My proposal for the UK bus network to be nationalised

[BazingaTribe]

Yeah, I'm not disputing it at all. Just clarifying what I've been saying above about the problems with command economics.

 

[Rod Harrison]

Nationalisation? Why? Suppose they could reduce Retirement Pensions by 20% to pay for it they don’t vote Labour!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Food is even more vital than transport. Supermarkets do rather well at meeting that need, all of them privately owned.

I'm not sure I'd be using supermarkets as an example of a business doing rather well at meeting the nation's food requirements, not with their well-documented issues with screwing over suppliers, screwing over staff, and screwing over the end consumer.

Here in the Isle of Man the price of milk is set by law and there is one supplier- the Creamery. Milk is more expensive- it averages at about £1.60/litre compared to £1.20/litre in the UK. But here the milk comes from a co-operative of family-owned farms where cows are grass-fed in pasture for most of the year. In the UK 50% of milk comes from "fully housed" dairy cows which aren't allowed outside and never get to eat grass.

I'll tell you what: I prefer the system we have here. The milk tastes better too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

I'm by no means an ideologue when it comes to public transport provision. If the buses are well-run and affordable then, truthfully, I don't care who runs the buses. There are examples of fantastically well-run private companies: Brighton and Hove immediately springs to mind. There are also examples of fantastically well-run public companies- Reading Buses, as an example. And plenty of bad examples from both the public and private sector.

My general opinion and experience is that the profit motive usually ends up interfering with the provision of a good service. Bean-counting managers will come in and nibble around the edges just in order to increase profit margins- a slight cut in frequency here, a slight cut in driver terms there- and it happens across the board across all the big companies. Stagecoach do it, Arriva do it, First do it, Go-Ahead do it. They all did it before Covid. Making money is never enough, they always have to make more money.

The problem with nationalised companies and planned networks, though, is that local politics usually ends up interfering with the provision of a cost-effective service. Councillors will stick their oar in- you can't possibly pull that bus service from that estate because everyone will become house-bound, even though that bus has been carrying around nothing but fresh air for the last 18 months. You'll get the sad faces in the local paper from residents who haven't actually use a bus for ten years and certainly don't intend to start doing so now. And it's easy to very quickly end up in the situation which South Yorkshire found itself in- frequent buses, low fares, and running out of money because there's too little regard to commercial sensibilities.

I still think that nationalised planned public transport systems work better because, without meaningful competition, private companies' profit motive usually results in 'death by a thousand cuts'. It's easier to nibble at the edges than it is to grow the pie, so why not cut from 5bph to 4bph, the passengers will still be there. And then why not cut from 4bph to 3bph to 2bph, the passengers will still be there. The passengers just need to plan their day better. And why not cut the 6am bus, not many use it. And why not stop running the buses at 8pm, the buses after 8pm only break even at best. Before you know where you are, you've lost two-thirds of your network: see Go North East in North Tyneside for further details.

 

[Dai Corner]

I still think that nationalised planned public transport systems work better because, without meaningful competition, private companies' profit motive usually results in 'death by a thousand cuts'. It's easier to nibble at the edges than it is to grow the pie, so why not cut from 5bph to 4bph, the passengers will still be there. And then why not cut from 4bph to 3bph to 2bph, the passengers will still be there. The passengers just need to plan their day better. And why not cut the 6am bus, not many use it. And why not stop running the buses at 8pm, the buses after 8pm only break even at best. Before you know where you are, you've lost two-thirds of your network: see Go North East in North Tyneside for further details.

A similar example is municipal Newport Transport (NT). As I've said before in this thread, it's more about how much the politicians are prepared to pay to support commercially unviable services than ownership or governance. Living in a Ward where the Councillor is on the NT Board has it's advantages if you use the bus!

 

[TUC]

I'm not sure I'd be using supermarkets as an example of a business doing rather well at meeting the nation's food requirements, not with their well-documented issues with screwing over suppliers, screwing over staff, and screwing over the end consumer.

