Some of us will quite clearly recall what our *local* politicians felt about deregulation, all those years ago. 1985 was a busy year of protest at local level and invariably, politicians across the spectrum linked arms and united against the changes soon to be imposed on the buses by central government. This included Conservative councillors, who were often at odds with their national betters.
Indeed, history tells us that on transport matters, again at a *local* level, there’s been remarkable unity between the political parties, pre- and post-deregulation. Bournemouth is as good an example as any. Save for a bit of a wobble at one time and in spite of what you may expect, there was absolutely no desire for the longstanding conservative administration to sell Bournemouth Transport. Indeed, it resisted that temptation. When it comes down to it, politicians are seemingly very sensitive to changes on the buses.
Things move on, as they did in Bournemouth, with a change of administration. And in recent years, we’ve started to see politicians diverging when it comes to selling the municipal silver. Financial pressures and all that.
It was interesting to note the views of politicians from West Yorkshire integrated transport authority (the former PTA) in a recent P.T.E.G./WYITA three-minute video on the possibilities of quality contracts. The parties were speaking as one.
The opposition Labour spokesman suggested that there’d be no need for QCs if “the people that’s running the bus service out there would’ve run them correctly.” There aren’t enough buses and they get cancelled at a whim, it would seem. “The only way to overcome this is a quality bus contract. We will pay you and we’ll tell you where to go…” And he concluded, “It’s unfortunate that we’ve come to this but it’s the only way we can serve the people of West Yorkshire”.
Somewhat against his own national leadership—unless it can be persuaded otherwise—the WYITA Conservative deputy chairman felt that First had “really let down passengers” by overcharging and under-delivering. He talked of taking control to provide residents with the level of service they needed.
Quite some political unanimity, redolent of days of yore in local transport.
For balance, there was nothing on the video about:
- How WYPTA had taken the decision to sell its operations and by effectively proposing to take it back under control the WYITA might now be acting disingenuously. On the other hand, First has had some 10 years to get into partnership.
- The subsidy versus commercial services equation. That is, the cost of QCs and the financial constraints WYITA may face in future.
- Any recognition that it’s in each operators’ interest to price as attractively as possible; and to turn out a full garage of buses each morning.
12 comments:
“We will pay you and we’ll tell you where to go…”
A politician showing his true colours, then. They naturally know best, as we can all testify. Not.
Seriously, the understanding demonstrated by the politicians in the video clip seemed pretty limited. So First makes its profit by not running buses. Hmmm.
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that there's an election due in the next few months, could it?
Provided the Quality Partnerships improve the bus services in West Yorkshire, so that we're not made to rely on the half-cocked and limp attempts by First to run a bus service, I'm all for them.
There'll be in increase in money needed to implement them but surely things couldn't get any worse than they are now? It's not as if we West Yorks council tax payers would end up paying for a worse service!! Privatisation has not gone well at all in Leeds. Things may be different in Bournemouth, I don't know, but here things have got to the point that the whip being cracked is left as the only genuine option.
The ignorance shown by those councillors in the film is staggering. What kind of bubble do they live in? If only everything in life was that simple and that easy!
Quality Partnerships may not be the cure all, but I think that it is significant that there is cross party support for something to get away from what there is now. What is wrong in West Yorkshire and why? If everything was wonderful would there be such a clamour for change?
Similar comments are being made in Doncaster and other parts of South Yorkshire who are also preparing actively for a QC. In past years there was disquiet from local politicians in Norfolk too. There's one common element that comes to mind first in these areas of dissatsfaction!!
In Norwich the dissatisfaction with fleet age led to the imposition of a LEZ, carefully planned so as to force First to upgrade their fleet - with ex-London Tridents in this case (the rules are so strict that first Norwich got older Tridents but these are now being replaced by newer still Tridents and the older ones sent to Essex). First (and other under-performing big groups) is lucky that this approach has not become widespread.
