• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Former UN rapporteur claims UK bus privatisation breached basic rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
This is where the fundamental disagreement lies between the British view of public transport and the view taken in much of Europe and the rest of the world. In several countries such a right is written into law.

That right ensures that everyone has a basic level of independence. The moment that right ceases to exist, you limit the ability to move around independently to those who can drive, have a driving licence and who own a car. That excludes a huge number of people, be that for economic, health or age reasons, among others, which are points made by the report.

Seen from this perspective, public transport is not a service that must be profitable at all costs, but rather a fundamental service that any developed society should aim to offer its citizens, much like other basic services like bin collection, public litter bins or traffic signals. Nobody expects a traffic light to turn a profit, but it still costs money to run.

Form this the idea follows that every settlement in the country, no matter how small should be offered a usable public transport service. For a small rural village, that could be a bus service every two hours to the nearest larger settlement, or even an on-demand service (at an accessible price), for inner city areas that is likely to be far more frequent. And that includes services in the evening and at weekends - people don't just travel to commute.

For this to work, there needs to be a nationwide public transport system that works as a whole and that is where deregulation and privatisation has failed Britain entirely.

That's not even mentioning the numerous ecological and environmental reasons why a functional public transport is crucial.
Privatisation (which is what the original post was about) has no effect on any of the above, in the same way that electricity and phones were privitised at much the same time as buses and the provision of the service wasn't effected. Deregulation has affected the bus service however it wouldn't stop any of the above happening, if the British public were willing to pay for it.

The idea of a universal level of service provision may be wonderful however its an environmental cost if buses are running around carrying fresh air. Making it an on demand service still suffers from the issue that it's a large vehicle being poorly utilised and costing more (to the public purse and the environment) than a subsided taxi would.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
Interesting points made in this debate. One thought occurred, the former UN rapporteur picked a specific date in the history of the British bus service industry - 1986. Perhaps in the interests of balance, he should have rolled back a further five or six years to, say 1980 or 81 and looked at the impact of the NBCs Market Analysis Projects (MAPs) on people’s ability to access their ‘rights’ to education, healthcare, employment etc. Some serious service cuts were made as a result of MAP in various parts of the country.

I am not generally in favour of cross-subsidy on a macro scale, it can be parasitical on the more fruitful parts of the business, as well as hiding a multitude of sins around unhealthy political influence.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
8,275
I think you're mistaken in your statement I've put in bold.

If you look at bus usage since 1950 - this thread has the graph I'm posting https://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2480/cycling/the-dominance-of-the-car/index.html

The biggest drop in bus usage was in the 1950s and 1960s - there were still falls through the 1970s and the fall actually slowed during the 1980s. Usage actually pretty much plateaued from 1990 onwards, yet many seem to be of the view the changes in 1986 accelerated decline, yet there's no evidence for that, if anything it's the opposite and decline slowed and stabilised post 1986.
To clarify my point, I wasn't trying to suggest that 1986 was the key year which "destroyed" public transport, but rather that I find it tedious when people go back into ancient history and blame a policy 35 years ago for the current state of public transport.

Indeed deregulation wasn't all bad, as it did bring in some much need innovation into the sector, it just needed to be done in a far less big bang way
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
This is why I think we need a model based on TfL. Where the private operators only have the right to run the service and choose the type of buses they want to run, and the routing, stops, timetable etc. is dictated by a major transport company (not sure what the right word is?)

At least UK buses serve many areas very well. But yes it's always good to have improvements.

For example some once a week routes could run all weekdays.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
We're just copying what other countries have long done in having smaller supermarkets relatively close to where you live, and that's surely a good thing, as it means fewer car trips, or at least shorter car trips, even if it means fewer bus trips as well. For years it was assumed you couldn't live without a car, but such a lifestyle has become easier. Food shopping can be delivered or picked up from a local supermarket within walking distance, instead of driving to the out of town Tesco. Other shopping can be done online, instead of driving to the out of town warehouse type store, and either delivered or picked up at an Amazon locker (in a town centre or railway station) or local collection point. Instead of driving to an out of town business park or factory, work started to become more concentrated in city centre offices, and now Covid means that such work can be done from home at least some of the time.

