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!
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.
The USA does subsidise local public transport, but only to a limited extent outside the major conurbations.
For curiosity, I recently looked up transit provision in Sheboygan, Wisconsin - a small city with a population of about 50k on the shore of Lake Michigan. The place came to my attention as the (unlikely) birthplace of the late Jackie Mason and close to the venue (Whistling Straits) for the forthcoming Ryder Cup in late September 2021.
Sheboygan no longer has any passenger rail services - the former electric interurban railroad to Milwaukee (the nearest major city) closed many years ago. The airport has no scheduled services. There are just 2 interurban buses per day to Milwaukee, 1 each by 2 different operators (Jefferson Lines and Indian Trails). Local public transit is provided by Shoreline Metro, mainly on 4 cross-town urban routes radiating from a central transit hub (bus station) that operate Mon-Fri every 30 minutes during the daytime, and hourly Mon-Fri evenings up to 8.45 pm and Saturdays 8:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. Limited demand responsive shuttle services are provided for restricted hours just before the start of regular services and just after they cease.
The interurban public transport connections are very poor by UK standards, but the local bus service is similar to that in Macclesfield, which has a similar population.
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?
Seems to me that we are drifting away from the thread topic of the UN looking at deregulation as a breach of human rights. I’m sure a separate thread discussing cross-subsidy would be a lively place, if you care to start one.
Seems to me that we are drifting away from the thread topic of the UN looking at deregulation as a breach of human rights. I’m sure a separate thread discussing cross-subsidy would be a lively place, if you care to start one.
I don't get why cross-subsidy is considered that undesirable. There's plenty of it on the railway. It will exist to some extent even in commercial networks in the sense that you'll get the odd journey that on its own would be unremunerative, but you don't generally miss those journeys out, you stick with operating a clockface timetable because that in itself has value.
True, and the effect of that is that bus services are actually de-facto regulated in rural areas, except where a through inter-urban route happens to provide a service because it goes that way anyway, because nobody will operate them commercially so they are only operated under tender where the local authority decides it wants them.
I don't get why cross-subsidy is considered that undesirable. There's plenty of it on the railway. It will exist to some extent even in commercial networks in the sense that you'll get the odd journey that on its own would be unremunerative, but you don't generally miss those journeys out, you stick with operating a clockface timetable because that in itself has value.
I think it is because of the way cross-subsidy manifested itself in some areas prior to 1986 - well used urban services (mainly serving the poorer sections of the community) were often cash cows with relatively infrequent services and high fares; cross subsidising a large network of rural services (by then mainly serving more affluent residents) with better frequencies than were really justified by use.
Deregulation did generally put this situation right (in my town the number of buses in use has remained fairly constant, but the movement from rural to town service has been quite marked. Of course development has been an influence too!), but had several other less than desirable side effects.
A bigger problem has been the destruction of the utility of bus services - both network and operating day/week - a process that started from the early 1960s and gained momentum through the 70s and 80s, exacerbated by Deregulation in 1986. I am unsure whether this damage can ever be put right; certainly not without the application of large sums of money and acceptance of the running of much empty or near empty mileage for many years to come.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
True, and the effect of that is that bus services are actually de-facto regulated in rural areas, except where a through inter-urban route happens to provide a service because it goes that way anyway, because nobody will operate them commercially so they are only operated under tender where the local authority decides it wants them.
They are de-facto regulated in most rural areas, but that is a pyrrhic victory as the local authority generally only has enough funds to provide the most threadbare service possible.
They are de-facto regulated in most rural areas, but that is a pyrrhic victory as the local authority generally only has enough funds to provide the most threadbare service possible.
Indeed. I wouldn't consider it a victory (even though I am pro-regulation), just an interesting side effect of it being unremunerative to operate commercially so nobody will even though they technically could.
What is interesting about that is that you rarely get "network benefits" (e.g. through ticketing and coordinated timetables) in such areas even though you could because the tendering authority could specify them but typically don't bother.
If you mean a profitable day time service subsidising the less profitable evening service i.e. a single route over a day, then that's one thing and I suspect probably happens more than you think.
