We’ve already lost the regulatory battle for the hearts and minds of our passengers, actual & potential. No amount of customer satisfaction survey results will turn the tide. The passenger appetite is for re-regulation. That’s my conclusion, especially in urban areas.
This week, a Guardian newspaper blog for Leeds ran a piece entitled “Why public control over buses is long overdue”. It was in response to the West Yorkshire integrated transport authority’s aspirations for quality contracts. That blog response, though somewhat ill informed, is typical of the urban mindset. The author talked of a loss of confidence and change being overdue.
No argument will persuade passengers otherwise. Forget the flaws of the former regulated environment and the successes of deregulation:
- The regulated regime of the 1970s and 1980s was increasingly costing considerable sums in subsidy
- At least 80 per cent of deregulated mileage operates commercially, without subsidy
- Regulated networks failed to invest sufficiently in busy, strategic routes, the ones that make a difference in terms of modal shift
- Suitable deregulated markets see marketing and operational investment
- The regulated regime failed to stem a significant decline in patronage, especially in urban areas
The industry knows this issue isn’t black & white but if the public has fixed views, so will their locally elected representatives and civil servants. There’s already political unanimity on WYITA and the results may well be inevitable. Writing in Transit, Ben Colson said, “Let bus users drive policy, not unelected officials”. If he’s right, passengers *are* doing so but in ways the industry may not so easily approve.
i Guardian Leeds Blog post
17 comments:
I don't think that particular public mindset will ever change. It isn't just in relation to public transport but for many people public=good, private=bad.
With regard to the Guardian piece, the comments on his experience in Guiseley are interesting. He implies that ridership only started to decline under evil privatisation (evil deregulation actually, but the two are synonymous in the public mind) and fails to recognise that whoever is in charge the one thing that cannot be controlled is the decision-making of the individual. Crack that and the whole thing is easy.
Where's that Communist Party manifesto.......?
We live in times when public spending is about to be slashed. Ultimately the government, local government and the ptes can indeed have whatever the government legislates. But of course someone has to pay for it, and London is indeed the best example of just how much it costs! It's reality check time - they would be better engaging with the big groups on a long term strategy to increase bus usage, driving up revenues, so that there is more money in the system to pay for better agreed networks. What we are seeing at the moment is litle more than election posturing!
I agree with both of the above anonymous comments. Also, having read the Guardian Leeds blog post, there is one comment which points out that 'only reallocating road space from cars to buses', thereby enabling buses to be faster than cars, will bring about the sort of modal shift in favour of buses. Whether buses would actually be faster than cars is debatable; but bus priorities such as bus lanes would undoubtedly make them more competitive. The commenter also recognises that introducing such bus priority measure may, initially, increase congestion (at least, for cars) - and I wonder how politically acceptable that will be?
The public are fickle in this respect. When we had several nationalised industries - railways, utilities, etc, - there were plenty of complaints about unsatisfactory service, inefficiency, lack of choice, high cost to the taxpayers...; and naturally, widespread belief that it would be better if privatised and deregulated. Now that has happened, things are still not perfect, so the call is to go back to the 'public' control system (as if the 'public' actually had much say or chance to influence the way such services were supplied!)
Going back to the Guardian Leeds blog piece, the author complains about the quality of the bus service, but the only substantive, specific reason he can give for the problems in Guisely is traffic congestion. Quite how re-regulation of the bus operators will resolve that is not clear to me, and probably the author has no idea either, but then I suppose journalists and politicians don't feel any need to try to really get to the bottom of the issue and propose genuine, relevant, solutions. Fortunately, the readers of their blogs (in this case, 'Roryer1') do sometimes. Unfortunately, the fickle electorate won't want that solution either, so we end up with political solutions which have no effect on the real problem - the politicians just follow their predetermined dogma - just as the Guardian journalist in this case (did you expect any other conclusion from that source?)
The one thing that might help would be for the bus operators to be rather louder in stating what their particular problems are - in this case traffic congestion caused by other, inefficient, users of the road space. The trouble is, I guess they realise that it would make little difference.
If the industry had a passionate spokesperson or body,and countered all the vague waffle about local bus 'problems', then either the public would gain more insight,or the media would turn their attention elsewhere. They hate facts you know.
How about a bus convoy at 5mph through a town or city with poor bus priority ? That would get some coverage in my city,which is full of fine talk, and thin on action.
It's only the same as politics. After a decade or two people just get fed up with whatever is in place and assume that change - any change - must be better. It rarely is, but we all forget that after another 10 - 20 years.
Anon 10:08
There is no reason for such a system to be more expensive. Yes, London has had huge amounts of money poured into it, but that has bought astonishing frequencies, 24/7 operation, low fares, extremely modern and highly specified vehicles, etc. A more modest and affordable scheme by a PTE could still bring huge improvements to the status quo at a fraction of that price.