Here in the Isle of Man the price of milk is set by law and there is one supplier- the Creamery. Milk is more expensive- it averages at about £1.60/litre compared to £1.20/litre in the UK. But here the milk comes from a co-operative of family-owned farms where cows are grass-fed in pasture for most of the year. In the UK 50% of milk comes from "fully housed" dairy cows which aren't allowed outside and never get to eat grass.

I'll tell you what: I prefer the system we have here. The milk tastes better too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

A perfect example of how modern day socialists really couldn't care less about the poor. They're quite content for those on low incomes to pay more for their food as long as the producer is a socialist model like co- operatives or nationalised bodies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A perfect example of how modern day socialists really couldn't care less about the poor. They're quite content for those on low incomes to pay more for their food

Isle of Man farmers receive a fair price for the milk their farms produce. I’ll let you tell them this means that they are all communists now

The real point is that producing food costs money. Producing food to good standards of animal welfare costs money. Supermarkets instead pay their suppliers very little and, as a result, animal welfare standards are low. Dairy cows which aren’t even allowed to eat grass is just one example.

Supermarkets aren’t the example I’d choose to demonstrate the point your seem to wish to make. They are the example of what happens when the profit motive goes unchecked- farmers who don’t earn enough for their produce to pay the bills, staff who get fired-and-rehired to cut their wages (an Asda thing), and animal welfare standards that are through the floor.

A modern day example of how devout capitalists don’t care about anything except money.

 

[TUC]

Isle of Man farmers receive a fair price for the milk their farms produce. I’ll let you tell them this means that they are all communists now

The real point is that producing food costs money. Producing food to good standards of animal welfare costs money. Supermarkets instead pay their suppliers very little and, as a result, animal welfare standards are low. Dairy cows which aren’t even allowed to eat grass is just one example.

Supermarkets aren’t the example I’d choose to demonstrate the point your seem to wish to make. They are the example of what happens when the profit motive goes unchecked- farmers who don’t earn enough for their produce to pay the bills, staff who get fired-and-rehired to cut their wages (an Asda thing), and animal welfare standards that are through the floor.

A modern day example of how devout capitalists don’t care about anything except money.

Actually, it is about that socialism has too often been primarily concerned about the producers, including unionised workers, rather than the ordinary people who are the customers at the receiving end. They are the only reason the jobs exist.

 

[Eyersey468]

The problem with nationalised companies and planned networks, though, is that local politics usually ends up interfering with the provision of a cost-effective service. Councillors will stick their oar in- you can't possibly pull that bus service from that estate because everyone will become house-bound, even though that bus has been carrying around nothing but fresh air for the last 18 months. You'll get the sad faces in the local paper from residents who haven't actually use a bus for ten years and certainly don't intend to start doing so now. And it's easy to very quickly end up in the situation which South Yorkshire found itself in- frequent buses, low fares, and running out of money because there's too little regard to commercial sensibilities.

Not just a problem with nationalised companies, whenever a service gets cut there's an outcry, even if said service carried hardly anyone

 

[Tetchytyke]

socialism has too often been primarily concerned about the producers, including unionised workers, rather than the ordinary people who are the customers at the receiving end

“Everything I don’t like is socialism”.

The suppliers are the “ordinary people” consumers.

I don’t think Ken Murphy on his £9.93m annual wages has to worry about the price of milk.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

Not just a problem with nationalised companies, whenever a service gets cut there's an outcry, even if said service carried hardly anyone

True, but when the bus company is owned by the council and managed directly by the council then the political considerations end up having a disproportionate effect on operations. It needs a firm management to keep the councillors at arm’s length. When it works it’s great- Lothian, for instance, are allowed to get on with running a service on a commercial basis- but when it doesn’t it can very quickly go wrong. Warrington is an example of that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Warrington is an example of that.

Halton was an even better example.

 

[TUC]

“Everything I don’t like is socialism”.

The suppliers are the “ordinary people” consumers.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==

That attitude leads to what suits the staff, not what suits the customers.

 

[GusB]

That attitude leads to what suits the staff, not what suits the customers.

