[sustran] zegras-cox et.al.

[JOHN WHITELEGG]

Dear Sustran colleagues,

re privatisation-subsidy discussions

Please be aware of Uk experience in privatisation of bus and rail.  Very
briefly we have the following results from bus deregulation (1986) and
rail privatisation (1996):

1  25% fall in bus patronage in metroplitan areas as a result of poorer
co-ordination, higher fares, low level information 
2  more air pollution from buses as the age of the bus fleet increases
and intense competition takes place on key corridor routes into city
centres (eg Oxford Rd in Manchster)
3  loss of rail patronage on urban metro systems in Liverpool
andNewcastle as bus operators target rail routes and offer lower fares
4  confusion over who should own, maintain and promote better bus stops,
bus stations etc

For rail (though still early days)

1  more overcrowding on shorter trains as the train operating companies
(TOCs) minimise their leasing costs from vehicle leasing companies
2 huge fall in efficiency of rail information systems as over 50% of
phone inquiries go unanswered
3  problems of ticketing interavailbility on different routes eg a
ticket from my city (Lancaster) to Plymouth (SW England) paid for at the
more expensive via London option is not valid by the alternative return
route via Birmingham
4  problems of delays on broken down trains as TOCs argue with
suppoliers of replacemnet locomotives over the charges that will be
applied
5  problems of passengers being taken beyond their destination stations
(eg Oxenholme) as TOCs minimise payments to RailTrack (the supplier of
station and track facilities) by shortenuing stop times at stations

There is much more.

My view is that I don't care at all who owns the buses or the railways. 
Ido care that they work well and profit from all the advantages of
integartion and co-operation.  That has been destroyed in the UK and the
experinece is almost totally negative..a view contrary to taht held by
the World Bank, but then they don't use the buses and trains as much as
I do.

A final point (and an obvious one I'm afraid) about subsidies.  Why do
we use the word subsidy to describe the flow of cash into transit and
use the word investment to describe the sdame flow into roads.  A new
road in Manchster (the M66, Denton-Middleton), about 10 miles long has
just been approved by the UK government at a cost of œ115 million
(Pounds sterling).  That's a lot of subsidy for a lot of short journeys
producing a lot of pollution.

very best wishes,

John Whitelegg