportion of the passengers find other ways to travel (probably learning to drive, or buying a car, or just getting into the habit of using their car more often).

 

[radamfi]

And once those service are cut and before they come back, a good proportion of the passengers find other ways to travel (probably learning to drive, or buying a car, or just getting into the habit of using their car more often).

As I said earlier, the huge subsidy that the operators are getting at the moment would be diverted into tendered services, so the network should be at least as good as before, and money will be saved by removing unnecessary duplication or excessively high frequency on main routes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Most of them are huge corporations. They can withstand no revenue for a few weeks. At worst they could have been bankrolled by the government for a month or two while the local authorities sort out the new network.

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

First of all, they DID have a number of weeks where revenue was much reduced and they had to stand that. However, that was just not sustainable and the government recognised that. Had the government not stepped in, you would have seen total carnage in the industry. And don't just think it's the large evil corporations.... In many areas, smaller independent companies still provide a substantial amount of local bus services such as in Norfolk or Wiltshire or North Yorkshire. Presumably, you'd have been happy to see Sanders Coaches or Faresaver or Dales and District go to the wall?

And of course, we can rely on the local councils to make a fantastic job of planning of networks? You are aware of the job that Cornwall Council have done in improving integration and social mobility in the last 6 or so months?

As regards competition, one of the oft trotted out claims is that there is no real competition in that companies stick to their own pre-ordained territories yet the same people will often also say that there is massive overbussing (and usually cite Oxford Road as THE example) and some massive peace dividend. It is illusory.

So the only other real saving is "sticking it to the man" in terms of reduced margin. Well, look at the margins in London compared with remainder of the commercial industry and calculate the variance. Yes, commercial provincial operations have a higher margin but not by that much and therefore that opportunity is not some pot of gold waiting to be unlocked.

I don't know how old you are. I remember the days before 26th October 1986. It was not the land of milk and honey that has often been portrayed and patronage had been steadily falling from the mid 1950s and this was despite increasing subsidy (overt and hidden).

It might be, but aside from the improbability of such legislation passing through Parliament any time soon, how would it be done? How long would it take to implement a new structure if the process started today? Who decides what this structure should be - is there any existing structure in the UK fit for purpose? Andy Burnham's efforts in Manchester have taken years already and still we don't know exactly how it will work.

If deregulation is to happen surely it should be properly thought through, rather than based on legislation rushed through without scrutiny and dumped on incompetent councils with insufficient funds in the middle of a pandemic?

This is absolutely bang on. Anyone who is familiar with the industry and local government knows that most councils (and indeed PTEs) just haven't got the skills or resources to manage much more than what they currently do. Local government has been effectively hollowed out in the austerity years.

 

[carlberry]

You don't need any legislation. If you cut the revenue to the operators then they will withdraw all services anyway, so it can all be done through tenders like normal. Then Parliament can go through the process of banning commercial services at its leisure.

Some, very small, little issues with this that might make it a LITTLE difficult to do.
1, if you remove the revenue support operators will run what is profitable so you'll get say 25-35% of normal services (at a guess), they wont go away like you want them to. However thousands will be out of a job.
2. You're suggesting the most right wing government we've had for years, with a major majority, will vote to ban commercial operators from operating. You dont specify who is going to operate the tenders if you've just banned commercial operation.
3. The UK didn't like putting money into public transport before it's reaction to the pandemic meant it's now got the biggest public debt it's had for 50 years, and heading towards the biggest ever. See issue 2 for the chances of any new money being found for public transport.
4. Post pandemic public transport is going to be quite far down the government's to do list, major structural reform of same even further.

 

[radamfi]

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

First of all, they DID have a number of weeks where revenue was much reduced and they had to stand that. However, that was just not sustainable and the government recognised that. Had the government not stepped in, you would have seen total carnage in the industry. And don't just think it's the large evil corporations.... In many areas, smaller independent companies still provide a substantial amount of local bus services such as in Norfolk or Wiltshire or North Yorkshire. Presumably, you'd have been happy to see Sanders Coaches or Faresaver or Dales and District go to the wall?

And of course, we can rely on the local councils to make a fantastic job of planning of networks? You are aware of the job that Cornwall Council have done in improving integration and social mobility in the last 6 or so months?

As regards competition, one of the oft trotted out claims is that there is no real competition in that companies stick to their own pre-ordained territories yet the same people will often also say that there is massive overbussing (and usually cite Oxford Road as THE example) and some massive peace dividend. It is illusory.

So the only other real saving is "sticking it to the man" in terms of reduced margin. Well, look at the margins in London compared with remainder of the commercial industry and calculate the variance. Yes, commercial provincial operations have a higher margin but not by that much and therefore that opportunity is not some pot of gold waiting to be unlocked.

I don't know how old you are. I remember the days before 26th October 1986. It was not the land of milk and honey that has often been portrayed and patronage had been steadily falling from the mid 1950s and this was despite increasing subsidy (overt and hidden).

Why are you so worried about the bus companies? You either are in the industry or you have friends there. There's no reason why independent operators can't operate tendered services. I thought they ran a lot of them anyway, especially in the rural areas you mention.

I thought there was nowhere in the world apart from Britain that has deregulation. Is that the case? If so, how can it be impossible to run a bus service that isn't deregulated?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

Some, very small, little issues with this that might make it a LITTLE difficult to do.
1, if you remove the revenue support operators will run what is profitable so you'll get say 25-35% of normal services (at a guess), they wont go away like you want them to. However thousands will be out of a job.
2. You're suggesting the most right wing government we've had for years, with a major majority, will vote to ban commercial operators from operating. You dont specify who is going to operate the tenders if you've just banned commercial operation.
3. The UK didn't like putting money into public transport before it's reaction to the pandemic meant it's now got the biggest public debt it's had for 50 years, and heading towards the biggest ever. See issue 2 for the chances of any new money being found for public transport.
4. Post pandemic public transport is going to be quite far down the government's to do list, major structural reform of same even further.

The government has already got rid of rail franchises, despite it being "extreme right wing". They were going to do that even before Covid. If people don't go back to buses after Covid then there won't be enough profitable routes to make deregulation viable anyway, so it would be silly to go along, say, 75% tendered and 25% commercial.

 

[David Verity]

Why are you so worried about the bus companies? You either are in the industry or you have friends there. There's no reason why independent operators can't operate tendered services. I thought they ran a lot of them anyway, especially in the rural areas you mention.

I thought there was nowhere in the world apart from Britain that has deregulation. Is that the case? If so, how can it be impossible to run a bus service that isn't deregulated?

Now let's remember Tyne and Wear were determined to be the first to reach the end of this particular rainbow - until the bean counters got to work. Anybody heard how that one's going?

 

[carlberry]

As I said earlier, the huge subsidy that the operators are getting at the moment would be diverted into tendered services, so the network should be at least as good as before, and money will be saved by removing unnecessary duplication or excessively high frequency on main routes.

The huge subsidy that operators are getting at the moment is barely keeping the industry going, in Wales even that isnt true. You may believe that the industry has been running too many buses with wasteful competition all over the place that some genius can somehow remove, the truth is there little competition anymore (and the longer term competition usually matches the available traffic) and high frequency routes run because there's high numbers of passengers, if the pandemic has effected this the frequency will reduce naturally. You may hate deregulation and want the UK to move to some perfect utopia however the end result is still the same, either passengers pay for the buses or government does. Other than during this pandemic the UK government has never shown any great interest in buses and it's current reaction to TfL should give you a much clearer idea of what would happen to a fully publicly funded bus system in the UK.

 

[Deerfold]

As I said earlier, the huge subsidy that the operators are getting at the moment would be diverted into tendered services, so the network should be at least as good as before, and money will be saved by removing unnecessary duplication or excessively high frequency on main routes.

Are you expecting organising this to take no time at all?

Are there really many routes with excessive duplication or excessively high frequency?

 

[carlberry]

Why are you so worried about the bus companies? You either are in the industry or you have friends there. There's no reason why independent operators can't operate tendered services. I thought they ran a lot of them anyway, especially in the rural areas you mention.

I thought there was nowhere in the world apart from Britain that has deregulation. Is that the case? If so, how can it be impossible to run a bus service that isn't deregulated?

Oddly anybody who tries to say that it might not be worth tearing up the existing system completely without identifing what it's replacement is actually going to achieve always has to be in the pay of the evil bus companies. Thankfully I have a 100% record of not working in the evil deregulated industry, I only worked for a short period during the wonderful days when it was being run perfectly (however my memory of this time is somewhat different from the utopia it, apparently, was). It's likely that the majority of countries in the world operate buses under full deregulation, the UK operates under a fair amount of regulation however it's method is different from most of western Europe. The other big difference is the amount of public money that is given to buses in the UK compared with most of Western Europe. Changing one without the other is just a pointless waste of 5 years and millions of pounds whilst the industry sorts itself out again and external consultants run off with loads of money.

The government has already got rid of rail franchises, despite it being "extreme right wing". They were going to do that even before Covid. If people don't go back to buses after Covid then there won't be enough profitable routes to make deregulation viable anyway, so it would be silly to go along, say, 75% tendered and 25% commercial.

The government's ongoing management of rail franchises has been a classic example of what happens if you try to privatise an industry that the government wants to retain 100% control of. I'm also not aware of any legislation that's gone through parliament to make any permanent changes so, as far as the government is concerned, things are still ongoing. I don't understand how you're defining if deregulation is 'viable', the commercial routes are those that are viable, the rest are contracted or franchised etc. Once the Covid bung stops 75% tendered isn't going to happen, their just isn't the money available long term.

 

[upasalmon]

Deerfold Yes there are otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread . The 82/86 in Liverpool and 142/143 in Manchester are a LEGACY of the dereg madness. Far too many buses on a couple of routes when parts of Wirral hardly any buses. The city regions need to get out maps of the previous PTE pre 1987 network and plan the network along those lines, redistributing surplus buses to other area which are populated but have lost routes. But the dereg party must be brought to an end. Smaller firms , if any, must fill the gaps through CROSS SUBSIDY.

 

[carlberry]

Deerfold Yes there are otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread . The 82/86 in Liverpool and 142/143 in Manchester are a LEGACY of the dereg madness. Far too many buses on a couple of routes when parts of Wirral hardly any buses. The city regions need to get out maps of the previous PTE pre 1987 network and plan the network along those lines, redistributing surplus buses to other area which are populated but have lost routes. But the dereg party must be brought to an end. Smaller firms , if any, must fill the gaps through CROSS SUBSIDY.

You keep on about a couple of services as if this represents some widespreed issue in some way. With little knowlledge of the area I'm fairly sure that no user of any of these services is requesting that less buses run on these
services. I'm, equally, fairly sure sure that the operators aren't running lots of buses on the service to lose money.
The pre 1987 network is of no use to anybody as a few other things have happened since such as increased car ownership, house building and demolition, the rise of out of town shopping centres, the rise of out of town distribution centres, the decline of central shopping facilities, the arrival of widespread computer use, the ability to work from home, I could go on! The current commercial network is, mostly, based on where the bulk of people want to go from and where they want to go to. If there are hardly any buses somewhere it's mostly because there's hardly any passengers.
You also hint towards one of the the bigger issues that the previous PTE era produced which is the 'virtue' services. Nobody thinks that diverting a bus off it's route to serve a different area, or removing a bus from a busy route to cover an unserved area is an issue, however the result is the main services become unattractive and people leave them (in greater numbers than you've just picked up). It all looks perfect on the map and councillors are happy because they're not getting letters from somebody who wants to use a bus every three months but hasn't got one. However overall ridership declines, until the next round of cuts after which it declines again.
Cross subsidy sounds wonderful however it works by making everybody pay more for bus travel to benefit a few. (You may think that bus operators are rolling in money, however they'll want a level of profit however services are provided so that cost dosent go away). Without the subsidy is coming from outside; making people pay more on popular services just means that there are less people on those services.

