(Yes he did. I double checked using BBC iPlayer).
Amid the memories of a red flag flying over Sheffield’s town hall, its declaration as the first nuclear free city, its determination to take on the then Thatcher government and other stunts that led to accusations of the council misrepresenting the local electorate, cheap bus fares will forever be remembered as the major success of the so-called People’s Republic of South Yorkshire.
All that finished over 20 years ago. A fortnight ago, in spite of what appears to be a firm stance from Conservative-led Westminster, the South Yorkshire integrated transport authority launched a public consultation regarding its quality contract proposals. It wants to take back control of the city region’s buses. Perhaps here, more than anywhere, you would expect locals to support such a notion. And thus far, the authorities seem to be pushing on an open platform without doors.
Unsurprisingly, fare reductions feature within the proposals, though not to the extent of the 1980s. Then, you could travel countywide for 2p, equivalent to 8p today. Under the franchise, whole network tickets would sell at £4. That’s only 30p shy of First’s current prices and 50p more expensive than Stagecoach’s combined bus/tram tickets (though, if course, Stagecoach offers a more limited network). £4 is equivalent to £1.08 in 1980. City singles would run at 70p (19p in 1980) or 60p with a smartcard.
South Yorkshire promises its proposals will provide a “real difference” to bus service quality, including environmentally-friendly low floor buses with CCTV and RTI at busy city locations. Not knowing Sheffield especially well, is much of this in place or already within SYPTE’s remit?
And the cost? No mention of that, yet. As a reflection of the likely price tag, the sum spent on commuters in the North East (sic) is currently £234 per head compared to London’s £641. While TfL has been incredibly successful in growing the bus market, people are beginning to question the cost.
What was therefore interesting was a comment on the radio a fortnight ago from the then *Conservative* deputy chair (now chairman) of *West* Yorkshire’s integrated transport authority that WYITA’s QC plans for would garner *savings* to improve transport. That’s what he said, though it doesn’t feature in the post-programme WYITA official press release. Can that *really* be the case, in either West or South Yorkshire? Improvements while making a saving? That most certainly aligns with the current government’s goals. If indeed this is possible, it’s a case of “Never Give Up. Never Surrender” for the protagonists of quality contracts.
i WYITA Press Release of 16 June
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Did he really say that On-air?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
the major success of the so-called People’s Republic of South Yorkshire
Didn't they end up having to close libraries to pay for their cheap bus fares policy?
No libraries closed in Barnsley before, during or after the cheap fares bus policy.
Not sure when the author is referring to but by 1985 adult fares had been increased to 10p. Child fares were 2p however, which was fantastic!
Getting back on topic, like many places in the Country commercial operators are not providing a relevant network anymore and local authorities feel as though they are banging their heads on the table.
With the reduction in subsidies now heading for the industry hopefully bus companies will use their commercial skills, knowledge & experience to deliver quality services that meet the communitys requirements for 2010 and do not need subsidy.
Yes, he did really say that, and could well be correct. There are many goldmine routes which generate monopoly profit levels - profits which under a QC system would inherrently be ploughed back into the cross-subsidy of unremunerative journeys which currently require direct subsidy from the public purse. Meanwhile in other places, there is 'competitive' duplication that could be removed to save costs.
Obviously the vested interests will be mounting formidable PR operations to rubbish these ideas (especially the former), as well as continually and irrelevantly referring to the costs of the London system (no-one is suggesting that that kind of extravagance would be necessary to bring about considerable improvements in the regions).
I think they do protest too much ;-)
Interesting to remember Busing's post on Saturday, in which he pointed out that average profit margins are 11.2%, and questioned whether this was sufficient for long term sustainability. I would have serious doubts that it is - and it does rather suggest that, if there are any such 'goldmine' routes, then the profits are already, to some extent, being used to cross-subsidise less profitable operations.
In my experience, the 'goldmine' routes are few and far between - and, in any case, cross-subsidisation has rather dubious social consequences. Most 'goldmine' routes run to areas of high density housing, populated by people on generally lower incomes; while the less profitable services serve rural areas or low density suburban housing areas. Of course there are exceptions, but in general one could argue that cross-subsidy does the opposite of Robin Hood - it robs the poor to help the rich.
Not such a clever idea.
Post a Comment