2nd October 2022 Mass Bus Cuts Across South Yorkshire

[HeHasRisen 3,412]

Also does she not realised a number of routes are already subsidised?

[RollingJ 2,066]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Also does she not realised a number of routes are already subsidised?

Probably not.

[Dave h-j 10]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

As I asked before, Anna, who is going to pay for said buses, crews, fuel, ,maintenance,  administration...?

I’ve not read this entire thread - so apologies if this is retreading - but doesn’t there already exist a business model and customer demands, which would cover those items. 
 

For me it’s the change of emphasis away from a “for-profit” company, with its obligations to maximise shareholder value, towards a “for-benefit” company where the emphasis is on serving the community. This doesn’t mean never making a profit, but that this profit is not excessive or removes from the company towards shareholders/investors. 
 

so perhaps for buses, rather than a for-profit company making a decision on entirely commercial grounds (I.e. focusing on high volume, higher profit routes) there is a more holistic view that balances this against routes that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher social value. 
 

maybe a half way house between nationalised industries and private companies - where we see a really social/community value that exists above a purely money making focus. 

[Resident 1,199]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Bus service needs to return to the control of Sheffield City Council. 

 

It should not be just for profit, but also for the convenience of the users.

That might mean subsidising some of the routes to ensure coverage. 

 

If the council are serious about reducing car use, emissions, etc, a reliable user friendly public transport system is absolutely essential.

.

I'll tell you again. Bus operators haven't made a profit in SY in over a DECADE. Profit isn't a dirty word. Profit is needed so that it can be invested. No profit = No improvements

Most routes are already subsidised and a massive reduction (~40%)  in those subsidies plus lack of passengers is the reason for the recent cuts. 

As for SCC running the lot. They cannot manage their current budget and are already in deep do-do. How do you think they'd do with another £120+ million to find annually, not to mention the £200 million estimated costs for the transition from private to public control. 

 

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Who ever thought that up should be convicted of forgery - and the college administration charged with dereliction of duty, or something worse.

Agreed. They got a bit of a shock when revenue protection did a mass hit on buses in the  area one day. 65 arrests. 

[Resident 1,199]

Just now, Dave h-j said:

I’ve not read this entire thread - so apologies if this is retreading - but doesn’t there already exist a business model and customer demands, which would cover those items. 
 

For me it’s the change of emphasis away from a “for-profit” company, with its obligations to maximise shareholder value, towards a “for-benefit” company where the emphasis is on serving the community. This doesn’t mean never making a profit, but that this profit is not excessive or removes from the company towards shareholders/investors. 
 

so perhaps for buses, rather than a for-profit company making a decision on entirely commercial grounds (I.e. focusing on high volume, higher profit routes) there is a more holistic view that balances this against routes that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher social value. 
 

maybe a half way house between nationalised industries and private companies - where we see a really social/community value that exists above a purely money making focus. 

Again. Profit isn't a dirty word and is essential if you want to make improvements. 

As it stands, the LAW prohibits companies using profit from one route to subsidise another loss-making one which means the local authority has to tender it instead.  This halfway house you mention is already there. It's the tender system. PTE (or whatever it calls itself now) offers routes and operators bid to run it, lowest bid wins. 

The issue is that because funding has dropped 40% (10s of millions) PTE cannot afford what it costs to run those tendered routes. Say a route costs £10 million to run a year. PTE have £6million to pay for it. So where does the extra 4 come from? No tendered route will make 4 million in a year, especially now with passenger number being near half what they were pre-pandemic. 

The sad fact that people can't get into their heads because all the see is a 'for-profit' company is that Stagecoach SY and First SY have NOT made a profit in the region in over a decade.

[RollingJ 2,066]

11 minutes ago, Dave h-j said:

I’ve not read this entire thread - so apologies if this is retreading - but doesn’t there already exist a business model and customer demands, which would cover those items. 
 

