52a Bus To Wisewood And Loxley

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, YorkieontheTyne said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, thatcher “deregulated” bus services back in 1986, and turned them from public services into private services. Just like any other private enterprise it either turns a profit or gets the chop. Simples.

So, when it is a 'public' service who pays to run it? The vehicles still need to be built, bought, maintained, fuelled and driven.

[YorkieontheTyne]

16 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

So, when it is a 'public' service who pays to run it? The vehicles still need to be built, bought, maintained, fuelled and driven.

Prior to 1986 it was South Yorkshire PTE, before that up to 1974 it was the various town and city corporations.

OK, leading up to 1986 the PTE low fares policy lead to a sharp increase in business rates to fund it, but it meant a comprehensive timetable and full buses all day every day.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, YorkieontheTyne said:

Prior to 1986 it was South Yorkshire PTE, before that up to 1974 it was the various town and city corporations.

OK, leading up to 1986 the PTE low fares policy lead to a sharp increase in business rates to fund it, but it meant a comprehensive timetable and full buses all day every day.

Business rates are set by Westminster - It was your rates/Council tax/Community Charge that 'shot up' to fund the system. And do you recall the TC's taking almost all Sheffield's (don't know about Rotherham/Doncaster) buses off the road when Mainline took over ?- I do.

[Retro Queen]

The trams have gone back to public service and I've heard that the buses will be doing the same. There is going to be a change from tomorrow, and it says, for the better so we shall see.

[RollingJ]

Just now, Retro Queen said:

The trams have gone back to public service and I've heard that the buses will be doing the same. There is going to be a change from tomorrow, and it says, for the better so we shall see.

Watch your Council Tax rocket to pay for it, then.

[YorkieontheTyne]

38 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Business rates are set by Westminster - It was your rates/Council tax/Community Charge that 'shot up' to fund the system. And do you recall the TC's taking almost all Sheffield's (don't know about Rotherham/Doncaster) buses off the road when Mainline took over ?- I do.

Hold you hard here RollingJ. My first post in this thread was in support of your first post, number 4. 

I can’t comment on when Mainline took over, I wasn’t there. However if you’re referring to the blitz on vehicles and numerous prohibitions then that took place way before Mainline came on the scene, I was there for that.

However, that a different discussion. This thread goes back to a simple premise regarding bus services. Use it or lose it. 

[FIRETHORN1]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole ethos of public ownership is that that everyone should be entitled to at least a basic level of service. Of course, some bus routes in heavily populated and heavily used areas will make more profit than those in more remote, less used areas, but the profits should be ploughed back into subsidising the less profitable areas and into maintaining the system, not just used to line the pockets of the rich shareholders. The same argument could be used for any basic service. It costs more to provide and maintain gas, water and electricity to remote areas. It costs more to deliver mail - or provide broadband - to remote areas - it costs more to empty the bins. Does this mean that these essential services should only be provided in built-up areas and that people who live in less busy areas should have to do without - or should have to pay an extra charge just to access basic services?  

[YorkieontheTyne]

9 minutes ago, FIRETHORN1 said:

As far as I'm concerned, the whole ethos of public ownership is that that everyone should be entitled to at least a basic level of service. Of course, some bus routes in heavily populated and heavily used areas will make more profit than those in more remote, less used areas, but the profits should be ploughed back into subsidising the less profitable areas and into maintaining the system, not just used to line the pockets of the rich shareholders. The same argument could be used for any basic service. It costs more to provide and maintain gas, water and electricity to remote areas. It costs more to deliver mail - or provide broadband - to remote areas - it costs more to empty the bins. Does this mean that these essential services should only be provided in built-up areas and that people who live in less busy areas should have to do without - or should have to pay an extra charge just to access basic services?  

You’ve hit the nail on the head there FIRETHORN1 when you said public ownership. The buses are operated by private, commercial companies. They haven’t been publically owned as you put it since 1986.

[RollingJ]

33 minutes ago, YorkieontheTyne said:

Hold you hard here RollingJ. My first post in this thread was in support of your first post, number 4. 

I can’t comment on when Mainline took over, I wasn’t there. However if you’re referring to the blitz on vehicles and numerous prohibitions then that took place way before Mainline came on the scene, I was there for that.

However, that a different discussion. This thread goes back to a simple premise regarding bus services. Use it or lose it. 

Apologies - I misread.

 

I may also have got prohibitions timings wrong - it is a long time ago, and I was busy improving my life back then, my interests in the PSV industry was still there, but work was a priority.

 

I totally agree with your final comment, though. *

[RollingJ]

The * above should have been a 👍, BTW (Damn 'no edit' situation)