AS Bradford’s bus users sit in long traffic queues as a result of the city centre road works do they wonder if everything would be better with London or Greater Manchester style bus franchising?

It is obvious that if the roads are blocked it does not make any difference who is running the buses - they won’t deliver a good service if they are in a traffic jam!

Franchising is said to be better value for money, putting bus users before shareholders.

However, franchising actually transfers all the considerable financial risk of running buses from the shareholders to the tax payers!

Currently, the taxpayer support comes via government grants, but as the Treasury tries cope with Britain’s high debt burden and the increasing coasts of health and care, the bill could end up on your council tax. Are you happy about this?

Bus companies borrow capital for new buses from shareholders, mostly banks, pension and insurance companies who lend out their customers’ money, and this is why bus company shareholders are entitled to dividends.

With franchising, the bus companies lease the buses, and the leasing companies borrow from shareholders.

Either way, about three pence of a one pound bus fare will end up in someone’s pension or insurance pay out.

But with franchising, if the buses make a loss the shareholders are shielded and taxpayers pick up the bill.

In the current system, bus company managers try to deal with risings costs which include wages, fuel and congestion by juggling fares, frequencies and routes. Your route may see higher fares, less frequent buses or a route may be cut altogether.

Clearly bus users do not want this, but the alternative is bankruptcy, which is a disaster for customers and staff.

Under franchising the local politicians, with West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) staff advice, would make these unpopular decisions, which are hard to get right at election time.

This is why many council owned bus companies like Swindon, Blackburn and Rossendale ran up large debts before selling up to a private bus company where shareholders take on the debts.

I ask again, do you want the risks of running the local buses to be switched from the shareholders to your taxes?

As you sit in a traffic jam, you can see that there are too many vehicles for the amount of road space.

About half of the car drivers could conveniently switch to buses but they will only switch if the buses have the bus priority needed to run a reliable, fast and frequent service at a reasonable cost.

If there were bus lanes instead of congestion there would be the opportunity of improving services and stabilising fares. However, if buses have to sit in the traffic, the jams, fares and services can only get worse.

Franchising does not provide better bus priority; its main effect will be to increase the number of administration jobs at WYCA and at the bus companies.

If you lived in Brighton or Oxford, you would have excellent and popular bus services from private bus companies.

If you lived in Nottingham or Reading, municipal buses would provide the same high quality services, but under the same rules as the private companies. They do not have the expensive administration costs and financial risks of franchising.

Several areas, including Bristol, West Midlands and Leicester, which has had a 26per cent increase in bus use, are pressing ahead with economical partnerships and they are getting results.

Bus users want the best possible bus services at reasonable fares, but we also need good value for tax payers.

The cost of franchising puts pressure on the taxation which is needed to provide important things like health, care, education and housing.

The real way forward is a good partnership between local authorities and bus companies to provide bus priority.

Nothing else will work!