… well not literally.
This is from a written question tabled by Ben Gummer:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to assist competing bus companies to reach cooperative agreements to provide regular services on (a) Wherstead Road in Ipswich constituency and (b) other routes with an identified need.
And here’s the answer from Norman Baker, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Regional and Local Transport:
The regulatory framework for buses permits co-operative agreements between bus operators as long as certain conditions are met. We have seen good results in places where local authorities and operators work effectively in partnership to improve bus services-such as in Brighton, York and Cambridge.
While it is the role of Government to set this framework and encourage more of this type of activity for the benefit of bus passengers in Ipswich and elsewhere it is up to local authorities and communities to make it happen. This might be a local authority making a statutory quality bus partnership scheme, as in Nottingham, or instead endorsing a qualifying agreement between two operators, as in Oxford.
Ultimately, however, it is for commercial operators to decide whether to run services such as the route 66 bus in Ipswich, and at what frequency. If a service is not considered commercially viable, a local authority can decide it wishes to tender for and support a replacement service, or discuss with the local community alternative forms of transport provision.
Of course it is for commercial operators to decide what routes they should operate, and the irony here is that First actually created a demand where it had previously been limited. However if the current services were better spaced out (which would involve some collusion) then there would be a more reliable service, without the need for a subsidy. European anti-competitive rules are really hampering us here.
Come on Suffolk, get your act together!
