Bused Up - Public Interest Vs Corporate Power

The following is an open letter to my local newspaper regarding public transport.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Councillor Wakefield may helpfully inform bus companies (for which read First Buses, since they run a virtual monopoly in this part of the country, and a total one in Leeds) that they are “in charge of an essential service on which a number of people rely”. However, I suspect this fact is well known to them and is actually the reason that fares continue to be raised with complete impunity. Those of us that no do not drive simply have no other choice than to pay the increased costs and, in the continued absence of market competition, this situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Further to this, I suspect that First’s lack of services over the Christmas period was not due to a desire to spread festive joy to their employees, as the Councillor alludes. Rather it most probably reflects an unwillingness to pay bank holiday wages when a potential decrease in passenger numbers would compromise the company’s net gain.

This is, of course, symptomatic of our country’s lack of true public transport – in the sense of a system run by public money for public benefit. Perhaps Councillor Wakefield would do better in referring to these services as ‘passenger transport’ or, like the Americans, ‘mass transit’. This may help us all overcome the idea that they are ran for our collective convenience rather then someone else’s guaranteed profit.

Considering the significance of this issue to many people in Leeds, I am baffled by the lack of coverage it received in your paper. It would have been interesting to learn, for example, if First gave any response to the accusations, or whether any routes could have been subsidised by Metro on the days mentioned. N.b. Metro is a public body that monitors transport services and subsidised routes that are not cost effective.

In contrast to the quarter of Page 14 given to this piece, three quarters of Page 2 was dedicated to two virtually identical articles on the closure of a local pub. Similarly, almost all of Page 3 was given to the groundbreaking news that an 85 year old Mickey Rooney is to play Leeds. Both these stories were covered in greater depth.

I believe this represents a serious misjudgement of your readers’ general concerns and hope this important issue will be given a more comprehensive review in the near future.