Simple integration of timetables and tickets should cost next to nothing. Elimination of bus wars and other duplication would provide a substantial resource saving for no loss of revenue. And - the elephant in the room for operators I suspect - the 'monopoly' levels of profit that undoubtedly exist currently on certain daytime routes, which would, under route franching, obviously have to be used to cross-subsidise evening/Sunday journeys. Not popular with operators, but a substantial saving for LAs that currently have to subsidise such services directly and could instead spend that money on other improvements.
Anon 1533 - You say "Yes, London has had huge amounts of money poured into it, but that has bought astonishing frequencies, 24/7 operation, low fares, extremely modern and highly specified vehicles, etc"
London has an extremely dense population, and is one of the worlds greatest commuter attractants...how so Clitheroe and Aynho?
With appropriate parking controls and Uncle Ken's congestion zone there has been plenty of "stick" as well as carrot for motorists - more than for example, Manchester's had the guts to implement...do you think that'll improve the lot of folk in Llangollen and Lewes?
London has a thriving nightlife (together with all the problems that can bring...do you see 24/7 in Bognor Regis?
The extremely modern fleet in London was only because Ken specified under 3 years old and the major groups could only supply this because they had the rest of the country to cascade four year old vehicles to...You reckon Brown's Britain can afford to scrap £140,000 assets just over three years old?
Council Taxes in London are the highest in the country...that'll go down like a bucket of cold sick in Norwich...
You then go on to imply that there is a vast amount of funding available from not permitting the bus wars that produce monopolistic profits....
With the bare minimum of respect, sir, you are either an arrant twit or you work for a council...or both...
I simply don't understand why private enterprise is supposedly so much better than state-run provision. Sure, maybe in the heavily unionised 1970s the nationalised industry was not able to run the level of service that it should have done. But with every aspect of state provision these days subject to a rigorous evaluation of performance and value for money, I don't think we'll be seeing those bad old days back again.
A nationalised – or at least, regulated – bus industry would enable far better coordinated and better planned provision, and allowing a more efficient network to provide a better overall passenger service. No more need for wasteful duplication or competition. Far greater opportunities for multi-stage journeys, both in terms of timetabling and ticketing. And all that without the need to satisfy a legal requirement to squeeze profits out and give them to shareholders. Those profits can be ploughed back into investing and improving services, subsidising marginal services and even reducing fares.
Old Timer, you misunderstand me entirely. The second comment on this post (anon 10:08) stated that London "is the best example of just how much such things [franchised systems] cost". Therefore I highlighted all the things (24/7 operation, extremely modern vehicles etc.) that cause the London model to be so expensive but which would NOT be required elsewhere, meaning that a scheme elsewhere could be implemented much more cheaply.
I also (clearly) did not claim that bus wars cause monopoly profits. That doesn't change the fact that neither are desirable, and that both do exist under the current system. But obviously not in the same places as each other...
"I also (clearly) did not claim that bus wars cause monopoly profits. That doesn't change the fact that neither are desirable, and that both do exist under the current system. But obviously not in the same places as each other..."
I am delighted to note that theart of sarcasm isn't QUITE dead...
"I simply don't understand why private enterprise is supposedly so much better than state-run provision. Sure, maybe in the heavily unionised 1970s the nationalised industry was not able to run the level of service that it should have done. But with every aspect of state provision these days subject to a rigorous evaluation of performance and value for money, I don't think we'll be seeing those bad old days back again."
You reckon? I'm of the 1975 vintage - I can think of dozens of superb service innovations that have happened in my area purely because the state HASN'T been allowed to be involved...In the hard left-wing debate on public services of the 70s I've, quite literally, been beaten up by people who share your beliefs...
Arthur Scargill's bully boys were NOT gentle...all I did was attend the wrong birthday party...what would've happened if I'd crossed a picket line...oh, well actually I did and was beaten up for that as well...
I suggest, in real terms, you look at the 700 (Coastliner) service in West Sussex/Hampshire as an example...
October 1975 - state ownership - once an hour - limited stop - 7 buses...weekly ticket £19...
June 2010 - privatised - up to six times an hour (four times an hour on poorest served section) - all stops - 44 buses...weekly ticket £18.50 ...
Says it all doesn't it - What else do you need to know?
There are times when having the buses and local authority transport planners separate work in the passengers favour, particularly when local politicians try and force through schemes that would badly impact on passengers. The original Oxfordshire County Council 'Transform Oxford' proposals for Oxford High Street are one example, as this would have cut off highly populated eastern Oxford (with the hospitals and Brookes University) from the city centre.
