Transport to be given back to councils?

[stutterdog]

I heard on the lunchtime news there could be moves afoot to give back transport control to city councils.! Is this a realistic move in view of the cost to council tax payer's ?

[chameleon]

stutterdog wrote: I heard on the lunchtime news there could be moves afoot to give back transport control to city councils.! Is this a realistic move in view of the cost to council tax payer's ? When private enterprise fails to make money - everyone else usually has to pay to keep essential services going - not the first time is it?

[raveydavey]

The plan is to allow Metro to appoint who runs what and when, and what fares they can charge.It was explained as being a similar process to the train franchises - and we all know how successful they've been don't we?To be honest, I'd be extremely concerned about Metro running a bath, let alone dictating the entire public transport needs of a county and beyond.First they jumped headlong into bed with First, allowing them to get a near monopoly on services in Leeds and Bradford to the point where they installed special lanes that only First buses use, then First put the skids under Supertram (in order to protect it's empire).The real question needs to be: where is the competition that other cities have that keep fares down and service levels up?

[leedslily]

raveydavey wrote: The plan is to allow Metro to appoint who runs what and when, and what fares they can charge. I always thought this was what Metro already does now - if not, what does it actually do? Polite answers only please!

[Leeds-lad]

leedslily wrote: raveydavey wrote: The plan is to allow Metro to appoint who runs what and when, and what fares they can charge. I always thought this was what Metro already does now - if not, what does it actually do? Polite answers only please! That's what I was led to believe also lilyObviously Metro have nothing to do with Leeds buses!!!!

[BJF]

Metro has to subsidise unprofitable services if a bus company can be bothered to run it. but they can't make anybody run it nor can they set the timetable.Metro have to publish timetables but the companies can just alter them without telling Metro.They also have to subsidise the trains. run the local stations and build and maintain the bus stops

[raveydavey]

BJF wrote: Metro has to subsidise unprofitable services if a bus company can be bothered to run it. but they can't make anybody run it nor can they set the timetable.Metro have to publish timetables but the companies can just alter them without telling Metro.They also have to subsidise the trains. run the local stations and build and maintain the bus stops Quite right - Metro have no control over who runs the buses, or what buses they run and when (apart from the subsidised services), or what fares they charge.