Cuts to bus services in 011

[starrymarkb]

http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/news/Newsreleases/Pages/pr2613.aspx

Northamptonshire are withdrawing all subsidy from their bus network.

 

[WatcherZero]

http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/news/Newsreleases/Pages/pr2613.aspx

Northamptonshire are withdrawing all subsidy from their bus network.

Shocking subsidy figures (a responsible council would be quarterly reviewing passenger numbers and services). However £1.4m is a tiny amount of subsidy for 600,000 people. I guess theirs not a lot of bus users/routes or conversley most routes are profitable.

 

[anthony263]

Found this news article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12349621

 

[RalphA]

Re 142094 26 january.
Why should unprofitable routes be kept going by the bus operators? What this really means is that unprofitable routes are subsidised by other BUS passengers, which means higher fares for them. If a subsidy is made, it should be made by all taxpayers, particuarily highly paid ones who normally do not use public transport.

Ralph

 

[BestWestern]

It has to be said (as a former driver) that the free concessionary fares system is part of the issue here. When this was introduced, many bus operators pointed out the inevitable likelyhood that a significant number of pass holders would end up using it as a leisure facility, rather than simply for their essential travel needs as most did when a fare (albeit reduced) of some degree was payable. This was ignored, with the reimbursement figures set accordingly, but has proven in many areas to be very much the case, understandably. So local authorities now have to subsidise not only the pass holders travelling on the buses in general, but also the service itself (or parts of) on some lesser used routes. There is only so much money available, and a return to the previous systems based on half fares etc would free up a considerable amount of funding which could potentially be reinvested in service subsidy. The problem, of course, is that once a measure like concessionary fares has been made available, it would take a suicidal Government to have the balls to take it away again. When you consider the raft of mass cuts taking place all over the country, the idea that OAP's travelling for free on the buses is a list-topping priority is simply ridiculous.

 

[trentside]

Couldn't agree more BestWestern.

Here in Lincolnshire, the local authority for some reason insists that free travel is available at all times. This often results in OAPs using peak-time commuter services to go into town. Most of these buses arrive well before the shops open, but they are still full of pensioners, which adds insult to injury for everyone else who is subsidising their travel with ever increasing fares and worrying about whether the service will be there in the next few months.

The ultimate irony is the service withdrawn due to lack of subsidy and fare paying passengers. It's all well having a free bus pass, but if there's no service to use it on...

 

[shinkansen1966]

for everyone else who is subsidising their travel with ever increasing fares and worrying about whether the service will be there in the next few months.

Fare paying passengers are not subsidising OAP free travel. It's taxpayers who are subsidising private bus companies to convey OAPs.

As I've discussed elsewhere, we've landed ourselves a disfunctional and disogranised bus service in this country (outside Northern Ireland and London). A service run by the private sector and substantially funded by the public sector lacking financial management. Result, councils' only option is to cut bus services in the months ahead.

Most politicians haven't got the gumption, foresight or widsom to raise the debate over the crackpot funding methods of bus services in England (outside London), Scotland and Wales.

The sooner we get back to the funding and operational methods prior to 1985, the better.

 

[142094]

The sooner we get back to the funding and operational methods prior to 1985, the better.

Wise words. However I very much doubt it will happen anytime soon.

 

[Blindtraveler]

ok heres my take. As a disabled person, I have a Scottish pass allowing free bus travel anywhere between the border and the remotest bus terminus in the northern isles, including citylink and subject to availabilitty nat x coaches. Its great and I love it. There are however times when I feel guilty, especially as I am in the minoritty that work. Perhaps the system should be means tested, or a half fare payable when using busy commuter busses? dont think many I know would agree. to go back to an earlier point, I live in Edinburgh one of the few places with publicly owned main bus services. We do moan about the service and its problems but the fact they've wone awards and been fully low floor since 09 does mean that by and Large, Lothian Busses is a success. my fear is that not only wil quieter or more pass holder used services be cut as has happened in some cases but also as the farce that is Edinburgh trams becomes more and more cash hungry, both at construction and on opening, we will see more cuts as money is diverted to prop up a tourist attraction which nobody here wanted and wil run emty for 11 out of 12 months. Result, already overcrouded and slow key routs slashed, more cars on overcapasitty roads. My personal 'if I was in charge for a day' solution? Sell the tramcars to manchester, London, Blackpool, west mids or anywhere else crying out for them and write the scheme off as a politically unpopular but population satisfying failure!

