Green plans to nationalise Bristol buses come under fire
Green Party mayoral candidate Daniella Radice has come under fire for suggesting she would take back Bristol buses into public ownership, with the West of England Bus Operators' Association doubting the plan’s benefit and warning it could lead to higher council tax bills.
Speaking just two-and-a-half-weeks ahead of the mayoral election, Ms Radice laid out her vision of a Bristol where the revenue from buses belongs “to the people of Bristol” and is used to improve local transport.
-
Daniella Radice's plan to nationalise Bristol buses has been criticised by abus, First and WEBOA
The Green candidate - an environmental specialist who has worked in the waste industry and for Network Rail – said her party hopes to deliver a joined-up transport scheme for Bristol. Plans include improved local rail links, support for the Bristol metro, an emphasis on cycling and walking provision, and a transport hub at Bristol Temple Meads to simplify connections.
Taking the buses – which were privatised in 1986 under the Thatcher government - back into public ownership forms a key part of that plan, she said: "If we take the buses back into public ownership, the people of Bristol will be back in the driving seat.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
“We pay over £3 million a year to subsidise First buses, yet fares are still extortionate, services run late, and all the profits leak out of the system into shareholders' pockets.”
Ms Radice later amended that figure, claiming £3m is the total subsidy awarded to all bus operators in Bristol.
She added: “The revenue from our buses should belong to the people of Bristol and be used to improve our transport. Through taking back the buses, we can give free travel for under-16s, and, yes, charge a fare of £1.50 on routes within the city."
But the Green candidate’s comments have been criticised by the West of England Bus Operators' Association (WEBOA). Its Chairman John Birch told This is Bristol: “We don’t see there’s any benefit, least of all in terms of the cost of doing it.
“Nobody so far has properly costed such an operation. The figures being bandied around just don’t stand up when you consider the overall operational costs.
“People need to understand what is being proposed to be done with their money.”
He added: “We feel [the plan] is a nonsense. We support many of the Greens’ aspirations in other respects, but in this particular regard we don’t see the benefit. We cannot see where that would involve an improvement in the service.
“The evidence says service reliability has improved dramatically in the last five to six years, as a result of working with the Local Authorities, investing in decent kit and improving staffing levels.
“That’s all been done without the need to get involved in Quality Contracts [Quality Contract Schemes bring local bus services under public control].”
Alan Peters, managing director of Abus Ltd, also criticised the plan: “I don’t think it is economically viable. I don’t think mayoral candidates even begin to understand the economics of the bus industry.
“I don’t believe there is the money in the budget to pay for what Ms Radice wants to do. For me there are more question marks than there are answers.”
Mr Peters also warned taking buses back into public ownership could lead to higher council tax bills. “It would hugely affect council tax bills, and they would take away vehicles from financially viable routes,” he said.
Meanwhile WEBOA, in a letter written earlier this month, said: “Under a Quality Contract the cost of providing buses in Bristol will be borne by each and every local taxpayer. And the risk will no longer be borne by the bus operators, but by the City Council.
“In fact, this means that the risk will be borne by you through your council tax bills. And unlike a partnership, which can start delivering improvements straight away, a Quality Contract is probably three or four years away.”
Meanwhile First said: “There has been much talk about what taking the local bus services back in to public ownership would bring the city of Bristol, but much of the rhetoric misses out a number of the downsides to this – i.e. people promise bus users lower fares but without fully explaining the pros and cons, or the impact it would have on council tax bills.”
Ms Radice disputed suggestions her plan could lead to a rise in council tax bills: “I don’t think that is correct, because if they are running bus services that are making a profit those profits would go back into the bus service,” she said. “The aim is it would be cost neutral”.
David Sidebottom, passenger director at Passenger Focus, an independent public body set up by the Government to protect the interests of Britain's rail and bus passengers, said: “For bus passengers in Bristol the most important thing is not who owns or operates services, but whether they are punctual, frequent, go to the places they want and need them to go to, and are value for money.”
To find out more about Quality Contracts:
• Buses: Franchising (House of Commons Library)
Comments
by stockwoodpete
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 7:46PM
“I think the Post has got the wrong end of the stick here.... and many readers may be misled by it.
No company's assets are going to be seized; even if it was fair and practicable to do that, it would need legislation that none of the big three at Westminster would contemplate. It would probably upset Europe and dozens of international agreements too. It's certainly not within a mayor's powers.
It's reasonable, though, for any candidate to call for public control of the city's buses, and to argue that public ownership would be the best means of delivering an optimum service. Surely any good candidate should be saying what steps would be good for Bristol, and this is a pretty good example.