 

[David Verity]

Deerfold Yes there are otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread . The 82/86 in Liverpool and 142/143 in Manchester are a LEGACY of the dereg madness. Far too many buses on a couple of routes when parts of Wirral hardly any buses. The city regions need to get out maps of the previous PTE pre 1987 network and plan the network along those lines, redistributing surplus buses to other area which are populated but have lost routes. But the dereg party must be brought to an end. Smaller firms , if any, must fill the gaps through CROSS SUBSIDY.

Sounds very plausible - but - politicians play buses like kids play Dinky Toys. Rarely any deep understanding of what's needed, rather the desire to look cool in the eyes of those who vote for them.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Why are you so worried about the bus companies? You either are in the industry or you have friends there. There's no reason why independent operators can't operate tendered services. I thought they ran a lot of them anyway, especially in the rural areas you mention.

I thought there was nowhere in the world apart from Britain that has deregulation. Is that the case? If so, how can it be impossible to run a bus service that isn't deregulated?

Why am I so worried? Well, I was brought up in the 1970s and remember the regulated world. I was the son of a bus driver and understanding how operations worked appealed to me so I went to university to do a business and transport degree. It was there that I decided that passenger WASN'T the place for me but I have always had a love of how passenger transport works (esp buses) and that hasn't diminished. I still work in the wider transport world and get a lot of insight into local and central government (but I can't really say any more).

And yes, those fresh faced students that I hung around with etc have progressed as we've all got older and indeed, some work for bus companies. They provide some real insight into what actually happens with bus companies, local authorities/PTEs etc. Hope that clarifies and doesn't prove too boring. I'll move away from my CV now

Now you ask why the UK can't be like elsewhere? Well, perhaps had it moved from pre1986 direct to a model that you mention, that might have worked. However, simultaneously, the Tory government was also privatising the National Bus Company. Had they enabled a system whereby a bus company could have lost its whole business overnight, then would the banks have lent those management teams and entrepreneurs the money in which to buy those NBC firms? As well as that risk, it was a government that was absolutely wedded to the power of market forces. A London style framework was against their beliefs. Hence they went for full fat deregulation.

Doing that has meant that a loss of skills and knowledge in the public sector and that has been exacerbated since 2010. Councils and the like just don't have the people with those skills - see Cornwall Council or Nexus.

The 82/86 in Liverpool and 142/143 in Manchester are a LEGACY of the dereg madness. Far too many buses on a couple of routes when parts of Wirral hardly any buses. The city regions need to get out maps of the previous PTE pre 1987 network and plan the network along those lines, redistributing surplus buses to other area which are populated but have lost routes. But the dereg party must be brought to an end. Smaller firms , if any, must fill the gaps through CROSS SUBSIDY.

The fact is that cross subsidy never actually works on a macro level. Yeah, you can run the odd early evening journey to maintain the attractiveness of an entire route but the robbing Peter to pay Paul thing doesn't work. It didn't in the 1970s. It's the fallacy of the average.... As I've said before, if your head's in the oven and your feet in the freezer, then theoretically and on average, you're good. The reality is you're not.

Bus companies, especially nowadays, don't run loads of extra buses on routes to ward off evil competitors. The industry has matured since the days of 1986 when you'd put on loads of buses on key routes to swamp any potential competitor. By reducing the frequency on strong city corridors (where you make money), you reduce the attractiveness of that service (so losing revenue) and you then use those resources on dead duck services in the Wirral. The economics just don't stack up.

 

[upasalmon]

David Verity the late Nicholas Ridley springs to mind.
Of course some things have changed since 1987 but some haven't. Bowring Park A5080 had a reasonable evening service until 2008, now nothing. Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral hadevening bus links to most of the Wirral - now just one route to Birkenhead and one to Moreton/Wallasey. Even "dead duck" buses, at awkward times are needed for work purposes barring COVID 19. One of the most monumental failures of the 1997-2010 Labour govt with huge majorities was their total failure to repeal the 1985 Transport Act I'd better cease before the red pen comes out!

