A Myth

“If people will live half way up a mountain in an isolated rural valley, they shouldn’t expect a bus service”.

Leaving aside the incongruity of whether someone could actually live half way up a mountain *and* in a valley at the same time, I recall a conference speaker using this sentence, or something very like it, as a means of justifying the withdrawal of subsidy for bus services in deep rural areas. He was instead in favour of concentration on routes likely to result in a lower subsidy per passenger—in urban areas.

That was in 1986. 23 years later, the argument may still apply though the same deep rural area is more likely to see a cheaper demand responsive taxi rather than a bus itself.

Often, people in rural areas will say that they pay the same council tax as everyone else, so they should at least benefit from *some* bus services. They ask, what else do they get for their council tax? (Aside, that is, from the education of their children, their rubbish collected, winter gritting, street lighting, etc, etc…).

Probably not wise to tell them that their urban neighbours’ commercial bus services are funded without the help of urban council taxes, that in a sense it’s the town dwellers who see less of their council tax spend per head on the buses, thanks to the way in which the market provides bus services. It’s just that 20 years after deregulation no one—rural or urban—really believes that a bus *can* operate without some sort of direct subsidy.