For me it’s the change of emphasis away from a “for-profit” company, with its obligations to maximise shareholder value, towards a “for-benefit” company where the emphasis is on serving the community. This doesn’t mean never making a profit, but that this profit is not excessive or removes from the company towards shareholders/investors. 
 

so perhaps for buses, rather than a for-profit company making a decision on entirely commercial grounds (I.e. focusing on high volume, higher profit routes) there is a more holistic view that balances this against routes that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher social value. 
 

maybe a half way house between nationalised industries and private companies - where we see a really social/community value that exists above a purely money making focus. 

See the post below yours, but running a passenger transport organisation is a massive, cash-hungry operation, and there is a need for continuous investment - most buses have a maximum of 15 years useful service, and when you take into account ever-changing Construction and Use Regulations, and other considerations, that 15-year, budgeted-for life can suddenly shrink.

 

So, even if we go for your final paragraphs option, the costs have to be covered - somehow.

[Dave h-j 10]

2 minutes ago, Resident said:

Again. Profit isn't a dirty word and is essential if you want to make improvements. 

As it stands, the LAW prohibits companies using profit from one route to subsidise another loss-making one which means the local authority has to tender it instead.  This halfway house you mention is already there. It's the tender system. PTE (or whatever it calls itself now) offers routes and operators bid to run it, lowest bid wins. 

The issue is that because funding has dropped 40% (10s of millions) PTE cannot afford what it costs to run those tendered routes. Say a route costs £10 million to run a year. PTE have £6million to pay for it. So where does the extra 4 come from? No tendered route will make 4 million in a year, especially now with passenger number being near half what they were pre-pandemic. 

The sad fact that people can't get into their heads because all the see is a 'for-profit' company is that Stagecoach SY and First SY have NOT made a profit in the region in over a decade.

Agreed - profit isn’t a dirty word (not sure what part of my post made you think that?) - as like you say there needs to be reinvestment. 

If they are running at a loss, then I’m not sure I understand why the bus companies haven’t pulled out?  Why are they still running some routes?

[Guest busdriver1]

20 minutes ago, Dave h-j said:

Agreed - profit isn’t a dirty word (not sure what part of my post made you think that?) - as like you say there needs to be reinvestment. 

If they are running at a loss, then I’m not sure I understand why the bus companies haven’t pulled out?  Why are they still running some routes?

Maybe they hope that SYPTE / SYMCA will come to their senses and allow them to run viably, some hope. They seem to have an interest in preventing them from doing so in order to improve their chances of taking the buses over and building a nice little empire on the cheap.

[RollingJ 2,066]

1 minute ago, busdriver1 said:

Maybe they hope that SYPTE / SYMCA will come to their senses and allow them to run viably, some hope. They seem to have an interest in preventing them from doing so in order to improve their chances of taking the buses over and building a nice little empire on the cheap.

Not that cheap if they have to buy the buses. 😉

[Guest busdriver1]

44 minutes ago, Dave h-j said:

I’ve not read this entire thread - so apologies if this is retreading - but doesn’t there already exist a business model and customer demands, which would cover those items. 
 

For me it’s the change of emphasis away from a “for-profit” company, with its obligations to maximise shareholder value, towards a “for-benefit” company where the emphasis is on serving the community. This doesn’t mean never making a profit, but that this profit is not excessive or removes from the company towards shareholders/investors. 
 

so perhaps for buses, rather than a for-profit company making a decision on entirely commercial grounds (I.e. focusing on high volume, higher profit routes) there is a more holistic view that balances this against routes that are not commercially profitable, but have a higher social value. 
 

maybe a half way house between nationalised industries and private companies - where we see a really social/community value that exists above a purely money making focus. 

We have just faced the massive implosion of the biggest "not for profit" bus company in the UK. They are not exempt from the current situation.

Just now, RollingJ said:

Not that cheap if they have to buy the buses. 😉

Cheaper than if things were running well though.

[RollingJ 2,066]

1 minute ago, busdriver1 said:

 

Cheaper than if things were running well though.

Get your point.