The UK has always had mini supermarkets in residential areas (One Stop, Nisa Local, Costcutter etc.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

In which case you can very quickly run out of other peoples money...

Can you please be a bit more specific?

Other countries do it and they don't have a problem. We can do it if we wanted to do it and had the willingness of doing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

A few thoughts:

1. I really don't like the way that people always talk about "rights" (when they sometimes just mean a wishlist of nice things that they'd like). I'd certainly agree that thirty five years of cuts have left some people unable to access education/ healthcare/ employment/ shops - looking at the reductions in frequencies/ fleets/ services, of course there have been cuts - but it doesn't need the hyperbole of "THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHT" - that makes it look overly emotional. It's the same with lots of campaign groups though - they never say "we would like the following things...", they describe it as THEIR RIGHTS

2. There were a lot of cuts in the decades before 1986 - it'd have been amazing if passenger numbers had stabilised in 1986 after many years of decline - so "numbers have gone down" isn't the zinger that some people treat it as

3. As above - it's all about public funding. PTEs/ Councils etc used to subsidise lots of services - now they can't even afford to keep libraries open, so of course the money for buses had dried up

4. Although bus users out number train users, buses get ignored by politicians. Imagine if politicians worried about bus users (in the way that they focus on rail passengers) - rail passengers have guaranteed service levels, rail passengers have guarantees that their fares won't go up by more than inflation (or RPI + 1%) - whereas bus services can be cut at a few weeks notice/ fares can go up by much more than inflation/ fare rises can be more than once a year... politicians could tweak the bus market, but nobody seems interested in modest improvements (e.g. two timetable changes a year?), it's either "the naked greed of capitalism" or it's "nationalise/ regulate everything completely"



Excellent points - I sometimes moan about First/ Stagecoach but I get annoyed when other people blame them for things, like struggling to run a bus service from a suburb into the city centre as successfully as the PTE/ NBC/ SBG did (when the public sector operated in an era where few people had cars, there weren't retail parks by ring roads or websites to spread the demand between loads of different places, buses were cheap to purchase)... how can a bus compete in that market?



...and who's fault do you think that was?

It's good to see someone in Government takes hand washing seriously - shame it's just to wash their hands of responsibility (rather than Covid related)

Whilst we need a TfL based bus company and operation system in the whole of the UK, I would agree with you. UK public transport is still amazing and efficient to say the least!

And one final thing. Although it's always important and essential to have a reliable bus route in a rural area, you would need a car anyway to live in these types of places. There isn't the right demand to have, say, an every 20 minutes bus route (unless if you are lucky enough to live in a major corridor)
 
Last edited:

cnjb8

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
2,304
Location
Nottingham
The UK has always had mini supermarkets in residential areas (One Stop, Nisa Local, Costcutter etc.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Can you please be a bit more specific?

Other countries do it and they don't have a problem. We can do it if we wanted to do it and had the willingness of doing it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Whilst we need a TfL based bus company and operation system in the whole of the UK, I would agree with you. UK public transport is still amazing and efficient to say the least!

And one final thing. Although it's always important and essential to have a reliable bus route in a rural area, you would need a car anyway to live in these types of places. There isn't the right demand to have, say, an every 20 minutes bus route (unless if you are lucky enough to live in a major corridor)
You’ve contradicted yourself, you’ve said our transport is amazing (it’s not) and you’ve said franchising works in Europe. Buses here have been getting worse and worse since deregulation and I cannot see that getting better under a franchise system!
It’s also well documented that TfL finances are in a right state, even before covid it was going downhill.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
SouthEastBuses:

I keep trying to reply but you keep editing your quote, which seems to mess with the persistent cookies in the forum software. I have just had to log out and log in, only to find you’ve made a further edit.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
You’ve contradicted yourself, you’ve said our transport is amazing (it’s not) and you’ve said franchising works in Europe. Buses here have been getting worse and worse since deregulation and I cannot see that getting better under a franchise system!
It’s also well documented that TfL finances are in a right state, even before covid it was going downhill.

