On 20/09/2012 11:44, Alex Potter wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:06:01 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

It's often more of a case of how big the subsidy is. Not unusual for
some overseas Public Transport operations to run on the basis of one
third fare box, two thirds subsidy.

TFL costs about twice the farebox revenue to run, iirc (£5.5bn operating
costs plus £2bn capital projects) versus £3.5bn. So not exactly
"profitable".

Thanks, Roland. I was under the impression that the bus services in
London were operated by companies that were in it for profit.

They are.


They certainly are in Birmingham, (National Express) where I live, and,
unless you live in the more affluent parts of the city, or along traffic-
choked corridors, the bus service is appalling. No wonder, really, when
you consider that in excess of half of the bus garages closed shortly
after the buses were taken away from BCT.



Birmingham, and the rest of the country, works under a different regime.
The fact that London has a different funding model was a tacit
admission by the tory government that their method of bus deregulation
didn't actually work.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail