| Comment | Public transport usually runs at a loss once you factor everything in. There's a lot of bus routes that aren't economically viable, but they have to run because people need them.
In a system where the council runs all the buses, the profitable routes like the 2 and 6 would subsidise those other routes.
Right now we've go a situation where First runs the popular routes as a commercial service, keeps the profit, and decides not to run the loss-making routes because why would they? So SPT has to step in and completely fund them. The technical term for this is 'tendered services'.
Under a franchise system, the council could turn around to First and say "if you want to run the 2 and 6 and keep all the profit, you've got to run these other non-profitable bus services as well." It's not full public ownership but it could be a big step in the right direction.
Even if public transport does operate at a loss, that's not a bad thing. It has other economic and environmental benefits that make it worth the money. It increases people's mobility which boosts the economy of an area, and it gets more cars off the road. |
|---|