Should have been a bit clearer on this, sorry.

UK public transport is great in general (at least buses turn up, and we have decent frequencies - at least where I live), but franchising would make it even better as it would allow even more services and more integrated, cheaper tickets. That's what I meant. We at least have public transport that works fine (yes it could be better I agree) compared to some other countries (looking at you, USA).

One other thing we badly need are dual door buses becoming a widespread thing in the country - on city and town routes (no need for them on rural routes, they are fine with single door). This is why UK bus companies should learn from Brighton & Hove or Reading Buses, where they've only been getting dual door buses for the city routes in the past 3-4 years or so.

SouthEastBuses:

I keep trying to reply but you keep editing your quote, which seems to mess with the persistent cookies in the forum software. I have just had to log out and log in, only to find you’ve made a further edit.

Sorry about that, I was just reading more of the forum and making further replies.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
23,001
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Should have been a bit clearer on this, sorry.

UK public transport is great in general (at least buses turn up, and we have decent frequencies - at least where I live), but franchising would make it even better as it would allow even more services and more integrated, cheaper tickets. That's what I meant. We at least have public transport that works fine (yes it could be better I agree) compared to some other countries (looking at you, USA).

One other thing we badly need are dual door buses becoming a widespread thing in the country - on city and town routes (no need for them on rural routes, they are fine with single door). This is why UK bus companies should learn from Brighton & Hove or Reading Buses, where they've only been getting dual door buses for the city routes in the past 3-4 years or so.



Sorry about that, I was just reading more of the forum and making further replies.
Part of the problem is that we simply don't fund public transport as much as we could do, and European style provision and infrastructure costs money. As we see with TfL, the bus network has a subsidy of £700m and the finances were in a poor state even before Covid.

Most people on this forum are vocally pro-public transport naturally. We probably think more money should be put into transport but sadly, politicians look at the whole electorate and for the vast, vast majority of people, that isn't the priority. Meanwhile, we have enabled private motoring to become ever cheaper as the government have frozen fuel duty over the last ten years. Tells you a lot.

As for dual door buses, they do have their advantages in terms of dwell times at stops. The downsides are the loss of capacity, but moreover, the issues of bus stop design. Dual doors have been out of fashion since the 1970s (for various reasons) and so much of the infrastructure was rebuilt from rear platform deckers to single door vehicles. Add to that issues such as saw tooth bus stations etc and it explains the reticence.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
Part of the problem is that we simply don't fund public transport as much as we could do, and European style provision and infrastructure costs money. As we see with TfL, the bus network has a subsidy of £700m and the finances were in a poor state even before Covid.

Most people on this forum are vocally pro-public transport naturally. We probably think more money should be put into transport but sadly, politicians look at the whole electorate and for the vast, vast majority of people, that isn't the priority. Meanwhile, we have enabled private motoring to become ever cheaper as the government have frozen fuel duty over the last ten years. Tells you a lot.

As for dual door buses, they do have their advantages in terms of dwell times at stops. The downsides are the loss of capacity, but moreover, the issues of bus stop design. Dual doors have been out of fashion since the 1970s (for various reasons) and so much of the infrastructure was rebuilt from rear platform deckers to single door vehicles. Add to that issues such as saw tooth bus stations etc and it explains the reticence.

And how come most European countries can afford it yet the UK can't?

For dual door buses, to avoid the risk of going too off topic, I will reply to you in a different, more specific thread. But as you rightly pointed out, loss of capacity is why I think they are of no use whatsoever on rural or long distance routes.

