One Operator Per Service

[Stuharris 6360]

Isn't it time that the West Midlands became more like London and had just one operator per service. and that operator took on ALL services, even the loss making ones. Surely you would then get a better service.

If you look at the 16 service between Birmingham & Hamstead, what fun is it to have NXWM, Diamond and GRS all chasing each other round all day!

[Bob]

oh weve got that in Cannock now, Arriva with a complete monopoly operating crap buses with extortionate fares, thanks to the competition and choice that deregulation brought! Prior to 1986 we had WMPTE, midland red north, the green bus service... Thanx Maggie!

[Tomjusttom]

Isn't it time that the West Midlands became more like London and had just one operator per service. and that operator took on ALL services, even the loss making ones. Surely you would then get a better service.

If you look at the 16 service between Birmingham & Hamstead, what fun is it to have NXWM, Diamond and GRS all chasing each other round all day!

No. Just No.

Look at the campaign that Go North East are doing

http://www.sayyesnow.co.uk/

[vinh1000]

prefer multiple operators tbh especially if one dont turn up

[Nathan4775]

prefer multiple operators tbh especially if one dont turn up

I agree, i think its better to have 2 operators on the route so if you miss NXWM you've got a choice of another operaotr, but then again regarding other services such as the 97/17 the other operator (Blue Diamond) tend to speed past you.

[PM]

Far better to have comptetition and deregulation-on the whole better than what Metro etc want which even Nexus admit would cost a lot of money to implement.

[Badger]

Competition isn't working. I'd rather have regulation.

[PM]

Competition isn't working. I'd rather have regulation.

You'd rather pay more taxes then for a bus service run by politicians with loads of strikes and political interference?? Yes, deregulation isnt working in some areas but overall as a general rule I would say it is.

[andy]

Sorry guys, as I've said before I disagree. Personally I like Go Ahead and I think they're one of the better groups, but quality contracts in my opinion are far better than the tinpot versus goliath mish mash that our system creates.

I'm fed up of hearing about how taxes go up under this system. They don't atall, because there are no vast profits from revenue involved, the operator gets a management fee, and what's more the local authority gathers the revenue from travelcards and distributes it to operators appropriately. It's not the same as the train system where the operator can cream the profits off.

The benefits are that the service is regulated, the operator is targeted on reliability and customer service and vehicles are renewed more often and cowboys can't get in. I don't however agree with the next phase in London, whereby Tfl owns the vehicles. That will definitely result in tax hikes.

There is no loss of competition as long as the routes are split up and awarded in seperate rounds, ideally to different operators. Go Ahead are obviously not going to be happy about this as if they tendered for the contracts, they would end up operating the same vast swathes of network they do now, only without the option of pocketing so much revenue and awarding it to its shareholders.

[PM]

Says it all really: We are concerned that Quality Contracts "would need considerable additional funding for contracting which is unlikely to be available in the near future. We consider the approach by Metro in gaining funding from the existing profits of the bus operators would threaten the re-investment in the industry locally. We fear more cheap and nasty operators would be contracted to keep costs down." Re-regulation is just an excuse to gain more power and we don't want to go back to a situation where people who don't have a clue about buses plan routes, organise contracts-after the west coast mainline fiasco, do you have much faith at all in politicians' competence..... Ill let you be the judge of that. London's current system is both expensive and not flexible-the fact more people are using buses there is not down to whether buses are dergulated or not.... People claim that it would not be expensive-you mean that you want cross subdidy-high fares on profitable routes to pay for the underperforming ones-a strategy that fails every single time.

[Badger]

I am of the unpopular opinion that high taxes are a good thing if the services they provide are equally high.

[j789]

Agree with Peter. Regulation is not the answer in the West Midlands area. London is different because of its size and how many people live live there. Also, and this is the important thing, using public transport is a necessity in London for many people not a choice so the volume of passengers will support whatever system in place. Out of London the situation is completely different - you can drive into Birmingham City Centre or any other large city easily and park fairly cheaply so public transport is not a necessity for most people - you simply cant in London so people use the train, bus, underground.
The only way regulation could work for everyone, passengers and companies, is if every city/ town had a congestion charging zone as this would then make more people use public transport so profit levels could be guaranteed for the bus companies, otherwise there would be no investment and certainly no 'quality'.

[Tony]

I am of the unpopular opinion that high taxes are a good thing if the services they provide are equally high.

I prefer to spend the money I earn on what I want to, not what some politician thinks I ought to, specially when it will be a different politician 4-5 years later changing what the first one did

[andy]

Agree with Peter. Regulation is not the answer in the West Midlands area. London is different because of its size and how many people live live there. Also, and this is the important thing, using public transport is a necessity in London for many people not a choice so the volume of passengers will support whatever system in place. Out of London the situation is completely different - you can drive into Birmingham City Centre or any other large city easily and park fairly cheaply so public transport is not a necessity for most people - you simply cant in London so people use the train, bus, underground.
The only way regulation could work for everyone, passengers and companies, is if every city/ town had a congestion charging zone as this would then make more people use public transport so profit levels could be guaranteed for the bus companies, otherwise there would be no investment and certainly no 'quality'.

You've answered your own question....the congestion charge is coming, that's the whole point.

[j789]

Perhaps it is for Birmingham but what about Wolverhampton, Coventry, Walsall etc etc - If regulation got introduced here it would affect all the West Mids, not just Birmingham routes so unless every town gets a charging zone it wont work.