Not necessarily. An in-between model is employee/management ownership. I lived in Aberdeen in the period of time between the initial sale to staff of Grampian Regional Transport and the Badgerline merger that ultimately led to FirstBus. Was it perfect? No, but there was significant investment in high-quality vehicles. From a passenger's point of view it certainly felt that things were improving.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That attitude leads to what suits the staff, not what suits the customers.

If you pay your staff peanuts then they don’t have enough money to consume your products. People with no money can’t buy things.

On a more practical level, you also have trouble retaining staff, as the hospitality industry has found out.

Same in the bus industry. It’s been badly paid for a long time and working conditions are getting worse all the time. And, what would you know, bus companies now have huge recruitment issues.

Turns out it’s not a zero sum game after all. Geese and ganders often want the same thing. Who’d have thunk it?

An in-between model is employee/management ownership.

I’m always a lot more sceptical about that model, especially how it was in the bus industry. The managers who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time did extremely well out of it- people like Lockhead and Ballinger did extremely well out of it, making riches far in excess of what a regional manager of a regional bus company should ever have expected to make. The lower staff? Less so, a nice bonus for Christmas level of money but not getting a knighthood level of money.

 

[Teapot42]

If you pay your staff peanuts then they don’t have enough money to consume your products. People with no money can’t buy things.

Not just that, they won't be motivated to work hard. I can't remember where I saw it, but there was a quote from the owner of a pizza shop recently that he prefers to pay his staff well as happy staff perform better and that improves how well his business performs.

In terms of the bus industry, I think this country needs to decide just how it wants transport to operate. Does it was public transport, or does it want commercial provision of an alternative to driving. We are closer to the latter than the former currently, but the more we aim for commercial provision, the more car dependent we become. Aside from the environmental aspects, that also promotes exclusion of those unable to drive.

If we go for public transport then subsidy goes without saying, but there is plenty of precedent. We subsidise schools, hospitals, waste collection, most things in life. There are options to pay for a better service in most areas, but not many do. Why should transport be so different, where paying more is the default?

 

[RT4038]

If we go for public transport then subsidy goes without saying, but there is plenty of precedent. We subsidise schools, hospitals, waste collection, most things in life. There are options to pay for a better service in most areas, but not many do. Why should transport be so different, where paying more is the default?

I don't think there is particularly any argument that subsidy is required to provide public transport. Where there is controversy is how much, and what does the money buy?

Unlike the examples you give, there are options to pay for a better service in most areas (particularly transport by private vehicles) and a great many do, indeed in some areas this is a majority, especially for buses. Those who pay more for a better service (their private transport) are not much interested in paying more tax to subsidise a more comprehensive public transport system that will still not get close to the private transport product.

 

[Teapot42]

I don't think there is particularly any argument that subsidy is required to provide public transport. Where there is controversy is how much, and what does the money buy?

Unlike the examples you give, there are options to pay for a better service in most areas (particularly transport by private vehicles) and a great many do, indeed in some areas this is a majority, especially for buses. Those who pay more for a better service (their private transport) are not much interested in paying more tax to subsidise a more comprehensive public transport system that will still not get close to the private transport product.

That sort of misses the point. The equivalent would be a school system that teaches kids basic numeracy and literacy and nothing more. If you wanted your kids to learn anything else you'd have to pay for them to go to a better school, of which there would be many flavours to suit your budget.

Very few would find that an acceptable provision, but we seem happy to accept the analogue in public transport terms. I'd also argue that those who pay more for a better service would be prepared to pay more tax to subsidise public transport, for the simple reason that the more cars that are taken off the road, the easier their journey will be as there will be less congestion.

We hear a lot about the freedom a car gives you to travel, but the freedom to get stuck in traffic isn't couched in the same terms.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Same in the bus industry. It’s been badly paid for a long time and working conditions are getting worse all the time. And, what would you know, bus companies now have huge recruitment issues.

Ok - so the logistics sector is equally challenged and they can offer drivers better terms. To enable this, they have the ability to either screw down the suppliers and/or pass it through to consumers. People don't notice a penny on a pint - harder for bus operators.

I’m always a lot more sceptical about that model, especially how it was in the bus industry. The managers who were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time did extremely well out of it- people like Lockhead and Ballinger did extremely well out of it, making riches far in excess of what a regional manager of a regional bus company should ever have expected to make. The lower staff? Less so, a nice bonus for Christmas level of money but not getting a knighthood level of money.