The main thing that I think it needs to be done to attract more people into using public transport is cheaper tickets. However, the problem of this is that it's only possible with mainland European-style franchising, as doing such thing on an entirely commercially run route risks the loss of profit. Hell, I'd even love free public transport like Luxembourg is done, but I remain very sceptical whether such thing can be replicated here, considering that Luxembourg is a tiny small country of a population of about 600,000 where things can be more practical and easier compared to a big country of the UK where we have a population of about 66 million.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
1,800
Location
uk
Read what I said. We don’t not that we can’t. As a nation, we choose not to. That is it, I’m afraid

Precisely. There is lack of willingness to improve services. And this is why I dislike the Conservatives. They seem obsessed on cutting not only bus services, but also other essential public services like the NHS, education, police etc.

This makes me glad in living in Horsham where at least we have decent bus services, even on a Sunday (for example, I think a bi-hourly bus frequency to Crawley, Worthing, Dorking, a hourly service to Gatwick Airport via North Heath & Bewbush, and an every 45 minute frequency on town route 98 is actually great for a town of the population of about 100,000). But this could be improved by reinstating the Sunday 17 bus service.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,995
Precisely. There is lack of willingness to improve services. And this is why I dislike the Conservatives. They seem obsessed on cutting not only bus services, but also other essential public services like the NHS, education, police etc.

This makes me glad in living in Horsham where at least we have decent bus services, even on a Sunday (for example, I think a bi-hourly bus frequency to Crawley, Worthing, Dorking, a hourly service to Gatwick Airport via North Heath & Bewbush, and an every 45 minute frequency on town route 98 is actually great for a town of the population of about 100,000). But this could be improved by reinstating the Sunday 17 bus service.
Hasn't West Sussex County Council been under Conservative control for nearly all of its existence? Yet still the residents have 'decent bus services'.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
Precisely. There is lack of willingness to improve services. And this is why I dislike the Conservatives. They seem obsessed on cutting not only bus services, but also other essential public services like the NHS, education, police etc.

Labour were no better in the 13 years they were in power. They kept bus deregulation. In fact, arguably they were worse because they effectively lied that they were giving the opportunity to end deregulation through quality contracts, because they were impossible to set up. At least with the current government franchising is now being allowed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Hasn't West Sussex County Council been under Conservative control for nearly all of its existence? Yet still the residents have 'decent bus services'.

I presume the service he likes is mostly run commercially, or maybe with subsidy from the airport.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
This is going to be a bit of a ramble, so apologies in advance.

The difficulty with a national rollout of a TfL-style franchising operation is that it will require a national rollout of TfL-style funding. I’m far from convinced there is the political impetus in any of the reasonably-electable parties to commit to that level of long-term funding. I suggest it is even less likely, as the country moves from the initial emergency response to the pandemic and starts to face the accumulated costs. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a properly-funded, well-organised public transport system across the UK, I just don’t think the political pressure is there to deliver this.

The UN Rapporteur picked on deregulation as a “breach of human rights”. I find this disingenuously emotive. As chronicled by many posters in other topics, the decline in the bus industry can be traced back to the late 1950s/early 1960s for various reasons, including policy mistakes by governments of all colours, policy and strategic mistakes made by the bus industry itself, together with shifting cultural expectations. If access to bus services is to be regarded as a human right then repeated breaches have occurred over many years. Personally I think deregulation was a net benefit to the industry, making it having to stand on its own two feet, as it were; certainly the ending of cross-subsidy shone a bright light on routes that were utter basket cases, and only existed by draining more profitable services of cash that could have otherwise been used for re-investment and development.

Remember that in the mid-1980s, people had immediate experience of publicly-owned bus services and it was by no means perfect (I was there!). Especially as cultural and social norms became more car-oriented, encouraged by such planning decisions as building out-of-town shopping centres and business parks, housing developments including at least a driveway, often a single garage, sometimes a double garage to house the company car (a major cultural aspiration that developed during the 1970s) and the spouse’s runabout. Often these housing estates were built with roads not big enough to handle a conventional bus anyway, which led to some of the newly-deregulated, more entrepreneurial bus companies trying out minibuses, with mixed success. Nevertheless, buses were regarded as somewhat infra dig by a vast number of people; at least deregulation gave an opportunity for the more forward-thinking companies to try to innovate and turn around the prevailing public perception.

