3 Supporting and incentivising local
authorities
13. There was no one measure which local authorities
could employ to increase bus usage to the level of success achieved
in London. The commitment of the Mayor and Transport for London
to increasing bus usage had played an important part, together
with a high level of subsidy, greater use of concessionary fares
and a reduction in congestion following the introduction of the
congestion charge leading to faster journey times. Outside London
achieving the target depended on subsidy levels and concessionary
fares, restraint on car use, political commitment from the top
and building effective partnerships with other local authorities
or bus operators. Where car use had been restrained bus services
had been made relatively more attractive.[15]
14. Revenue Support Grant for local authorities had
increased by a third in real terms since 1997 and Council Tax
by 50%. In London in 2004-05, bus service subsidy was 31 pence
per passenger journey. In the Passenger Transport Executive areas,
however, it was 11 pence per passenger journey, and the real level
of subsidy had been flat in the last five years. Subsidy had increased
in real terms in other areas, as shown in Figure 4. It
was a matter of local choice how much of the Revenue Support Grant
was spent on subsidising bus services, although the Department
agreed that this decision would be likely to affect passenger
numbers.[16]
Figure 4: Local authority subsidy of bus services in England 1994-95 to 2004-05
Source: Transport Statistics of Great Britain
15. The Local Transport Plan process gave the Department
limited levers over local authority spending on bus services.
The Plans, which have been in place since March 2006, would include
targets for increasing bus usage for the next five years. The
Department reviewed and agreed local authorities' Local Transport
Plans, and could incentivise local authorities through its capital
funding allocations, which involved a performance incentive element
amounting to 25% of the funding. Authorities reported progress
against their plans and the Department expected to work closely
with key local authorities over the five year period 2006-2011,
to make sure the plans were delivered.[17]
16. The Department could also encourage authorities
to work together and improve efficiency. The Department was in
discussion with the Government Office for the South West to establish
a region-wide concessionary fare arrangement and was also exploring
a smart-card based concessionary fare arrangement in the North
West to include Lancashire, Cumbria and Blackpool. It was working
with the North West Centre of Excellence on bus procurement issues,
including the tendering of a number of bus routes together to
attract more competitive bids and keener pricing. Such approaches
would help local authorities outside London to keep down the cost
of providing subsidised bus services.[18]
17. The Department was also looking to the Transport
Innovation Fund to support innovative local transport measures
combining car restraint measures such as road pricing, with enhanced
bus services. Funds being made available through the Transport
Innovation Fund should help local authorities reduce the gap between
the cost of motoring and of using local transport. Some £18
million had already been made available to help local authorities
put together the initial 30 bids, and some £290 million would
be available in the first year (2008-09). Funding was expected
to rise in the next decade to £2.5 billion per year.[19]
18. A wider range of quality of service measures
was needed to capture the full range of factors influencing passenger
satisfaction and a person's decision on whether to use buses.
The Department produced national statistics on satisfaction with
bus services. It agreed to consider whether it would be helpful
to measure the experience of disabled passengers. Through the
Local Transport Plan process the Department has required local
authorities to set targets for punctuality, reliability and satisfaction
with bus services and to monitor performance but it provided no
evidence about the frequency of changes to bus timetables.[20]
15 Qq 2, 5, 55, 66 Back
16
Qq 16, 42, 46, 63-64 Back
17
Qq 9, 18-19; C&AG's Report, para 1.18 Back
18
Qq 76-77 Back
19
Qq 115-116, 120-121 Back
20
Qq 97-98, 159 Back
| 