Those were managers who re-mortgaged their homes to get the money to fund the purchases. IIRC, there were drivers at Midland Red West and Badgerline who made good sums, as did those who owned 49% of Busways.

In terms of the bus industry, I think this country needs to decide just how it wants transport to operate. Does it was public transport, or does it want commercial provision of an alternative to driving. We are closer to the latter than the former currently, but the more we aim for commercial provision, the more car dependent we become. Aside from the environmental aspects, that also promotes exclusion of those unable to drive.

If we go for public transport then subsidy goes without saying, but there is plenty of precedent. We subsidise schools, hospitals, waste collection, most things in life. There are options to pay for a better service in most areas, but not many do. Why should transport be so different, where paying more is the default?

The argument that you're coming out with was best had about 60 years ago. In that time, we have had a series of decisions that have been unashamedly pro-car. Not least the road building programme, and a planning regime that enabled large out of town retail parks

For the vast majority of people, as @RT4038 says, there is very little choice. You can send your child to private school rather than the local comp) but only if you have £1000s to spare. It's not really a choice. Same with private healthcare. Whereas you can buy a 15 year old Corsa for £1000.

I'd also argue that those who pay more for a better service would be prepared to pay more tax to subsidise public transport, for the simple reason that the more cars that are taken off the road, the easier their journey will be as there will be less congestion.

Is this an argument that you have had with people who are non-public transport users? I suspect not. Experience also tells us that when faced with that choice (in Greater Manchester, with their congestion zone plans).

The difference is that for health or education or social care, we are either directly impacted or it's very close to home. If we don't have children, we have nieces or nephews. We have parents. So they have a vested interest in maintaining those services that will directly impact them or their immediate family. Public transport simply doesn't have the same emotional sway; this YouGov study illustrates that markedly https://yougov.co.uk/politics/artic...what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters

 

[Teapot42]

The argument that you're coming out with was best had about 60 years ago. In that time, we have had a series of decisions that have been unashamedly pro-car. Not least the road building programme, and a planning regime that enabled large out of town retail parks

For the vast majority of people, as @RT4038 says, there is very little choice. You can send your child to private school rather than the local comp) but only if you have £1000s to spare. It's not really a choice. Same with private healthcare. Whereas you can buy a 15 year old Corsa for £1000.

Arguments tend to come around again. No matter how pro-car we have become our towns and cities haven't adapted to handle the sheer volume of private cars. We are become more aware that fossil fuel vehicles aren't a viable long-term solution but haven't got prices of EVs anywhere near them being an alternative at the price-point you mention. Indeed, I can forsee a marked absence of bangers in the future at the point where fossil fuel cars are becoming scarce, but second hand EVs haven't reached that market yet.

One point you are missing is that while you can buy an old Corsa for a grand, for many they'd pay that much or more for insurance each year, plus fuel, servicing and so on. That's a lot of money someone on low wages is having to spend to get about. With the talk about cost of living I'm surprised no-one has linked the potential to reduce transport costs with an enhanced bus network. The fare cap is a mere sop to show they are doing something - for most they aren't using the bus anyway because buses don't meet their needs.

Is this an argument that you have had with people who are non-public transport users? I suspect not. Experience also tells us that when faced with that choice (in Greater Manchester, with their congestion zone plans).

Well, it's something that I, as someone who doesn't use public transport much (due to lack of availability for my job) would agree with. I also have discussed it with a few colleagues, the majority of who could see the point.

I think the main problem is that it would need up-front investment to make the public transport network good enough to allow people to transition before any extra tax came in.

The difference is that for health or education or social care, we are either directly impacted or it's very close to home. If we don't have children, we have nieces or nephews. We have parents. So they have a vested interest in maintaining those services that will directly impact them or their immediate family. Public transport simply doesn't have the same emotional sway; this YouGov study illustrates that markedly https://yougov.co.uk/politics/artic...what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters

I'd argue that most people are directly impacted - lack of choice, higher cost (although few consider the cost of running a car beyond fuel) and congestion.