These days I am not convinced by efforts to bring bus services under closer public/local authority control. I don’t believe such bodies have the pool of experience or expertise to satisfactorily design worthwhile or sustainable services/networks, nor can they afford to employ such people. Aligned with the increased opportunity for political influence/interference, we could all too easily end up with routes that look like Gormenghast to Clochemerle via Twin Peaks! Routes that are of no practical use, but are seen to fulfil some lofty political consideration (or more prosaically, filling a perceived gap on a map somewhere), routes that no commercial operator would touch with a barge pole. Eventually the costs will out, and a hue and cry will ensue, with the associated scapegoat-hunting and backside-covering.

Sorry for the Kerouac-style stream of consciousness, if the above is tl:dr it all boils down to one word -

Funding!!!
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a properly-funded, well-organised public transport system across the UK, I just don’t think the political pressure is there to deliver this.

But then you say that deregulation is good because it enabled operators to cancel loss making services. If adequate funding suddenly became available to make franchising a no-brainer, they could go back to subsidising 'pointless' services. So you would be dissatisfied with a well funded bus service.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
These days I am not convinced by efforts to bring bus services under closer public/local authority control. I don’t believe such bodies have the pool of experience or expertise to satisfactorily design worthwhile or sustainable services/networks, nor can they afford to employ such people. Aligned with the increased opportunity for political influence/interference, we could all too easily end up with routes that look like Gormenghast to Clochemerle via Twin Peaks! Routes that are of no practical use, but are seen to fulfil some lofty political consideration (or more prosaically, filling a perceived gap on a map somewhere), routes that no commercial operator would touch with a barge pole. Eventually the costs will out, and a hue and cry will ensue, with the associated scapegoat-hunting and backside-covering.
The new TrawsCymru service T10 from Bangor to Corwen, particularly the section south-east of Betws-Y-Coed, is a good example of such a route.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
23,001
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
This is going to be a bit of a ramble, so apologies in advance.

The difficulty with a national rollout of a TfL-style franchising operation is that it will require a national rollout of TfL-style funding. I’m far from convinced there is the political impetus in any of the reasonably-electable parties to commit to that level of long-term funding. I suggest it is even less likely, as the country moves from the initial emergency response to the pandemic and starts to face the accumulated costs. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a properly-funded, well-organised public transport system across the UK, I just don’t think the political pressure is there to deliver this.

The UN Rapporteur picked on deregulation as a “breach of human rights”. I find this disingenuously emotive. As chronicled by many posters in other topics, the decline in the bus industry can be traced back to the late 1950s/early 1960s for various reasons, including policy mistakes by governments of all colours, policy and strategic mistakes made by the bus industry itself, together with shifting cultural expectations. If access to bus services is to be regarded as a human right then repeated breaches have occurred over many years. Personally I think deregulation was a net benefit to the industry, making it having to stand on its own two feet, as it were; certainly the ending of cross-subsidy shone a bright light on routes that were utter basket cases, and only existed by draining more profitable services of cash that could have otherwise been used for re-investment and development.

Remember that in the mid-1980s, people had immediate experience of publicly-owned bus services and it was by no means perfect (I was there!). Especially as cultural and social norms became more car-oriented, encouraged by such planning decisions as building out-of-town shopping centres and business parks, housing developments including at least a driveway, often a single garage, sometimes a double garage to house the company car (a major cultural aspiration that developed during the 1970s) and the spouse’s runabout. Often these housing estates were built with roads not big enough to handle a conventional bus anyway, which led to some of the newly-deregulated, more entrepreneurial bus companies trying out minibuses, with mixed success. Nevertheless, buses were regarded as somewhat infra dig by a vast number of people; at least deregulation gave an opportunity for the more forward-thinking companies to try to innovate and turn around the prevailing public perception.