However when you go beyond that it's less clear cut - if you looked back to the 1970s or 80s, then companies like London Country were in effect using the profits on the viable town routes to maintain some highish frequencies on rural routes - the problem with that is twofold, firstly those rural routes even with that support weren't viable so you had empty or lightly used buses running around which could have been put to better use elsewhere. Secondly, when they had (as they often did) driver shortages, they still needed to cover most things - so the regular town services were the ones which got hit with cancellations (using the argument the next one will be along in 'x' minutes) - but that's no good if people are relying on that service to get to work, school or wherever on time.
So whilst I don't have a problem with an operator running a couple of evening journeys using the profits from that daytime service to allow that, when it comes to what is really a cross subsidy then I don't agree with it - the example I've used previously was a supermarket where a branch which is inherently unprofitable should be closed as otherwise it is drain on the whole chain. IIRC you came up with the 'well Tesco keep their store open until 10pm and could close it at 8pm' claiming that was a 'cross subsidy' - which it isn't.
If you mean a profitable day time service subsidising the less profitable evening service i.e. a single route over a day, then that's one thing and I suspect probably happens more than you think.
However when you go beyond that it's less clear cut - if you looked back to the 1970s or 80s, then companies like London Country were in effect using the profits on the viable town routes to maintain some highish frequencies on rural routes - the problem with that is twofold, firstly those rural routes even with that support weren't viable so you had empty or lightly used buses running around which could have been put to better use elsewhere. Secondly, when they had (as they often did) driver shortages, they still needed to cover most things - so the regular town services were the ones which got hit with cancellations (using the argument the next one will be along in 'x' minutes) - but that's no good if people are relying on that service to get to work, school or wherever on time.
So whilst I don't have a problem with an operator running a couple of evening journeys using the profits from that daytime service to allow that, when it comes to what is really a cross subsidy then I don't agree with it - the example I've used previously was a supermarket where a branch which is inherently unprofitable should be closed as otherwise it is drain on the whole chain. IIRC you came up with the 'well Tesco keep their store open until 10pm and could close it at 8pm' claiming that was a 'cross subsidy' - which it isn't.
I would say both of those things are cross-subsidy, be that between unprofitable journeys or between unprofitable routes. Your argument that one of those is desirable and the other not is perfectly valid, though I prefer thinking of the whole thing as one co-ordinated network which allows for either to some extent.
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
Also, ask an average person on the street and ask what they think should be funded and public transport almost never gets a mention. Health, housing, education and the economy are almost always the most important ongoing issues (excl. covid and Brexit).
If you mean a profitable day time service subsidising the less profitable evening service i.e. a single route over a day, then that's one thing and I suspect probably happens more than you think.
However when you go beyond that it's less clear cut - if you looked back to the 1970s or 80s, then companies like London Country were in effect using the profits on the viable town routes to maintain some highish frequencies on rural routes - the problem with that is twofold, firstly those rural routes even with that support weren't viable so you had empty or lightly used buses running around which could have been put to better use elsewhere. Secondly, when they had (as they often did) driver shortages, they still needed to cover most things - so the regular town services were the ones which got hit with cancellations (using the argument the next one will be along in 'x' minutes) - but that's no good if people are relying on that service to get to work, school or wherever on time.
So whilst I don't have a problem with an operator running a couple of evening journeys using the profits from that daytime service to allow that, when it comes to what is really a cross subsidy then I don't agree with it - the example I've used previously was a supermarket where a branch which is inherently unprofitable should be closed as otherwise it is drain on the whole chain. IIRC you came up with the 'well Tesco keep their store open until 10pm and could close it at 8pm' claiming that was a 'cross subsidy' - which it isn't.
This and @RT4038 is exactly why cross-subsidy was and is undesirable. You had plenty of examples where you had businesses that following the 1930 Transport Act (and increasing social and leisure mobility increasing bus travel) that could cheerfully cross-subsidise routes. However, when that declined, you had businesses that were weighed down by the burden of a sprawling mass of unremunerative services.
Lots of firms DO run occasional journeys at a marginal cost and they may not pay for themselves. The 1800 and 1900 departures barely washing their face but worth it to maintain the overall financial wellbeing of the service. That doesn't extend to journeys through the evening until 2300 though. Similarly, there's an element that by dint of new vehicle investment and subsequent cascading, that good routes subsidise vehicle replacement policies.
