Memorandum by Wokingham Unitary (Bus 09)
THE BUS INDUSTRY
1. SUBSIDIES
1.1 Local authorities are experiencing increasing
difficulty in funding the social network. There has been particularly
severe pressure in the last two years, largely due to increased
costs on bus operators, notably because serious staff shortage
has forced increases in wage levels well above the prevailing
rate of inflation. As a result, there have been cutbacks and deregistrations
of those services, both commercial and tendered, which no longer
provide a rate of return to satisfy the operator. Local authorities
have had to either increase substantially their subsidies to maintain
services, or allow cutbacks in services and so worsen social exclusion.
1.2 Funding through initiatives such as
Rural Bus Challenge and Urban Bus Challenge is very welcome indeed,
but is targeted at innovative schemes some of which may give less
overall benefit to the community than mainstream services which
are being withdrawn because of operators' and local authorities'
financial difficulties.
2. BUS QUALITY
PARTNERSHIPS AND
QUALITY CONTRACTS
2.1 Quality partnerships will only be successful
if there is the same determination from each party to fulfil its
share of the bargain. This may be difficult to sustain in the
longer term if there are changes in management at bus companies,
or changes in control at local authorities. There may also be
a loss of faith if one party is seen to be slower than the other(s)
in implementing its share of the agreement. They may work well
in some circumstances but cannot be seen as a comprehensive and
reliable solution for the country's bus problems. The inability
to include service patterns, frequencies and fares is a particular
deterrent.
2.2 Quality contracts have a better chance
of bringing the stability and reliability needed for the general
public to have confidence in being able to use the bus. This is
quite clear in comparison between London, where the network is
planned centrally, and the rest of the country. In London service
levels have been maintained or increased and the network is stable,
leading to rising passenger use and confidence. Elsewhere, particularly
outside the conurbations, the network continues to decline.
2.3 However, there is a major barrier to
quality contracts in the timescale of implementation. It is simply
not worth the effort of trying to progress them when planning
and negotiation, which may well occupy six to 12 months, is followed
by a 21-month lead-in time. In the overall period of two to three
years circumstances may well have changed—there may have
been a change in control in local government, leading to redirection
or lowering of priority, or even in national government, which
may then be reluctant to approve such schemes.
2.4 To be fully effective a quality contract
must be able to include frequencies and fares, including a co-ordinated
network of services, fares and through ticketing. There must also
be a guaranteed funding stream for the life of the contract, to
ensure continuing stability of the network and protect bus users.
Some flexibility will be needed to enable additional services
where justified, for example for new developments within the area
of a contract. Only in exceptional circumstances should reduction
or withdrawal be permitted, for example due to the closure of
a major employer.
3. BUS PRIORITY
MEASURES AND
ENFORCEMENT
3.1 We have seen from our Loddon Bridge
Park and Ride service that bus priority measures can be very successful
in attracting people to use buses, providing a more reliable journey
time than would otherwise be available. Many of the people currently
using the service would drive into Reading rather than take normal
bus services, if the Park and Ride was not available.
3.2 Enforcement is clearly vital and there
need to be severe deterrents to the behaviour of those who selfishly
drive in bus lanes, and park in bus lanes and at bus stops. Parking
in bus lanes negates the benefits to bus passengers, because of
the delay in moving out past the parked vehicle, even if it is
only there for a couple of minutes as the car or van driver often
claims. The importance of deterring parking at bus stops is all
the greater with the growing use of low-floor buses, which need
clear access to the kerbside to maximise the benefits for the
people they are designed to help.
4. REGULATION
OF THE
BUS INDUSTRY
4.1 It is clear that the beneficiaries of
the 1986 deregulation have been bus company owners and shareholders
and certainly not the bus-using public or, for that matter, bus
company employees. Some action was admittedly needed out of the
stagnant situation that prevailed before the 1985 Transport Act,
but the instability since then has been a major reason for the
decline in use of buses. The comparison with London, where planning
and development is carried out centrally and operators compete
for the right to run services, is obvious.
4.2 Most shire counties, unitary authorities
and PTEs now have staff with the knowledge and ability to plan
local bus services effectively. Skills have developed to a high
level over the last twenty years and they can now offer the bus
user and potential user a comprehensively planned and co-ordinated
network, and can draw on knowledge of local social needs. Bus
operators are necessarily restricted to planning their commercial
networks and have to do so in isolation for fear of investigation
by the Office of Fair Trading. They may well, however, have the
skills to be able to partner local authorities in planning networks
which include commercial and non-commercial services if legislation
so permitted.
5. THE CONTRIBUTION
OF BUS
SERVICES TO
REDUCING SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
5.1 The existence of services which give
opportunities to reach work, education, shops and leisure facilities
is clearly fundamental to reducing social exclusion, particularly
for those without their own means of transport. Again, stability
is vital—there is little point in someone accepting a job
offer if their means of travel can be removed at short notice
as is the case under present legislation.
6. OTHER ISSUES
6.1 One major barrier to offering the public
a better service appears to be the Office of Fair Trading. The
bus-using general public want co-ordinated timetables and fares.
If two operators are each running hourly services along the same
route, the public wants a co-ordinated half-hourly service with
return tickets interavailable. The OFT would appear to prefer
to have both operators' buses coming at the same time, and no
interavailability of fares. Attracting people to use buses is
a different matter from choosing between brands of baked beans
in a supermarket, but the point appears to be beyond the OFT's
willingness to accept.
Roland Clausen-Thue
Senior Public Transport Planner
15 April 2002
| 