These days I am not convinced by efforts to bring bus services under closer public/local authority control. I don’t believe such bodies have the pool of experience or expertise to satisfactorily design worthwhile or sustainable services/networks, nor can they afford to employ such people. Aligned with the increased opportunity for political influence/interference, we could all too easily end up with routes that look like Gormenghast to Clochemerle via Twin Peaks! Routes that are of no practical use, but are seen to fulfil some lofty political consideration (or more prosaically, filling a perceived gap on a map somewhere), routes that no commercial operator would touch with a barge pole. Eventually the costs will out, and a hue and cry will ensue, with the associated scapegoat-hunting and backside-covering.

Sorry for the Kerouac-style stream of consciousness, if the above is tl:dr it all boils down to one word -

Funding!!!
Absolutely on the money.

The idea that things were better in the past is manifestly untrue. Any idea that you can have European (or even TfL) style provision without the funding is akin to discovering alchemy.

And if the political will (and public support) for the type of measures to level things up (car usage less attractive, funding for public transport) is there, I'm yet to see it.

But then you say that deregulation is good because it enabled operators to cancel loss making services. If adequate funding suddenly became available to make franchising a no-brainer, they could go back to subsidising 'pointless' services. So you would be dissatisfied with a well funded bus service.

That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what he said. He said that deregulation shone a light on the ridiculousness of cross subsidy exposing those basket cases that were a millstone around the necks of operators, depriving them of the funds to develop other services.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
But then you say that deregulation is good because it enabled operators to cancel loss making services. If adequate funding suddenly became available to make franchising a no-brainer, they could go back to subsidising 'pointless' services. So you would be dissatisfied with a well funded bus service.
Why would franchising necessarily lead to subsidising ‘pointless’ services? A well-organised, well-planned network of services shouldn’t need pointless services.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
Why would franchising necessarily lead to subsidising ‘pointless’ services? A well-organised, well-planned network of services shouldn’t need pointless services.

You would hope not, but without deregulation you can't stop them from running them. I'm sure some people here complain that TfL is running unnecessary services, or services too frequently at certain times, or generally wasting money in ways an entirely commercially operated service wouldn't. For me, that risk is worth taking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

And if the political will (and public support) for the type of measures to level things up (car usage less attractive, funding for public transport) is there, I'm yet to see it.

I'm not convinced that the average member of the public would be so bothered about spending money on buses given the amount needed is barely rounding error in the overall national budget. After all, the increase in rail spending happened without controversy. It only becomes an issue if rival politicians highlight the high spending. Otherwise they wouldn't even know.
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
You would hope not, but without deregulation you can't stop them from running them. I'm sure some people here complain that TfL is running unnecessary services, or services too frequently at certain times, or generally wasting money in ways an entirely commercially operated service wouldn't. For me, that risk is worth taking.
No it isn't. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. Local authorities like Stoke-on-Trent and Cumbria have a more appropriate approach to subsidising bus services than politically directed transport executives who fritter away money on underused services. Examples include:
  • TfGM's subsidy for evening/Sunday operations on local Altrincham routes 280-287
  • Parts of TfW's TrawsCymru network, such as TrawsCymru route T10 (see my previous post 108 in this thread).
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
No it isn't. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. Local authorities like Stoke-on-Trent and Cumbria have a more appropriate approach to subsidising bus services than politically directed transport executives who fritter away money on underused services. Examples include:
  • TfGM's subsidy for evening/Sunday operations on local Altrincham routes 280-287
  • Parts of TfW's TrawsCymru network, such as TrawsCymru route T10 (see my previous post 108 in this thread).