However, the principle is well established that if you begin to siphon off money and treat the good routes as cash cows, then eventually you starve the good routes of the investment that they need. Funding, proper funding not just some showy eye-catching press releases and photo ops, is what is needed, not propping up basket cases by nobbling the good routes.
I might add that given some of what we've seen with TrawsCymru and Cornwall, I have reservations about how much I'd trust some of our local authorities with such funding. This builds on the experience of Rural Bus Challenge where some local authorities took leave of their senses.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would say both of those things are cross-subsidy, be that between unprofitable journeys or between unprofitable routes. Your argument that one of those is desirable and the other not is perfectly valid, though I prefer thinking of the whole thing as one co-ordinated network which allows for either to some extent.
Also, ask an average person on the street and ask what they think should be funded and public transport almost never gets a mention. Health, housing, education and the economy are almost always the most important ongoing issues (excl. covid and Brexit).
That's the point. Should a politician make a policy decision regarding transport, whether that is the unprecedented rail investment over the last 20 years, franchising in Manchester or the current government's policy to end deregulation as we know it, there is little or no backlash because transport is low down the list of priorities.
I might add that given some of what we've seen with TrawsCymru and Cornwall, I have reservations about how much I'd trust some of our local authorities with such funding. This builds on the experience of Rural Bus Challenge where some local authorities took leave of their senses.
This is basically the point I made earlier. He said he wants well funded and well planned franchising but, fortunately for the argument, cross-subsidy and general incompetence would be inevitable in Britain (although for some reason not in other countries) so we 'unfortunately' have to put up with deregulation as a necessary evil.
That's the point. Should a politician make a policy decision regarding transport, whether that is the unprecedented rail investment over the last 20 years, franchising in Manchester or the current government's policy to end deregulation as we know it, there is little or no backlash because transport is low down the list of priorities.
When you have limited money to spend, do you spend it on something emotive like the NHS, the Police, welfare, education or public transport.
The fact was that great play was made about the triple lock for pensions, or ring-fencing the funding for the NHS, and not increasing fuel duty. Meanwhile, at the same time they were busy cutting the BSOG and funding for local authorities for whom public transport was a non-statutory responsibility. As I said, did austerity not tell you what you need to know about politicians.
Yep, they have. And this was referring to Sunday services. Monday to Saturday, it gets even better with, for example, buses every 30 mins to Crawley, Gatwick, every 15 minutes on town services 68 and 98, every hour on other town routes (could have later journeys up to 21:00 or 22:00 imo) and hourly bus services to other nearby destinations like Brighton, Worthing and Guildford.
So in general, UK buses are great, but could be made even better as stated in my previous posts on this thread.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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: ==
I presume the service he likes is mostly run commercially, or maybe with subsidy from the airport.
This is basically the point I made earlier. He said he wants well funded and well planned franchising but, fortunately for the argument, cross-subsidy and general incompetence would be inevitable in Britain (although for some reason not in other countries) so we 'unfortunately' have to put up with deregulation as a necessary evil.
I think there might be some confusion about definitions here. The cross-subsidy I wrote about, as well as the examples highlighted by others, is subsidy from company-generated revenues. As we have seen, that way leads to financial anaemia. Subsidy from external sources (the eff-word again, funding) definitely has a role to play, especially if targeted to a loss-making route that otherwise contributes to a wider network effect.
I would say both of those things are cross-subsidy, be that between unprofitable journeys or between unprofitable routes. Your argument that one of those is desirable and the other not is perfectly valid, though I prefer thinking of the whole thing as one co-ordinated network which allows for either to some extent.
There is, even now, an element of cross subsidisation (your 'to some extent'). Bus companies do operate loss making journeys to maintain clock face timetables or longer operating days etc. , often to make the core service more profitable overall. They may even operate entire loss making routes, most likely to prevent another operator from gaining a competitive foothold in their immediate area or on a paralleling commercial route. The big Groups even cross subsidise between companies, e.g. putting new buses with the largest depreciation into the most profitable companies and cascading the cheaper older vehicles to the least profitable.