 

[Ivo]

I can think of only one route that I have ever known to be subsidised, and then revised to run on a fully commercial basis: Regal Busways 1, Chelmsford to Canvey Island. It was started under Kickstart and after its withdrawal was the only route in Essex (to the best of my knowledge) to survive without it. Every other route I have known (I think) has gone under almost immediately.

Thinking about home, Southend Borough withdrew all funding about six years ago, and the only route to serve was the semi-commercial 69 (even it was dropped soon after though). The sad thing here though is that a few years earlier, they had changed from Arriva to First (apart from route 6) and First ran them into the ground and basically fed off the subsidy. Under the former administration (I think they had been Thamesway [now First] before that!), the 17 usually filled a Dennis Lance pretty much to capacity, whilst the 6 tended to use Mercs - and one Volvo Olympian [and also one Dennis Trident on an evening journey, which shouldn't really count]. In other words, the council money was wasted. Apparently they were providing £6 per customer journey on routes that under Arriva were carrying 20+ passengers per service...

Anyway, Arriva have since brought back the 6, but only "kind-of". Its peak hour variation to Leigh-on-Sea station, the 6A, was never subsidised and continues to this day, regularly taking in £200 for the more profitable evening shift [it's uphill]. It has gained a Tuesday equivalent, running the western section of the 6 during the day on an improved half-fourly frequency. Further east, a new 17 - awkwardly! - has begun on Thursdays, running between the hospital and the town centre (and beyond the hospital to Tesco). But there is a problem with these two. Arriva will tell you that they run to provide service. In practice, they *know* that the demand is there, and they saturate the market by jamming all these unaware senior citizens onto this weekly service (there is also a Friday route, 18, a Wednesday route, the Essex CC 10, and formerly a Monday route, 33) using just the one vehicle that runs the peak 6A. In other words... profiteering.

Last note: For an example of how a bus company should be run, go to www.buses.co.uk (how they got such a domain name is beyond me!).

 

[Deerfold]

Last note: For an example of how a bus company should be run, go to www.buses.co.uk (how they got such a domain name is beyond me!).

They got in very early - I'm surprised Govia didn't usurp it for all their operations when they bought them.

 

[Statto]

Fare paying passengers are not subsidising OAP free travel. It's taxpayers who are subsidising private bus companies to convey OAPs.

As I've discussed elsewhere, we've landed ourselves a disfunctional and disogranised bus service in this country (outside Northern Ireland and London). A service run by the private sector and substantially funded by the public sector lacking financial management. Result, councils' only option is to cut bus services in the months ahead.

Most politicians haven't got the gumption, foresight or widsom to raise the debate over the crackpot funding methods of bus services in England (outside London), Scotland and Wales.

The sooner we get back to the funding and operational methods prior to 1985, the better.

I agree, although it'd cost too much to renationalise the bus companies, i prefer London style regulation. In Scotland the SNP had London style bus regulation as policy until Brian Scouter made a donation to the SNP, & the SNP changed the policy.

 

[ivanhoe]

Whilst I would like to kick the 1985 legislation into touch, it didn't happen when Labour were in power for 13 years and this Government won't budge so we are stuck with trying to make the commercial system work. I Would love the London system to be implemented but it isn't going to happen. This Government has decided that most of it's transport investment is going into the railways with their tax free diesel as opposed to the larger costs that Bus Operators have to pay. I'm afraid that like the Labour years, the general opinion is that Buses are for losers. It really sticks in my teeth that comment but I honestly think is that is how they think. Speak to Car Owners and get their views. You'd be surprised on how much they have in common with that comment. They usually don't care for trains either! As for the concessionery scheme, do away with it and watch a large number of routes being culled. Bus Operators may not like the return but they are getting something for lightly loaded routes. We have to improve the current system , not go backwards to the not so good days of NBC.