My point proved. So unless @Kremlin Stooge disagrees with this point, he can't have what he wants.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,460
I'm not convinced that the average member of the public would be so bothered about spending money on buses given the amount needed is barely rounding error in the overall national budget. After all, the increase in rail spending happened without controversy. It only becomes an issue if rival politicians highlight the high spending. Otherwise they wouldn't even know.
So are you suggesting that rival politicians would connive to keep quiet about increased spending on bus services? I don't think so. There is little political will, or public support, for the sort of funding TfL type services across the UK would require.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,723
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
No it isn't. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. Local authorities like Stoke-on-Trent and Cumbria have a more appropriate approach to subsidising bus services than politically directed transport executives who fritter away money on underused services. Examples include:
  • TfGM's subsidy for evening/Sunday operations on local Altrincham routes 280-287
  • Parts of TfW's TrawsCymru network, such as TrawsCymru route T10 (see my previous post 108 in this thread).

So, given that the UK is one of the few Western countries that operates in that manner, why are we right and most other countries wrong? British exceptionalism is a thing I suppose, but it is usually wrong.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
My point proved. So unless @Kremlin Stooge disagrees with this point, he can't have what he wants.
It is not entirely clear to me what your point actually is. It is not really a question of what I may or may not want, it is a question of what the wider electorate wants, is prepared to fund and prepared to vote for.
... the political will (and public support) for the type of measures to level things up (car usage less attractive, funding for public transport) is there, I'm yet to see it.
Agreed, away from the rather closeted world of this forum, I’m not seeing it either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

So, given that the UK is one of the few Western countries that operates in that manner, why are we right and most other countries wrong? British exceptionalism is a thing I suppose, but it is usually wrong.
I’m not sure it’s ‘British exceptionalism’ as such. More that the long and deep decline of bus services over more than ½ a century has led to them dropping off most peoples radar completely, so policies and practices carried out within the industry barely register a flicker on the wider electoral consciousness.
 
Last edited:

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
It is not entirely clear to me what your point actually is. It is not really a question of what I may or may not want, it is a question of what the wider electorate wants, is prepared to fund and prepared to vote for.

You will inevitably end with cross-subsidy in a well funded franchised network, which you complained about earlier.

People wouldn't vote either for or against it. It is a non-issue.

So are you suggesting that rival politicians would connive to keep quiet about increased spending on bus services? I don't think so. There is little political will, or public support, for the sort of funding TfL type services across the UK would require.

Are rival politicians trying to introduce deregulation in London? No. Even the Tories are actively promoting the TfL model as a good model for running buses. It isn't such a big issue that politicians would get wound up.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,723
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I’m not sure it’s ‘British exceptionalism’ as such. More that the long and deep decline of bus services over more than ½ a century has led to them dropping off most peoples radar completely, so policies and practices carried out within the industry barely register a flicker on the wider electoral consciousness.

I was referring more to @daodao and their very strong view of it being a waste of money. Most other developed countries do not consider it such, not even the ultra-capitalist USA.
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
You will inevitably end with cross-subsidy in a well funded franchised network, which you complained about earlier.

People wouldn't vote either for or against it. It is a non-issue.



Are rival politicians trying to introduce deregulation in London? No. Even the Tories are actively promoting the TfL model as a good model for running buses. It isn't such a big issue that politicians would get wound up.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree, I don’t see it as inevitable that a well-planned, well-organised, well-funded (and indeed well-supervised, from an accounting perspective) franchise network would end in cross-subsidy.

Highlighting a fact is not a complaint. There were basket cases that had a light shone on them, heck, even the NBC was discovering this as it rolled out its Market Analysis Project.

The Tories can actively promote the TfL model all they like. Unless they promote the funding in parallel it won’t work.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,442
Location
London
Well, we will have to agree to disagree, I don’t see it as inevitable that a well-planned, well-organised, well-funded (and indeed well-supervised, from an accounting perspective) franchise network would end in cross-subsidy.

Does cross-subsidy exist in the TfL network? (If it does, you can easily just say that it isn't well planned) Can you show me a network outside the UK that has no cross-subsidy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top