But this can only be done to the extent that the good routes are still served well enough not to be exposed to competitive attack. This fear of competition prevents the excesses of 'cash cows'. Yes it is not perfect, but it is probably the best way available. Cash cows are a form of taxation of the bus passengers on good routes (higher fares and/or worse service) to pay for loss making services (Usually by the poorer for the more affluent), which should be being funded by society in general. Such was an ethos of deregulation - only trouble was that society in general didn't want to pay.
There is, even now, an element of cross subsidisation (your 'to some extent'). Bus companies do operate loss making journeys to maintain clock face timetables or longer operating days etc. , often to make the core service more profitable overall. They may even operate entire loss making routes, most likely to prevent another operator from gaining a competitive foothold in their immediate area or on a paralleling commercial route. The big Groups even cross subsidise between companies, e.g. putting new buses with the largest depreciation into the most profitable companies and cascading the cheaper older vehicles to the least profitable.
But this can only be done to the extent that the good routes are still served well enough not to be exposed to competitive attack. This fear of competition prevents the excesses of 'cash cows'. Yes it is not perfect, but it is probably the best way available. Cash cows are a form of taxation of the bus passengers on good routes (higher fares and/or worse service) to pay for loss making services (Usually by the poorer for the more affluent), which should be being funded by society in general. Such was an ethos of deregulation - only trouble was that society in general didn't want to pay.
I would contend that using the profits of a daytime service to sustain the evening service isn't a cross subsidy. That's about looking at a route in its entirety and deciding what the 'offer' should be (frequency, how many hours it operates etc) and ensuring overall it is profitable. It doesn't, to use your example, cross subsidise from the poor to the rich, because the service is the same one serving the same people. And that, to me is how any business runs.
It's when you start saying 'town route 'x'' makes money which can be used to ensure 'rural route 'y'' is run that I don't agree - and if there is a genuine social need for 'rural route 'y'' then a clear subsidy from taxation should be the way to provide the route, or the route doesn't exist.
A bigger problem has been the destruction of the utility of bus services - both network and operating day/week - a process that started from the early 1960s and gained momentum through the 70s and 80s, exacerbated by Deregulation in 1986. I am unsure whether this damage can ever be put right; certainly not without the application of large sums of money and acceptance of the running of much empty or near empty mileage for many years to come.
Agreed, I am not at all sure the damage can be repaired easily. One aspect is the reversing of post-war general planning policies that had the effect of developing an increasingly car-centric society, particularly from the 1960s onwards.
Agreed, I am not at all sure the damage can be repaired easily. One aspect is the reversing of post-war general planning policies that had the effect of developing an increasingly car-centric society, particularly from the 1960s onwards.
However practically everywhere in the Western world was back then becoming car centric (or attempting to do so). They even thought that public transport would be a thing of the past back then!
But most Western countries, starting from the 80s or so, then returned to investment on public transport.
Agreed, I am not at all sure the damage can be repaired easily. One aspect is the reversing of post-war general planning policies that had the effect of developing an increasingly car-centric society, particularly from the 1960s onwards.
If you think that somehow trying to kill off the private car and force people onto public transport will lead to the change you desire, I suspect you may be misguided.
It won't lead to regeneration of the high streets - that ship has well and truly sailed now - and the growth of the internet really is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the traditional high street. You can't force people to suddenly start commuting by bus or train when it then extends their journey or makes it inconvenient - and working from home is giving the rail industry a huge challenge that I don't think it's worked out the ramifications of yet.
Most of the post war planning wasn't 'anti public' transport at all - the new towns being a case in point where the bus network was integral to them, but society changed and buses weren't flexible enough to handle that change.
I would contend that using the profits of a daytime service to sustain the evening service isn't a cross subsidy. That's about looking at a route in its entirety and deciding what the 'offer' should be (frequency, how many hours it operates etc) and ensuring overall it is profitable. It doesn't, to use your example, cross subsidise from the poor to the rich, because the service is the same one serving the same people. And that, to me is how any business runs.
Yes, that’s optimising the product for the market, and I don’t see cross-subsidy there either. The revenue generated by the route stays within the route.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you think that somehow trying to kill off the private car and force people onto public transport will lead to the change you desire, I suspect you may be misguided.
It won't lead to regeneration of the high streets - that ship has well and truly sailed now - and the growth of the internet really is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the traditional high street. You can't force people to suddenly start commuting by bus or train when it then extends their journey or makes it inconvenient - and working from home is giving the rail industry a huge challenge that I don't think it's worked out the ramifications of yet.