 

[carlberry]

David Verity the late Nicholas Ridley springs to mind.
Of course some things have changed since 1987 but some haven't. Bowring Park A5080 had a reasonable evening service until 2008, now nothing. Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral hadevening bus links to most of the Wirral - now just one route to Birkenhead and one to Moreton/Wallasey. Even "dead duck" buses, at awkward times are needed for work purposes barring COVID 19. One of the most monumental failures of the 1997-2010 Labour govt with huge majorities was their total failure to repeal the 1985 Transport Act I'd better cease before the red pen comes out!

The Blair government isnt seen by many Labour supporters as a proper Labour government, however it did bring extra money to improve bus services some of which have stayed. It didnt repeal the 1985 act, and didnt fix rail franchising, because, basically, it had other priorities and didn't see the point.
The examples you give of 'dead duck' buses have gone because of austerity, could be brought back tomorrow if the local authority thought they were a priority and wont come back magically by changing the way the industry runs. They'll only return if the UK fundamentally changes it's view of buses and, consequentially, government (local or national) makes more money available. That was unlikely before the pandemic and isn't even an option now.

 

[radamfi]

It's likely that the majority of countries in the world operate buses under full deregulation

Are you sure? Can you give an example? I find it really hard to believe it can be a majority, unless you are including informal services using vans that you get in some poorer countries which are more akin to a shared taxi service which may or may not run on a fixed route. I'd be really surprised if you can find developed countries with British style full deregulation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2020 ==

Now you ask why the UK can't be like elsewhere? Well, perhaps had it moved from pre1986 direct to a model that you mention, that might have worked. However, simultaneously, the Tory government was also privatising the National Bus Company. Had they enabled a system whereby a bus company could have lost its whole business overnight, then would the banks have lent those management teams and entrepreneurs the money in which to buy those NBC firms? As well as that risk, it was a government that was absolutely wedded to the power of market forces. A London style framework was against their beliefs. Hence they went for full fat deregulation.

Doing that has meant that a loss of skills and knowledge in the public sector and that has been exacerbated since 2010. Councils and the like just don't have the people with those skills - see Cornwall Council or Nexus.

So because something was done over 30 years ago, nothing can be done about it until the end of time? What if the people devising deregulation thought "It can't be done. We've had the existing system for a long time."? If it was possible to do something as insane and radical as deregulation then anything is possible. Things can change. The Tube was supposed to be "unfixable" 20 years ago but Ken Livingstone brought in the man who fixed the New York Subway. So you can find people who know their stuff. They do exist. Who would have thought in 1986 that not only would you not be able to smoke on a bus, you won't even be able to smoke in a pub! Who would have thought that rail would become an important mode of transport again with a huge increase in usage? Tendering is not even that radical as it keeps all the bus companies in private ownership. If you were talking about nationalisation, then that would be quite radical, but still not impossible. Who would have thought in the 90s that rail would be nationalised in the future by a Tory government?

 

[upasalmon]

Liverpool suffered multiple whammy's on dergulation Before restrictions were put on buses using the Mersey Tunnels to protect the ferries and Merseyrail
Dereg lifted those restrictions and many buses which used to terminate at Birkenhead Woodside gradually extended to Liverpool. NOT ONE INCH of extra infrastructure was put in place to accommodate the extra services, choking the narrow B'head tunnel and congesting the city centre, and this is still happening in 2020. Convoys of buses circle around the city centre. There should be limits on buses using bridges and tunnels, for example no more than 15 buses per hour per tunnel. If buses have to turn short at Birkenhead again so be it. Other cities like Manchester had extra buses on all corridors but no equivalent of the "Wirral Invasion". Again the LEGACY of deregulation still applies here still even though it's just ARRIVA and Stagecoach now.