(01 Jun 2024, 6:48 am)DeltaMan wrote There isn't enough profit being made to cross-subsidise anything meaningful - something decision makers need to get a grasp of fast.

Operators will never admit it, but they effectively do that now anyway, certainly on a route by route basis. I've been on enough late evening Stagecoach trips to know they ain't making the £40+ an hour to break even on them and they don't go cap in hand to the local authority for cash either. So they must be using the money made during the day to run the evening services.

What I do think is that I have an amount of empathy for Stagecoach as they do actually provide a relatively comprehensive network at very little cost to thr taxpayer (ENCTS is a subsidy for the user, not the bus company). We do need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

At the end of the day, if a politician is elected on the basis they will bring in franchising, then it's thier obligation to follow through. But they also need to be open and honest about the challenges and costs.

Yeah totally agreed if I had to be honest, it's why the 2 model would be the best try and grow the routes which do actually make money by running them thereselves, then getting the rest of the network as low cost as possible as whatever you do it won't be making money - ever.

Agreed with the Stagecoach sentiments aswell, it's why I kind of like the idea of them being part of the municipal company similar to Nottingham City Transport who have Transdev as their partner. Surely having someone with the systems and experience of running buses long term will be a massive benefit - especially when ordering buses as everyone knows anything government tender is open for taking the piss.

Btw on Kim, I don't believe she ever did actually pledge franchising, it's always been 'bring buses back under public control' so there's nothing stopping a municipal company.