Most of the post war planning wasn't 'anti public' transport at all - the new towns being a case in point where the bus network was integral to them, but society changed and buses weren't flexible enough to handle that change.
I am most certainly not wishing for it! Or desiring it, I just brought the topic up as an example of the huge hurdles faced when considering the difficulties faced by attempts to reverse the decline of the bus industry.
It won't lead to regeneration of the high streets - that ship has well and truly sailed now - and the growth of the internet really is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the traditional high street.
Of shops, yes. But high streets have a potential new role - as places to meet people, to eat, drink and enjoy yourself, and potentially even to live. And could maybe form business centres for small businesses and co-working facilities.
Get that right and there will once again be a transport demand to get there.
I think there might be some confusion about definitions here. The cross-subsidy I wrote about, as well as the examples highlighted by others, is subsidy from company-generated revenues. As we have seen, that way leads to financial anaemia. Subsidy from external sources (the eff-word again, funding) definitely has a role to play, especially if targeted to a loss-making route that otherwise contributes to a wider network effect.
For clarity, does TfL employ cross-subsidy, in the way you define it? If so, is there any operation other than British deregulation that doesn't use it?
I’ve no idea, I have no access to the internal financial models used by TfL or its contractors. If there is a large amount of cross-subsidy going on then that suggests to me that London’s bus finances are even more precarious, when the £700 million we already know about is added in.
If so, is there any operation other than British deregulation that doesn't use it?
I would contend that using the profits of a daytime service to sustain the evening service isn't a cross subsidy. That's about looking at a route in its entirety and deciding what the 'offer' should be (frequency, how many hours it operates etc) and ensuring overall it is profitable. It doesn't, to use your example, cross subsidise from the poor to the rich, because the service is the same one serving the same people. And that, to me is how any business runs.
It's when you start saying 'town route 'x'' makes money which can be used to ensure 'rural route 'y'' is run that I don't agree - and if there is a genuine social need for 'rural route 'y'' then a clear subsidy from taxation should be the way to provide the route, or the route doesn't exist.
If I run the route 07h00-19h00 only I make 20%. If I run 06h00-23h00 I make 12%. Sorry, but I believe that is cross subsidy. It may make business sense for all sort of reasons, but it doesn't alter the fact that my daytime business is cross subsidising my early morning and evening. I accept that I may not still get 20% if I only run 07h00-19h00, but I may get 15%? My risk to take.
Equally my route may run A-B-C. A-B may be fantastically profitable, and B-C lightly loaded. Cross subsidy within a route there too.
Is there an big city transport network in a highly developed country in Europe (outside Britain), North America or Oceania that doesn't use cross subsidy?
Is there an big city transport network in a highly developed country in Europe (outside Britain), North America or Oceania that doesn't use cross subsidy?
I expect there are quite a lot. If none of your routes are profitable (which in many big city transport networks they won't be, due to a combination of high costs and low fares) there is nothing to distribute between them.
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?
I’ve no idea, I have no access to the internal financial models used by TfL or its contractors. If there is a large amount of cross-subsidy going on then that suggests to me that London’s bus finances are even more precarious, when the £700 million we already know about is added in.
TfL does employ cross-subsidy in that profits from the Underground were used to support buses. Which means less money to invest in the Underground and so capital spending has been cut. Now TfL could've already invested in those capital projects but that money was being employed elsewhere.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I expect there are quite a lot. If none of your routes are profitable (which in many big city transport networks they won't be, due to a combination of high costs and low fares) there is nothing to distribute between them.
I think you're probably right in that in a number of places, fares are kept so low and farebox revenue doesn't cover costs on any element and so central subsidy is so employed
Of shops, yes. But high streets have a potential new role - as places to meet people, to eat, drink and enjoy yourself, and potentially even to live. And could maybe form business centres for small businesses and co-working facilities.
Get that right and there will once again be a transport demand to get there.
I don't buy this - if you're going out to eat or socialise, especially if you're drinking, then you'll plan on getting a taxi, especially if there's a group of you. People don't want to be beholden to timetables nor do they necessarily want to share a bus with others, especially at night. A taxi / uber will be far quicker and take you straight home.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
