What could a nationalised bus operator look like?

[JonathanH]

A nationalised operator would offer staff full pension rights and other conditions analogous to non-departmental public bodies' practices.

Really? The various nationalised municipal bus companies have defined contribution pension schemes for their employees in line with private companies, having closed access to previous arrangements.

 

[Dai Corner]

First and many others are making far more than that.

In an earlier post you indicated that an acceptable profit margin for First Bus would be about 0.1% . Are smaller operators to be treated differently?

Bus companies not allocating enough drivers to routes meaning passengers are waiting beside a road with no information whatsoever about whether or not their bus is coming. Nationalization would allow for more funding, meaning more drivers, more vehicles, more routes, higher frequency.

It might allow for more funding, but it would only get more funding if the politicians decided so. They can already tender whatever services they wish as long as they don't compete directly with commercial journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

The operator can employ more drivers and fitters under the new public sector conditions. It'll invest in newer buses.
Because there's less if a profit imperative, a nationalised operator can be in a better position enhancing services to poorly-served urban and rural areas, including running orbital routes and other services which would be too expensive for a profit-making operator to start up but could make money in the long run.

This still comes down to funding. I think what you may be arguing is that local taxpayers may be willing to pay higher taxes for better local services if they can see that the subsidy isn't financing private profit.

However, on that principle, why is it important that transport isn't a profitable business, whereas we accept that things like supermarkets can generate large profits.

 

[YorkRailFan]

In an earlier post you indicated that an acceptable profit margin for First Bus would be about 0.1% . Are smaller operators to be treated differently?

Of course, small operators often provide vital service to small communities.

It might allow for more funding, but it would only get more funding if the politicians decided so. They can already tender whatever services they wish as long as they don't compete directly with commercial journeys.

If bus operators were brought under local control, local interests like these bus services would be at heart, it would be a priority.

 

[gc4946]

This still comes down to funding. I think what you may be arguing is that local taxpayers may be willing to pay higher taxes for better local services if they can see that the subsidy isn't financing private profit.

It's inevitable nationalised operators will seek funding from local government, be it subsidy for socially necessary services or entering into a partnership with transport executives.
Knowing that taxpayers money for improved services will be retained within the public sector will be a big plus.

 

[JonathanH]

If bus operators were brought under local control, local interests like these bus services would be at heart, it would be a priority.

How many times have you posted that in this thread without giving any basis or fact as to why you believe it to be true?

Local control of anything depends on funding. Funding depends on the taxpayer and the priorities of whoever chooses what things funding is spent on. Even in socialist ideals of a planned economy with everything provided by the state, decisions have to be made about what services are planned and how they are paid for. It isn't just a one way ticket to a perfect transport network.

 

[Dai Corner]

Of course, small operators often provide vital service to small communities.

If bus operators were brought under local control, local interests like these bus services would be at heart, it would be a priority.

Large operators run tendered services too. More cheaply than small ones, by definition, if you accept the lowest quote will win.. Or are you talking about Section 19 operators with volunteer drivers?

Tendered services are totally under the control of local authorities yet have declined fast or even disappeared in some cases. The money just isn't there; local authorities have higher priorities.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Large operators run tendered services too. More cheaply than small ones, by definition, if you accept the lowest quote will win.. Or are you talking about Section 19 operators with volunteer drivers?

Tendered services are totally under the control of local authorities yet have declined fast or even disappeared in some cases. The money just isn't there; local authorities have higher priorities.

The nationalization of buses would only happen under the British Communist Party (as Labour and Lib Dem have other priorities) and they would likely increase the budget that local authorities have substantially.

How many times have you posted that in this thread without giving any basis or fact as to why you believe it to be true?

Local control of anything depends on funding. Funding depends on the taxpayer and the priorities of whoever chooses what things funding is spent on. Even in socialist ideals of a planned economy with everything provided by the state, decisions have to be made about what services are planned and how they are paid for. It isn't just a one way ticket to a perfect transport network.

See my reply above.

 

[GusB]

On that note, it's time to draw the thread to a close as we seem to have abandoned any attempt at sensible discussion. Thanks for your contributions, everyone.