Bus passengers can also seem to be ignored by PTAs when new rail/light rail projects take place/are proposed and be forced to interchange (Gateshead, Croydon) or use stops in more inconvient locations (the proposed midland metro extension in Birmingham).
@cogidubnus
I suggest, in real terms, you look at the 700 (Coastliner) service in West Sussex/Hampshire as an example...
October 1975 - state ownership - once an hour - limited stop - 7 buses...weekly ticket £19...
June 2010 - privatised - up to six times an hour (four times an hour on poorest served section) - all stops - 44 buses...weekly ticket £18.50 ...
Says it all doesn't it - What else do you need to know?
What else I need to know is why the service level has changed so dramatically. What is it about the privatised industry that can generate that kind of growth where a nationalised or regulated industry can't?
Take the railways as an example. After the second world war, rail usage declined, through a combination of modal shift to private cars, and a decision to manage the decline of the railways (eg Beeching). But in the 1980s and early 1990s, which it was still state-run, we saw massive growth. Sectorisation, Sprinterisation, ICEC, NSE Transpennine, Chiltern - there was a hell of a lot of investment, and it was rewarded with a consummate rise in patronage. That all happened because the culture of the railways changed - there was a new ethos to build the railways back up again, and it worked.
Why don't you think that the bus industry could do the same?
I find myself in agreement with StevieD. The fact that bus companies are not directly controlled by national or local government does not in itself guarantee success.
Before deregulation was there such an enormous difference between BET and Tilling companies, or even the likes of Barton or West Riding? They were subject to the same legislation. The legislative changes in the background against which buses operate now have given some companies the opportunity to prosper. However, it is how these companies operate that should be compared. The Coastliner example is because of the style Stagecoach management. Would it have developed in the same way if the constituent NBC/Buyout company had been bought by Arriva or First? We can only speculate but I have a hunch that the network there would not look the same.
There are also a large number of rural independent operators who now have modern fleets bult on the opportunities that local authority funding of routes has given them, including the chance to establish some commercial routes. If it was left to operators only how much of a route network would there still be?
So you think a Stagecoach management style could develop and prosper under direct government or local government control?
You think there wouldn't be stifled opportunities and decision-making inertia, and local politicians just wouldn't interfere with the services?
Whatever it is that you're on, can I have some please?
The debate seems, in some places, to be confusing privatisation and deregulation, which are different issues, although they took place (to a large extent) around the same time. I don't think that in the current circumstances there is any real prospect of the bus operating industry being returned to public ownership, indeed there does not seem to be any serious suggestion of that being wanted, even in South or West Yorkshire.
Public sector finances are generally more strictly controlled than those of the private sector - this is only right and proper, as it is essentially money that has been taken from everybody, with very little choice in the matter. So those responsible for the use of that money need to be precisely that - responsible. They cannot afford to use that money on ventures with a high level of risk - at least, they shouldn't! The private sector is in a different situation (at least, to some extent), and can take risks - because some of them pay off. The private sector can also be more flexible in how it motivates its staff to help make those risks pay off.
The example Cogidubnus cites, of running a service 4 or 6 times an hour, could be considered to be taking a risk. If it hadn't paid off, then the private sector operator (and its shareholders) would have lost money. That's pretty much the end of the story - but if a Loacal Authority had funded such an experiment, and the buses had run empty, then the Council taxpayers would have complained that their money had been wasted - and they would have had a point.
The fact is, the public sector needs to exist to provide essential services that must be available, and that cannot be provided commercially. There may be some debate about which services that covers, but bus services do not fall into that category. The users of buses have other options available to them in most cases - some of which may be short-term, others long-term - and the majority of passenger journeys in the UK are made using other means. Bus services can be, and in many cases, are, provided commercially - therefore, it is better to let the commercial (i.e private) sector develop and operate such services.
To anonymous @ 1350:
"So you think a Stagecoach management style could develop and prosper under direct government or local government control?"
No, and I haven't said that it would be. My reference to Stagecoach was to compare the management styles of different companies, nothing to do with state control.
The point I was trying to make was that the change from public to private control of bus companies was also accompanied by changes in legislation. Bus operation before and after cannot therefore be compared like for like as some above have suggested.
I can no more imagine Brian Souter spending time in front of area Traffic Courts in Bristol (as his predecessors had to do) arguing his case about running an extra bus down a Devon country lane on a Wednesday afternoon than I can him persuading a local authority official in Wakefield that he is right and the grand plan is wrong.
Buses need to offer a service to passengers. There are parts of the country where this can be done profitably, and there are many other parts where it cannot. The proposals from West Yorkshire may not be the answer, but given the cross-party support for them it has to be considered as to why they want change from the current provision. Do they feel that the gentlemen from Aberdeen come before the residents of Dewsbury?
Post a Comment