 

[jon0844]

Everyone seems to think buses are for losers. To be honest, while I try to use the train in preference to driving when it's possible to do so, I won't get a bus unless I have to.

For me the bus is to get to/from the station to save me driving and paying to park. And in two weeks, I may not even be able to do that.

In London, it's different. I think more people accept them there, and they are run more regularly and at the times you want/need. The bus is often better than trying to use the tube for short distances (but longer than you'd want to walk), if you know the time to get to the platform, the fact that many trains will be crowded (so you'll be waiting to let one or two go through) and coming out at the other end.

I suspect while someone living in London may use buses, those who live outside (who have the experience of buses outside of London) will be the ones who slag them off the most.

 

[Zoe]

The London system while much better than the free for all that we see outside of London still involves private companies getting paid to run the service. When you have a private company involved not only do you have to pay for the costs of running the service but also for the shareholders of the company. If transport was run as a public service then shareholders would not be taken into account.

As for New Labour not doing anything for 13 years well if they had been a genuine socialist party they would have done, instead we got Tory Lite government for 13 years.

 

[jon0844]

When did it become bad for a company to make money? Aren't shareholders people like you and me, and aren't profits used to boost pension funds and so on?

 

[Greenback]

It's not abad thing to make money, nor is it abad thing tow ant to make money!

However, in terms of buses, it's a fact that some companies will ignore a profitable route to go head to head with another company on a diferent route, because they believe can get marginally more % return on the buses used.

 

[jon0844]

That's why the London system seems to work well. In fact, outside of London a council should be able to do like the railway and establish the routes, the timetables and THEN invite tenders to run them. In some cases they sort of do, with the routes that they subsidise - but perhaps they should manage ALL routes.

A private company might be capable of running routes, but shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose (i.e. cherry pick) routes.

 

[Deerfold]

That's why the London system seems to work well. In fact, outside of London a council should be able to do like the railway and establish the routes, the timetables and THEN invite tenders to run them. In some cases they sort of do, with the routes that they subsidise - but perhaps they should manage ALL routes.

A private company might be capable of running routes, but shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose (i.e. cherry pick) routes.

This is exactly what is being proposed in West Yorkshire.

http://wymetro.com/news/releases/archive/2010news/101006QCS

Not sure how it will work over the county boundary.

 

[jon0844]

I hope it works out. I can't see many reasons for it not to, bar an operator underbidding and then being unable to run them properly, going bust, causing all sorts of problems for the passengers and council alike.

Of course, some operators may plead poverty to try and renegotiate their contract - so they need to be as strict as the rail franchises.

Perhaps operators can bid to run services over and above the minimum required too, and be allowed to make more profit. So, you might have some deciding to increase the frequency at certain times, run later or run on a Sunday when they don't have to.

The important thing is that there's a safeguarded 'core' of services.

 

[Deerfold]

I hope it works out. I can't see many reasons for it not to, bar an operator underbidding and then being unable to run them properly, going bust, causing all sorts of problems for the passengers and council alike.

Of course, some operators may plead poverty to try and renegotiate their contract - so they need to be as strict as the rail franchises.

Perhaps operators can bid to run services over and above the minimum required too, and be allowed to make more profit. So, you might have some deciding to increase the frequency at certain times, run later or run on a Sunday when they don't have to.

The important thing is that there's a safeguarded 'core' of services.

And, importantly, fewer service changes. I know how annoying it is to rely on a bus which is unexpectedly withdrawn.

