(3 hours ago)Ambassador wrote Burnham's bus network is losing millions because of the meandering routes like you've suggested - they aren't sustainable, we need to move away from this idea that everywhere needs a bus service - it doesn't - hub and spoke is a sustainable future

In principle there is nothing wrong with services being subsidised. Almost all bus networks have "lost millions" for many years, in some form or other, especially since Covid and subsequent reliability problems hit patronage so hard. (This region is still well down on pre-Covid volumes - DfT data shows 19% lower in the year to March 2025 than in the year to March 2019, despite quite radical fares initiatives like the £2 cap and 21&Under fares etc). Public funding has gone up (in various forms). The rail industry is basically in the same position. 

The different debate is about the choices being made in the use of funding, how much impact they have, and getting the balance right. Spending on services to an area of lower demand with no other service, or say adding Sunday services, or addressing access to employment like Andreos is seeking, extends the scope of the network, making a big difference to some people. Increasing frequencies on core corridors (eg "Kickstart" funding on GNE21 and 56) will usually generate more passengers per £ of subsidy, but the impact on the individual passengers is less transformative. That does not mean one is "wrong", but inevitably there are choices to be made, and limits - not every bus journey can be direct/ everwhere be within a short walk of a 2phr M-Sat bus/ have a Sunday service.  (IMO, most communities of any size should have all those at least, to at least the key local centre(s); inevitably some journeys will involve changes. That is not the same as imposing a radical "hub and spoke"  model. )

The millions being spent on TfGM are also maintaining a £2 fare cap. I think there is a lot to admire in the choice being made there. (Note: th extra funding is mostly devolved government funding, isn't it?)