If Dr Richard Beeching was the controversial saviour or destroyer of our railways, the late Nicholas Ridley performed the same much debated function for the bus industry.
The various acts required local authorities to create "arms length" companies to run their former municipal buses; and legislation introduced freedom from the rule of the Traffic Commissioners in deciding whether a new or revised bus service would be permitted.
Competition, said the theory, would reduce fares and improve services. In groups of villages an entrepreneur could set up a commercial bus service and run it for profit but aimed at local people not the monstrous national bus company. Subsidies would only be paid to services which were absolutely essential for the public good.
And we all know the consequences. Instead of the monstrous NBC, we have a small number of largely non-competing bus giants and, to the delight of shareholders (?) fares have increased well above the rate of inflation. Outside of the big cities, services have been progressively reduced; and under recent political (mis)management local authorities have withdrawn from contributing to what were once viewed as "essential" services.
In the 1960s Sheffield City Council developed a new housing estate at Woodhouse.
As soon as the roads were complete and, as the builders moved out, Sheffield Transport extended its service 52 from a terminus at Ballified, just beyond Handworth ...
... via Badger Road to Woodhouse station.
The STD management had a simple policy; get the buses running and as people move in to their new homes, they will use them. And they did.
The route remained stable through the PTE (as bus and train operator) era ...
... then attracted competition from Yorkshire Terrier, becoming Yorkshire Traction and finally assuming Stagecoach ownership. Under the Sheffield Bus (non) Partnership, the PTE brokered a deal to mitigate competition and operate "jointly". Frequencies are still high, every five minutes over most of the route and, presumably, business is still good.
So you could argue that, in busy urban areas, the Ridley revolution was a huge success. Passengers are still waiting for the bonus of lower fares!
The same "buses in first" policy applied to the massive Norfolk Park high-rise development ...
... now bereft of its tower blocks and the masses of people who inhabited them.
The estate is also bereft of buses but has the pleasure of a 12 minute tram frequency, trams that were built with political purpose (regeneration) and struggled to be commercially viable!
On the north of the city, a development first dubbed Roe Lane after a little know back street a cesz also had buses provided early (service 101). Firshill Crescent, the wiggly estate spine road ...
... still has a bus every ten minutes.
Again this is now a "joint" service shared by Stagecoach (83a) and First (83).
In each case fbb was either on the very first bus or, if early rising was less attractive, on a first day run. It was interesting to watch frequencies improve as the estates grew and matured. But the "buses first" did deliver a recognised and stable service which was obviously NOT commercial in the early days.
The fact that reasonable services are still there might be an argument in favour of Nick Ridley's politically pursued privatisation policy.
So how does this work today?
Enter "section 106" money - a scheme whereby property developers are "persuaded" to cough up some pennies to subsidise public transport to or via their development in its early stages. Goody goody.
But what happens if such funding is not on offer; or, more to the point, what happens when the section 106 money runs out and the bus service is still not commercially viable? Either way, Nick Ridley's shining vision can rapidly turn into a nightmare.
And so to Waverley.
Not Waverley Works on Effingham Street near the centre of Sheffield ...
... nor a railway station in Edinburgh ...
... nor a series of novels by Sir Walter Scott ...
... the first of which was called, simply, Waverley.
And not even Mrs fbb's absolutely favourite paddle steamer!
But an oddly named housing estate and business area on the borders of Sheffield and Rotherham.
How does Nick Ridley's "commercial" vision provide adequate bus routes to serve Waverley and its associated business parks?
We turn in that direction tomorrow. For the keen blog reader, fbb has written about Waverley before and, for homework and/or more background enjoyment, the posting in question is (here).
In each case fbb was either on the very first bus or, if early rising was less attractive, on a first day run. It was interesting to watch frequencies improve as the estates grew and matured. But the "buses first" did deliver a recognised and stable service which was obviously NOT commercial in the early days.
The fact that reasonable services are still there might be an argument in favour of Nick Ridley's politically pursued privatisation policy.
So how does this work today?
Enter "section 106" money - a scheme whereby property developers are "persuaded" to cough up some pennies to subsidise public transport to or via their development in its early stages. Goody goody.
But what happens if such funding is not on offer; or, more to the point, what happens when the section 106 money runs out and the bus service is still not commercially viable? Either way, Nick Ridley's shining vision can rapidly turn into a nightmare.
And so to Waverley.
Not Waverley Works on Effingham Street near the centre of Sheffield ...
We turn in that direction tomorrow. For the keen blog reader, fbb has written about Waverley before and, for homework and/or more background enjoyment, the posting in question is (here).
Next Waverley blog : Wednesday 6th March
Not only are the residents of Sheffield still waiting for the lower fares they were promised, they are also paying MUCH higher fares than they used to as Ridley's legislation prohibited local authorities from keeping fares below "commercial levels" even on their own buses.
ReplyDeleteBut at least the taxpayers are paying less towards bus services than they did under the People's Republic of South Yorkshire!
DeleteDeregulation has generally resulted in a lower subsidy bill than the previous system. And DfT figures show that the rate of loss of passengers was reduced by deregulation. The recent publicity for falling numbers is nothing compared to the rate of loss during the 1970s: from 1970 to 1982, passenger numbers across the country fell from 8.6bn to 5.5bn. It's true though that there was a slight increase in the couple of years before dereg took place, then falling numbers until some growth again in the 1990s.
But in South Yorkshire we had the lowest per-capita car ownership of any Metropolitan County and clean air in the town and city centres with little congestion. Then the Tories got elected and started to dismantle it all. We all know what has happened since.
DeleteClean air? I think that is pushing it as a claim for the 1970s. Of course, the Tories assisted that process by creating an economy that had almost no place for heavy industry in Sheffield....
DeleteI recall asking my relatives in Sheffield how much their rates (as council tax then was) had come down after bus deregulation. They just laughed.
DeleteIt's interesting to look at things like this, but you also have to take the time into account. When Woodhouse was being built levels of car ownership were traditionally low, and the bus being there immediately was a necessity. Now most people moving into new build housing estates have cars already. I can think of two places fairly local to me where the bus route was diverted early in development and usage is still extremely low.
ReplyDelete