It's all very well politicians et al identifying disatisfaction and clammering to 'take control' but unless there's some unlimited pot of money involved (coming from where?), won't they come up against the exact same problems that the bus companies are battling against now? They talk about high fare increases and unjust service cuts but books have to be balanced whether it's a private bus company or a series of tenders TfL style. Look at what's happening in London, cuts and retrenchment are the future as there's just not enough money available. Once the election is out of the way, whatever the result, things are going to get tougher. And, no, I don't know what the answer is!
One could be forgiven for thinking that public dissatisfaction wih bus services has only developed since deregulation. Actually, some of us have longer memories.
In the mid 1970s I moved away from my home area to a city served by a municipal operator that had recently been the subject of a report of some form that said that it provided the worst service in Britain. I don't recall the exact details, although some concerned routes that operated in a loop around some estates and passengers didn't know which direction to expect the bus to come from; late running or wrong routes also formed part of the problem if I remember rightly. In practice, I used the service when I lived there (despite working for a different operator), and on the whole it was satisfactory - I don't recall having any reason to complain about any specific incidents during the time I lived there.
Later in that same decade I can recall the chalkboards in the bus station (in another city) with lists of cancelled journeys from the local NBC operator, and passengers complaining about waiting an hour for a bus on a route with a 20 minute frequency. As the conductor, all I could say was that they should be thankful that we had turned up! Not sure they all saw the funny side!
The reality, of course, is that operating buses is not easy, and it was not always better under the regulated, publicly-owned, environment - indeed, sometimes it was worse. Poiticians have short memories, and some of their decisions have made bus operation in general more complex and difficult.
I have no doubt that bus operation has not become any easier in the ensuing thirty years - probably the opposite. Perhaps the best way for the bus operators to help the politicians to understand would be to let them take over the role of a supervisor for a few days, and see if they can do any better. A form of PR for First, et al, to consider, perhaps?
It is difficult to compare operations over the last few years to publicly provided operations in the 1970s.
A lot of the chatter (white noise?) is because a lot of public money has been poured in to the bus industry and the perception is that this should ensure that all services are improved. When this does not happen, there are calls for local political control over services.
Over the next few years the boot will be on the other foot. Reduced monies flowing in will mean that there will be a contraction in tendered services, fewer bus priority and fewer bus station schemes.
The advantage of the de-regulated system is that the effect of the shortage of money will be cushioned by commercial operators, unencumbered by the demands of cross-subsidy.
This will hit first in London, where there will be service reductions. As public funding reduces, so does the case for public control, which would see an even more undulating level of service than the commercial system.
'Metroman', don't forget that there was a lot of public money going into bus operation in the 1970s as well. The forms of subsidy may have been different to today, but the objective was largely similar - better services than would be provided in a commercial environment; there was also the new bus grant to encourage conversion to one-person-operation (initially, at least); and there were direct subsidies from rates to some municipal operators, which enabled some fares to be kept low (e.g. South Yorkshire).
I have little doubt that the high levels that those subsidies had reached by 1980 was one of the reasons for the introduction of deregulation.
Politian's naivety on the subject of quality bus service provision is often breath taking. Whenever my local bunch of vote chasers start squealing about Quality Bus Contracts, etc. I just look at the shambles they make of the council services they currently control and thank Thatcher for privatising the industry in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, there are some very good local authority owned operators and some very bad private sector operators but all the big privately owned bus groups are capable of delivering a decent quality, sustainable and viable bus network. It just appears there are far more incompetent politicians out there that talk rubbish than bad bus managers.
RC169 is quite right, there was a fair amount of subsidy in the 1970s. I was thinking more of the early-mid 80s. Indeed with the PTEs in their infancy, there were a number of 'bottom drawer' ideas that saw the light of day.
Towards the end of the 1970s the true cost of operating declining services was becoming appranent and this led to some difficult decisions and the NBC MAP project. By the early 80's it was becoming a case of X buys you Y, but as this was seen as additional expenditure for local authorities services had to be cut. Naturally, subsidies to keep existing services running outstripped inflation, adding fuel to the deregulation debate.
With rate capping on the horizon in the PTE areas, there was not the comfort of rate rises to fall back on.
However the difference now is that the commercial services are not being used to pay for unremunerative services.
Post a Comment