We also have friends and relatives who don't drive, have elderly neighbours who are still driving at 90 well beyond when they should have stopped but don't have the option and so on.

Issues voters consider important at an election tend to be the ones the main parties are pushing on. Transport wasn't one of those so wouldn't feature. There is also the factor that in our FPTP / 2 party system when you have one party who want to minimise the size of the state then pushing for higher public spending is difficult. If we ever more to a more progressive voting system then such a discussion may become easier to have.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

One point you are missing is that while you can buy an old Corsa for a grand, for many they'd pay that much or more for insurance each year, plus fuel, servicing and so on. That's a lot of money someone on low wages is having to spend to get about. With the talk about cost of living I'm surprised no-one has linked the potential to reduce transport costs with an enhanced bus network. The fare cap is a mere sop to show they are doing something - for most they aren't using the bus anyway because buses don't meet their needs.

I'm not missing that. The idea that you can fork out a couple of grand for a car (which may be seen as a necessity) is infinitely more affordable and relatable to most people than private education or private healthcare.

Whilst I agree that the fare cap is nothing more than a sop (but it's more to appease those who don't have cars vs. those who are getting the benefit of a fuel duty cut), I would seriously doubt that there is a real opportunity to reduce transport costs for most people through extensive public transport expansion.

Well, it's something that I, as someone who doesn't use public transport much (due to lack of availability for my job) would agree with. I also have discussed it with a few colleagues, the majority of who could see the point.

I think the main problem is that it would need up-front investment to make the public transport network good enough to allow people to transition before any extra tax came in.

Linked to my above point, there is the ability to develop public transport usage in major towns and interurban links. However, it will be limited.

I really do doubt if the majority of people would actually vote in favour of increased taxation even if it were ringfenced for public transport. It would be political suicide, and the politics are all important.

Just up the road in Sheffield from you, you have a clean air zone. Why do you think commercial vehicles including buses (unless Euro VI) were to be charged but private cars aren't?

I'd argue that most people are directly impacted - lack of choice, higher cost (although few consider the cost of running a car beyond fuel) and congestion.

We also have friends and relatives who don't drive, have elderly neighbours who are still driving at 90 well beyond when they should have stopped but don't have the option and so on.

Issues voters consider important at an election tend to be the ones the main parties are pushing on. Transport wasn't one of those so wouldn't feature. There is also the factor that in our FPTP / 2 party system when you have one party who want to minimise the size of the state then pushing for higher public spending is difficult. If we ever more to a more progressive voting system then such a discussion may become easier to have.

No - this is about perception. People don't feel as connected to transport as an issue as they do about the NHS or education or social care or, most importantly, the economy. And rather than political parties pushing certain issues, it's the opposite. They focus on those issues that are important to the public. They expend an awful lot of money to obtain the data to identify this.

Put bluntly - for those who inhabit a transport forum, it's important. For most people, "it's the economy, stupid" as Bill Clinton allegedly said.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arguments tend to come around again. No matter how pro-car we have become our towns and cities haven't adapted to handle the sheer volume of private cars. We are become more aware that fossil fuel vehicles aren't a viable long-term solution but haven't got prices of EVs anywhere near them being an alternative at the price-point you mention. Indeed, I can forsee a marked absence of bangers in the future at the point where fossil fuel cars are becoming scarce, but second hand EVs haven't reached that market yet.

There are cheap EVs available now. They're just mostly Nissan Leafs.

 

[Richard Scott]

There are cheap EVs available now. They're just mostly Nissan Leafs.

The other problem is some of us have nowhere to charge one and also some of us don't want one. They're not the grand solution to environmental issues that politicians would have you believe.
The one issue with buses whether nationalised or privately run is how many people actually would want to use them? Even if local buses were free and ran every ten minutes it's unlikely I'd use it as 4 miles to work so amount it costs me to drive is fairly negligible and money saved isn't worth the inconvenience. No point ploughing money in if service isn't used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other problem is some of us have nowhere to charge one and also some of us don't want one. They're not the grand solution to environmental issues that politicians would have you believe.

