(27 Feb 2025, 1:35 pm)Adrian wrote As much as you and others keep bringing up the cost, have you considered what the cost is of not delivering a franchising scheme? What is the cost to the economy, say for people not to be able to take jobs because of the impossible/unreasonable commute, people missing interviews because it's unreliable, developments struggling because of transport links and businesses failing because they're not getting the footfall?

As Andreos1 has suggested multiple times before, we're already paying a fortune for not having a franchising scheme anyway. We hand out millions to commercial operators and we have no control over it, except for where it's a contracted service.

You may say London bleeds money, but how many people in London have ever genuinely turned down work due to not being able to get there, or not being able to cover shifts due to unsociable hours and a lack of transport? I'd go as far as saying none. Transport is a public service and it should be treated as such. There's a cost to operate it, it doesn't necessarily break even, but the benefits outweigh the cost.

As much as I didn't support Kim as a candidate for Mayor, you have to remember that she was elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver this. So what you call bandwagon jumping is actually delivering a commitment.

Aye no arguments on the reasons for it - I agree, but I have a fear that there's no funding for it - at all. Like if Westminister guaranteed the money for 10 years, without any way of cancelling it, then fair play as it's risk free but they're not even commiting to finishing the Tyne Bridge works, or the future BSIP funds as it is. What happens next year when the government decides that the cost cutting is coming from the BSIP fund because of the black hole, inflation or whatever reason they have this week?

I really wouldn't be surprised to see it happen either and then the whole thing is screwed as you'll either have to find money from the council who don't have a pot to piss in or go on a severe cut down of costs and we're back to square one anyway - potentially even worse.

Kim doesn't help that she bows down to her masters at ever opportunity and won't criticise Labour HQ either mind. Her response to the slashing of the funds to Durham was just downright weak and like others have said in the past this is the same area that celebrating getting a small chunk of the money they wanted under BSIP in the first place.

Least in the current case if the money dried up it would only be a few mostly unused services impacted, not the whole network. Not saying that's good mind but it's the best of the worst. Obviously in an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue as the state would treat transport as a service not a cost for the economic benefits you mentioned.