30 years since bus deregulation

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the Campaign for Better Transport:

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/blog/buses/bus-deregulation-30-years

On the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation, guest blogger Simon Norton, of Cambridgeshire CBT^‡(resolve), looks at what effects it's had and sets out his priorities for reversing the current bus crisis.

[snip]

... bus deregulation has stunted the development of effective user campaigns. Local authorities have abdicated the development of effective area-wide networks to commercial operators, who tend to concentrate on the most profitable routes. This makes campaigning for improvements like banging one's head against a brick wall. Many Local Transport Plans, for example, cover the whole gamut of transport issues except for what matters most to bus users; what local bus networks should look like and how often services should run.

With little support from other campaigners, bus users have suffered in silence as the Government has targeted some of its most vicious cuts on them. Some urban neighbourhoods are now isolated in the evenings and on Sundays, while there are fair sized villages where people can't even get to work for normal office hours. All this while the Government plans massive road widening, airport expansion, rail upgrades, and dedicated routes for cyclists and, yes, buses. But nothing is done for what bus users need most - the far cheaper goal of developing and maintaining a comprehensive network.

A few areas, such as Brighton & Hove, have managed to buck the trend. But, contrary to the stated expectations of some deregulation advocates, these positive results haven^t spread to other areas.

Discuss 

[bobm]

I think the biggest problem with bus transport has been in the last few years with the introduction of the national concessionary pass for those retired or approaching retirement.

I do not begrudge those who qualify for them, but the system has meant a lot of services which were previously commercially successful are no longer so as the recompense the company running the service receives is less than the fare that would have been paid.

[Tim]

I do not begrudge those who qualify for them

I do because they belong to an age bracket which has a median income which is above average http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/24/young-bear-burden-of-pensioner-prosperity

Sure there are poor pensioners who need help just as there are poor young people, but if you are going to introduce a benefit based purely on age then target the age group that is, on average, the poorest.

"Capitalism for the young, socialism for the old" seems to be the principle of this government and I think it stinks.

[ChrisB]

Who do you think is most likely to vote? But I agree with you.

[didcotdean]

I do because they belong to an age bracket which has a median income which is above average ...

The figures in the link are not raw income though, but income minus housing costs and adjusted for household size, which would tend relatively to raise those in retirement compared with the general population. If the income deducted off expenditure on something that those in retirement tended to use more instead, say heating costs through being at home more the spin would be in the opposite direction maybe.

[Tim]

Who do you think is most likely to vote? But I agree with you.

quite. 

[ray951]

Based on the number of passenger journeys  I would be of the opinion that bus deregulation has been a total failure.
To do this compare the number of journeys made in London, which is not deregulated, and the rest of Great Britain which is deregulated:

          London Outside London
1985      1.152     3.650
2014      2.364     2.284     
All million passenger journeys (from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys)
And this is with an increase in population from 56 to 64 million over the same period.

The other point I would make is it is also expensive for the taxpayer as the bus companies take all the profit. This means that there is no cross-subsidy between profit making and loss making services a gap that has to be filled by the taxpayer or closure of services.

[JayMac]

I do not begrudge those who qualify for them, but the system has meant a lot of services which were previously commercially successful are no longer so as the recompense the company running the service receives is less than the fare that would have been paid.

That presupposes the full fare would be paid by those entitled to concessionary travel if the concession wasn't available. It's equally possible they wouldn't travel at all. And equally possible that the full fare revenues are insufficient to sustain the service.

A major principle in the reimbursement to operators is that they should be left 'no better and no worse off' (with an allowed profit element) as a result of the existence of concessionary travel schemes.

We've had mandatory concessionary travel since 2001. A fair analysis is to look at commercial services prior and post that date. More recent service cuts are a result of central government grant reductions reducing the scope for local authorities to support bus services. Blaming concessionary pass holders for actually using buses is wide of the mark.

[Brucey]

Based on the number of passenger journeys  I would be of the opinion that bus deregulation has been a total failure.
To do this compare the number of journeys made in London, which is not deregulated, and the rest of Great Britain which is deregulated:

          London Outside London
1985      1.152     3.650
2014      2.364     2.284    
All million passenger journeys (from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys)
And this is with an increase in population from 56 to 64 million over the same period.

One thing that may increase the London figures is that travel is included in the price of a Travelcard.  Even if you only require tube travel in specific zones, bus journeys on any London bus are included.  This can lead to passengers travelling a very short distance (e.g. one stop), which would never be made where the travel were not "free".

[Rhydgaled]

Based on the number of passenger journeys  I would be of the opinion that bus deregulation has been a total failure.
To do this compare the number of journeys made in London, which is not deregulated, and the rest of Great Britain which is deregulated:

          London Outside London
1985      1.152     3.650
2014      2.364     2.284    
All million passenger journeys (from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys)
And this is with an increase in population from 56 to 64 million over the same period.

One thing that may increase the London figures is that travel is included in the price of a Travelcard.  Even if you only require tube travel in specific zones, bus journeys on any London bus are included.  This can lead to passengers travelling a very short distance (e.g. one stop), which would never be made where the travel were not "free".

Did the Travelcard exist in 1985? If it didn't, then it probably does make the comparison invalid. However, if the Travelcard existed the fact the travel outside London has gone down but within it has gone up would seem to be significant.

[ellendune]

Did the Travelcard exist in 1985? If it didn't, then it probably does make the comparison invalid. However, if the Travelcard existed the fact the travel outside London has gone down but within it has gone up would seem to be significant.

Wikipedia says the London Travelcard was introduced in 1981.

[paul7575]

Did the Travelcard exist in 1985? If it didn't, then it probably does make the comparison invalid. However, if the Travelcard existed the fact the travel outside London has gone down but within it has gone up would seem to be significant.

Wikipedia says the London Travelcard was introduced in 1981.

It took various forms from 1981, including the name Capital Card at one stage, but a day travelcard as we know it today with all modes including rail didn't appear until later.  (Same article)

Paul

[eightf48544]

What I find interesting is that London has an integrated specified zonal fared public transport system with "free" interchange between modes during a journey. A horrid European idea!

Whereas everyelse buses are expected to compete with buses and trains. Good old capitalism!

[ellendune]

Ah but you see London is special because....  um......   um.....   oh I know ... .. because all the politicians who run the country live there!

[Surrey 455]

What I find interesting is that London has an integrated specified zonal fared public transport system with "free" interchange between modes during a journey. A horrid European idea!

Whereas everyelse buses are expected to compete with buses and trains. Good old capitalism!

It's only free if you use a travelcard. For Pay as you go, you will pay for each bus you use although once you have spent a certain amount, I believe your ticket is then converted to a travelcard.