Within the 'transport' section of Daniella's manifesto (a rare thing in this election!) it's made clear: "Bringing buses under public control: The Green Mayor will campaign to bring our buses back under full public control to ensure fair fares and a better service." You can read it all at http://tinyurl.com/9vrjh77”
by Brizz_Tony
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 7:18PM
“Existing operators have indeed benefited from the massive investment in bus lanes, which has improved reliability and cut their fuel costs. It's a shame that investment hasn't led to extra services, so that passengers can benefit too, along with those who may be tempted out of cars by additional seats at a lower price. First's "Thank you" for making life better for them was to withdraw the "Three stop hop". When that went, and the three stops from my house to Temple Meads cost £2.35 instead of £1.00, I got back in the car for the whole journey. Spending on transport should benefit the public, not the operators.”
by bristolreded
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 7:04PM
“The greens are right on this but wrong on billboards.”
by bristolreded
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 6:59PM
“Good ideal but I still won't vote for the greens, I will vote for Tom Baldwin.”
by gary_hopkins
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 6:38PM
“Mcupis
Are you new to Bristol ?
First have had a virtual monopoly here for many years. As it happens recent changes have reduced their market share a little but certainly not enough to change the game significantly yet.
When the Tories privatised the bus services(and Labour barely changed this) they showed blind faith in the market and failed to ,outside London, give enough power to the customers and their representatives the councils.
The GBBN was signed under the previous government and it gave the West of England around £50M tof central government money to improve the infrastructure.
Existing operators have benefitted from this by reduced costs but no monopoly has been handed to them.
We seek to use those infrastructure improvements for the benefit of the Bristol public more by controlling fares and routes.”
by mcupis
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 5:22PM
“Cllr Hopkins, can you explain why vast sums of public money have been used to re-engineer the roads of Bristol to favour a privately owned transport operator?
With other forms of transport made increasingly unviable, First have been handed a virtual monopoly of transport in Bristol, all funded by the taxpayer. What happens when you give a private business a monopoly? It puts prices up and cuts less profitable services. Because it knows that the consumer has no option.
It's rich beyond measure that the architects of this, Cllrs Hopkins, Rogers and Kent, then appear bleating in the local newspaper when this fait accompli is realised.”
by Jimenez47
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 5:20PM
“Compared to other cities Bristol's fares are over the top, so the city definitely needs some proper competition from other companies.
But as for 'nationalising' (ie thieving) ..well that's just the kind of spiteful, ill-thought out piece of agitprop garbage I'd expect from a socialist, sorry Green.”
by mcupis
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 5:18PM
“Cllr Hopkins, can you explain why vast sums of public money have been used to re-engineer the roads of Bristol to favour a privately owned transport operator?
With other forms of transport made increasingly unviable, First have been handed a virtual monopoly of transport in Bristol, all funded by the taxpayer. What happens when you give a private business a monopoly? It puts prices up and cuts less profitable services. Because it knows that the consumer has no option.
It's rich beyond measure that the architects of this, Cllrs Hopkins, Rogers and Kent, then appear bleating in the local newspaper when this fait accompli is realised.”
by gary_hopkins
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 5:02PM
“Total confusion caused by the article.
There are a significant number of Bristolians who believe that the council has power over the bus companies in Bristol.
The vast majority of these and those not suffering from the misunderstanding agree that fares are too high and it is putting off potential users trusting the bus service.Part of the trouble is that even if First changed their spots it would take a long time for public trust to build up.
So something must be done.
There are 3 options
1 Hope that First will change their business model and move attracting more long term customers to the top of the agenda rather than squeezing maximum profit out of a smaller number.
History does not show this to be a great option for the travelling customer or for that matter the council taxpayer.You can understand why First would want to keep a position where they maximise profit on the busy routes and farm subsidies on the rest.
2 What appears to be the Green party solution of public ownership and operation.
Seizing the assets without payment does not sit well in Britain and the record of public bodies running services is not great. It would make it very difficult to get the private sector to invest in the future.
3 Have fares and routes decided by the council and private operators run them.
This is the model that works for most services and works in London so why not for transport in Bristol.Whether it be waste collection,waste treatment,tree maintenance etc etc it would be unthinkable to just allow private sector companies to do what they feell ike and it should not be the case with public transport.This is the Lib dem position.
Options 2 and 3 do share the great advantage of building trust in public transport but they are very different and mixing them up in this article does not help.”
by SlotBoy
Tuesday, October 30 2012, 2:56PM
“The only quick fix that I can see is to encourage private operators to run smaller shuttle buses by way of competition. Most of the buses outside of peak hours are half full - or empty depending on your optimism. First would have to promise not to be naughty boys and undercut these services.
You saw it here First.
Rich Fisher - Independent”