They are absolutely the solution to issues caused by pollution at the point of use. I must admit I find it much nicer to walk/cycle in Greater London than elsewhere, as the ULEZ means far fewer diesel particulates are there to trigger my asthma, but when nothing at all is emitting lots of particulate and NOx pollution in built up areas (be that cars or house heating) the world will be a far nicer place and I bet asthma etc will decline sharply.

So in short, hard disagree.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ok - so the logistics sector is equally challenged and they can offer drivers better terms. To enable this, they have the ability to either screw down the suppliers and/or pass it through to consumers. People don't notice a penny on a pint - harder for bus operators.

The finances are only one part of the terms a bus company can offer. Hauliers may offer more money but you're away from home and sleeping in the cab for days on end. Treating your staff well stops them leaving and "treating them well" isn't just about the pounds and pence.

Interesting to note that Go North East seem to be belatedly understanding this. I see they've just gone and got Real Living Wage accreditation and have taken their cleaners back in-house.

The other problem is some of us have nowhere to charge one

I've never understood that point about "not having somewhere to charge them". I don't have a petrol station in my back garden either.

I don't know what you mean by "grand solution" but electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. For crowded towns and cities that's exactly what we want- zero tailpipe emissions.

"I don't want one" is probably the real truth of the matter here.

There are cheap EVs available now. They're just mostly Nissan Leafs.

The Leaf's range is poor, 100 miles on a good day, but for a runaround that's perfect. The average car journey is five miles. 100 miles would do me a working week. Even if I start hooning it round the TT Mountain Course I'd only need to charge it daily.

But the Leaf is a lot of fun. Goes like poo off a hot shovel. When I come to trade in my runabout Fiesta Ecoboost I'd definitely consider a Leaf.

 

[Richard Scott]

The finances are only one part of the terms a bus company can offer. Hauliers may offer more money but you're away from home and sleeping in the cab for days on end. Treating your staff well stops them leaving and "treating them well" isn't just about the pounds and pence.

Interesting to note that Go North East seem to be belatedly understanding this. I see they've just gone and got Real Living Wage accreditation and have taken their cleaners back in-house.


I've never understood that point about "not having somewhere to charge them". I don't have a petrol station in my back garden either.

I don't know what you mean by "grand solution" but electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. For crowded towns and cities that's exactly what we want- zero tailpipe emissions.

"I don't want one" is probably the real truth of the matter here.

No, nor do I but I know I can fill up in the one down the road in under 5 minutes, don't have time to wait for an EV to charge on the way to work.
Zero tailpipe but not zero emissions. To be honest I never drive into cities, too much hassle so my ICE car has no emissions in cities as never there. This is when I will use bus or train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2024 ==

They are absolutely the solution to issues caused by pollution at the point of use. I must admit I find it much nicer to walk/cycle in Greater London than elsewhere, as the ULEZ means far fewer diesel particulates are there to trigger my asthma, but when nothing at all is emitting lots of particulate and NOx pollution in built up areas (be that cars or house heating) the world will be a far nicer place and I bet asthma etc will decline sharply.

So in short, hard disagree.

And particulates from tyres don't affect you at all, then?
Be interesting to know what the actual amount of particulate matter is in the air is.
I find someone with strong perfume or aftershave affects my asthma far more so can we ban those please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And particulates from tyres don't affect you at all, then?

There's currently no known means of getting rid of those aside from reducing car use. There is a way of getting rid of diesel particulates, which works wonderfully in London, and is done even more effectively by going zero emissions at the tailpipe.

 

[Richard Scott]

There's currently no known means of getting rid of those aside from reducing car use. There is a way of getting rid of diesel particulates, which works wonderfully in London, and is done even more effectively by going zero emissions at the tailpipe.

No, but my question was what is particulate level? How much is actually due to diesel engines? Filters now trap almost all particulate emissions on diesel engines so be interested to know, not arguing a point but am generally interested. I know we're drifting off topic, though.
The other issue is there are still a number of ICE vehicles travelling around London so but of a sweeping statement that the ULEZ has solved your asthma problem? If it has then Euro 6 diesels must be fine?

