What An Bord Snip Nua means for infastructure and transport

Vic_08

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

But the privatization of buses in London has not stopped. Almost all London bus services are operated (under contract) by private operators as I understand it.

At the basic level of who owns and operates the buses that is correct. All are owned by private companies with one exception, when a small operator went out of business and no suitable replacement could be found TfL bought the failed business' assets and ran those contracts themselves.

At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body. TfL dictate every aspect of all bus services operating in Greater London (Coach services to other parts of the country and a handful of services from Heathrow are the only exception I know of). They determine the routes, times, frequencies, fares, design, livery and type of buses to be used. They take all the fare revenue and have even had a direct input into the pay levels of driver's in the private operators.

Vic_08

gjim wrote: »

You might have been able to prove the irony if you had pointed out these inaccuracies and proven the ideological taint. Instead you've given a bunch of opinions hidden behind weasel words (in the wikipedia sense) like "Experience would show...".

Oh FFS get some perspective. Shall we go through all your posts on this thread and count all the facts you have given that are actually "opinions hidden behind weasel words"?

I suppose an honest reason as to why you posted that completely incorrect fact about CIE being responsible for the destruction of Dublin's tram network is out of the question. That it fits with your ideological worldview is in no way relevant of course.

antoinolachtnai

Vic_08 wrote: »

At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body.

There is some change in the degree of control, but this has really always been the case. These routes were always run on contract. They used to run them on 'net' contracts, I think and now it's all 'gross' contracts, so that is different. But it's quite a while since they operated net contracts.

icdg

Vic_08 wrote: »

At the basic level of who owns and operates the buses that is correct. All are owned by private companies with one exception, when a small operator went out of business and no suitable replacement could be found TfL bought the failed business' assets and ran those contracts themselves.

At a wider level what has changed in the last 10 years since the GLA and TfL were formed is that control of the entire network has returned to a public body. TfL dictate every aspect of all bus services operating in Greater London (Coach services to other parts of the country and a handful of services from Heathrow are the only exception I know of). They determine the routes, times, frequencies, fares, design, livery and type of buses to be used. They take all the fare revenue and have even had a direct input into the pay levels of driver's in the private operators.

Transport for London have no real extra powers in relation to buses over that which London Regional Transport had prior to 2000. They are perhaps using their powers slightly more effectively than LRT did but that may be due to TfL being effective under the control of the Mayor of London rather than national government as LRT was.

When tendering was first introduced, LRT did not prescribe what livery operators had to use. London Buses had been using red since time immerorial (or 1933, at least) and so when private operators started using their own livery there was a bit of an outcry. When the contracts were next re-tendered, LRT placed clauses in the new contracts requiring operator liveries to be 80% red.

Where TfL really differs from LRT is its scope of transport modes - LRT was strictly just London Buses and London Underground. Now, TfL is over the Docklands Light Railway, taxis, hackneys, roads, the Victoria coach station, and Thames river services too. The only area of transport in London it does not have control over is mainline railway services, even here it is involved in provision through London Overground.

gjim

Vic_08 wrote: »

Oh FFS get some perspective. Shall we go through all your posts on this thread and count all the facts you have given that are actually "opinions hidden behind weasel words"?

No but you could answer the challenge to your defense of IE as operators compared to Veolia.

I suppose an honest reason as to why you posted that completely incorrect fact about CIE being responsible for the destruction of Dublin's tram network is out of the question. That it fits with your ideological worldview is in no way relevant of course.

I'll admit I misrepresented the case with CIE and the tram system but there still was a tram system when they took over. Formal nationalisation happened later. Before that the entire tram system (and the national rail network for that matter) had been built and operated by private companies.

You see what I did there? I actually addressed the points in your message. I didn't just snip out the awkward questions and I admitted that I had painted an inaccurate picture. I did not resort to second guessing your motives or your political world view (although you've made it pretty clear).

Could you do me the courtesy and address some of my challenges to your ludicrous claims regarding IE and Veolia's relative performance as operators?

And there is no need to infer anything about ideology - why you felt the need to bring it up is a mystery. Public debate has advanced a little since the 70s and most people can look around the world (unless they are blinkered) and see what WORKS - not what reinforces their beliefs.

I pointed out some simple and uncontestable facts.

First that the existence of private operators is not a threat to a public transport system and in fact they form the backbone of many of the most admired urban public transport systems in Europe.

It is also a fact that it was private operators who historically are responsible for most of the initial investment in public transport infrastructure all over the world.

It is also a fact that most of the most miserable public transport experiences in the world are those run by public operators. And yes there are superb public operators too and there is much to learn from them.