 

[jon0844]

My bus route was part of a three-year deal, which also requires a bus that's no older than 3 years (which was the case for 99% of the time - but occasionally when broken down, it got an older bus without level access).

It was put out to tender and another company (Uno) won it from Arriva, who had been running a service similar to what we're going to end up with now.

 

[142094]

What you can do is set up a Quality Bus Partnership between the bus company and local authority, but in many cases this is just someething that looks nice and doesn't really work. Local authorities and PTEs can't do anything about bus services that they don't subsidise, so any commerically-run routes are at the mercy of the bus company. In many cases you'll see as soon as demand lowers the route is either partically cut or just removed altogether.

 

[jon0844]

Well, we all know the tricks to make something seem worse than it is to cut it.

Run a bad service, people stop using it, then argue that nobody uses it and axe it.

That's why the council should have control of all routes, and have to approve new ones. If a private operator suggests a route, that's fine - but perhaps it should still be put out to tender and only allowed if the council now adds it to the timetable, so to speak.

At the moment the council subsidises some routes completely, or in part. In theory, private companies can then compete to provide an amazing service on the profitable routes - except that often ends up in disaster for a number of reasons.

That sort of competition doesn't really help, as the operators only want to put the other ones out of business (or give up a route) to be able to put prices up again - at least most of the time.

In London, you may have different routes, but not multiple operators covering the exact same route. I don't see why Arriva, First, Stagecoach, Uno or whoever can all run routes competing with each other, such that passengers have buses turning up every 5 seconds, then leave loads of other areas without a bus service at all.

There are parts of London that run buses that aren't busy at all, but it's a public service and we've already concluded that people only use a bus to go somewhere if they know they can come back!

One thing I'd like to know is if these cuts are temporary, and they'll be reinstated when the economy recovers. I could accept the hardship for a year or two if I knew they'd revert back to before afterwards - but I just know that many cut services will never return.

 

[142094]

Exactly, but what you'll find is that a lot of the people who can travel by other means (normally by car), if for some reason there is no longer a bus service, and it is later reinstated, they will still use the car. We've been trying to get people out of their cars for a long time now and this will put progress back a good few years.

Re-regulation would be the most sensible idea, and also bringing in a system that is truely integrated would help but I doubt if we'll see anything like this happening soon. In much the same as the railways, public transport should be run as a service for people to use, so if this means less well-used services being subsidised by more profitable services I wouldn't have a problem with this.

 

[anthony263]

Have had news today that Veolia transport cymru is to close it penclawdd depot near swansea and withdraw all of its coimmercial and contract services.

I am watching now to see if South Wales transport decide to take on a few of these commercial services.

 

[142094]

FreeCityBus in Leeds is now going to start charging 50p per journey, apart from Over 60s and those with MetroCards and Day Rovers.

 

[Greenback]

Have had news today that Veolia transport cymru is to close it penclawdd depot near swansea and withdraw all of its coimmercial and contract services.

I am watching now to see if South Wales transport decide to take on a few of these commercial services.

Where did you ehar that? It hasn't reached the local rag yet!

I hope the Gower Explorer can be saved, although First only seem interested in holiday time services.

 

[jon0844]

Well, I can actually give good news and say that my bus service that was going to be significantly crippled from Monday has been saved. Two routes will combine into one, which adds to my journey time, but it will continue to run until 11pm but only Monday-Saturday now, with it finishing at 6.30pm on Sunday. I can live with that as, frankly, I don't use it at all on a Sunday and hardly ever on a Saturday - and few others seem to use it on a Sunday either.

Late buses are extended to go via Hatfield University campus, presumably to encourage more usage (but most people boarding will obviously be students who travel free anyway).

What I did hear was that the saving may still be delayed, as being a last minute change, it can take 56 days to get approval from the Transport Commissioner! That was only put in for last week.

 

[142094]

Think I heard that North Yorkshire County Council have stepped in to save some routes in the Whitby area, between there and Sleights and Ruswarp. However there will be a £2 hike in fares.