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but my question was what is particulate level? How much is actually due to diesel engines? Filters now trap almost all particulate emissions on diesel engines so be interested to know, not arguing a point but am generally interested. I know we're drifting off topic, though.
The other issue is there are still a number of ICE vehicles travelling around London so but of a sweeping statement that the ULEZ has solved your asthma problem? If it has then Euro 6 diesels must be fine?

Let's take it to a new thread...bear with me.

Here you go: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ulez-ultra-low-emission-zone-vs-zero-emissions.276878/

 

[Numpt33]

“Everything I don’t like is socialism”.

The suppliers are the “ordinary people” consumers.

I don’t think Ken Murphy on his £9.93m annual wages has to worry about the price of milk.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2024 ==


True, but when the bus company is owned by the council and managed directly by the council then the political considerations end up having a disproportionate effect on operations. It needs a firm management to keep the councillors at arm’s length. When it works it’s great- Lothian, for instance, are allowed to get on with running a service on a commercial basis- but when it doesn’t it can very quickly go wrong. Warrington is an example of that.

Cardiff and Newport are current examples - they've been soft-bailed out by TfW coming into existence

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2024 ==

is there any plans to re-nationislise the uk bus services ? . personally i would hope so at the momnet except for london our local livererys have all gone .

No, the experience of the 70s was why this has no real prospect. A national bus company was frankly too large to manage, introduced all sorts of distortions, like national pay bargaining which meant urban bus drivers were poorly paid but large pay rises were unaffordable (today's English NHS).

The more important problem is political interference - buses would become a toy for councillors and MPs to play with, fight over and then break.

 

[Ghostbus]

Comparisons to supermarkets are off base. They can change prices and create/remove lines with relative ease. There is zero harm to their own business or the general provision if they approach competition with zeal. Excessive greed or a lack of focus on what matters to customers is soon met with a market correction. The bigger they are, the harder the correction.

The comparison with healthcare is apt. We all need it. Perfectly sensible to fund it through general taxation if you value its benefits to society. Better physical and mental health, social and literal mobility and of course, Labour's alleged lazer focus, economic growth. People are welcome to choose to go private (the car) if they wish, it's a free country. But if you neglect a public service to the point people have no choice but to go private and over-reach their means, you went wrong somewhere.

Proper GB wide nationalisation is an answer. A pretty attractive one in an ideal world. Properly regulated fee market competition with proper funding for socially necessary services, was probably a better answer. A postcode lottery of tails wagging dogs to various degrees, is never the answer.

 

[RT4038]

That sort of misses the point. The equivalent would be a school system that teaches kids basic numeracy and literacy and nothing more. If you wanted your kids to learn anything else you'd have to pay for them to go to a better school, of which there would be many flavours to suit your budget.

No, it is not like that at all. At all. Transport is always something that has been paid for by the user. A considerable number of people have voted with their feet and stopped using public transport and have gone over to (often a more expensive option) the convenience of private transport. Most of these people do not want to use public transport, no matter how cheap it is and no matter how more convenient it may be compared to now, because it still won't come anywhere near the convenience and ambience of their private transport. I accept that the degree of private car convenience can be different between major urban areas and peri urban/smaller town/rural settings.

Very few would find that an acceptable provision, but we seem happy to accept the analogue in public transport terms. I'd also argue that those who pay more for a better service would be prepared to pay more tax to subsidise public transport, for the simple reason that the more cars that are taken off the road, the easier their journey will be as there will be less congestion.

You could argue that, but I don't think it is true. Many people who use private transport already think they pay more than enough, and likely have no interest in paying for better public transport. I am not sure that better public transport necessarily translates to less congestion (it may do in some places, but the convenience of private transport likely transcends any differences to convenience that better public transport could achieve). I expect these people would rather see improvements to the road network to reduce congestion.

Congestion is not a thing everywhere, at all times. In my area, it only occurs for half an hour in the morning and about an hour in the afternoon. Plus on weekends for a few hours around the shopping mall. Avoid those times and places and you'll rarely see any - certainly no more than the incidence of public transport unreliability, which can be at any time.