(12 Sep 2021, 9:08 pm)James101 wrote It's worth pointing out that the UK is quite unique in the developed world in having a privatised, de-regulated bus system. Even the USA recognise that buses are ran as a loss-making public service to allow citizens to engage with the economy. That's also Capitalism.
There's a common argument that buses must make money or they shouldn't run. Buses do not make money. Never have & never will. In the UK we provide zero-rate tax on bus fares, Bus Service Operators Grant, (to become Bus Recovery Fund), Green Bus Fund (and it's evolvement into new funds) direct support, Concessionary Fares & more. Vast sums of public money keep buses on the road every day, the difference in the UK is that we've signed off all control of when & where buses run to the private sector.
Many will point to the Brighton & Hove, Bristol & Harrogate to how the private sector is the best way to run a bus service with local authority support. They can be great, but for every Brighton there's a Hartlepool, a Stoke-on-Trent, a Stafford.....a disinterested local authority and a skeleton private service.
I don't want to turn this into a politics debate but you've listed 3 richer council areas and slagged off 3 poorer / rural council areas. There's a lot more funding spend on stuff like poverty and social care in places like Hartlepool that they simply don't have the money to spend on buses. I wouldn't call them disinterested but in comparison to Harrogate and Brighton there's a lot less money needed to be spend on social care and poverty so they have money spare to spend it on buses etc.
Would you rather Hartlepool funded the 1 to Seaton Carew for 3 passengers over housing a homeless person as that's the sort of decision they have to make and sadly in bus terms they've made the right choice imo.
You could use the same argument that someone in Harrogate or Brighton can happily pay £600+ for a yearly pass upfront whereas for someone in Hartlepool that's just not possible hence the skeleton service.