Transport Committee Inquiry into the provision of
bus services across the U.K.
This Inquiry asks questions about the bus industry,
but does not indicate for whose benefit services are provided.
Are they for; a)The passenger
- The operator
- The L.A./ PTE
Each have a valid interest, either as a commercial
business or a need to get value for money.
I would hope that any findings by the Committee puts
the needs of passengers first.
- Has de-regulation worked? Are services better,
more frequent, meeting Passenger need? Are bus services sufficiently
co-ordinated with other forms of public transport; are buses clean,
safe, efficient? If not, can de-regulation be made to work? How? Answer:
On the whole, de-regulation has worked, if only to provide a competitive
environment in which operators can be innovative. There is though
insufficient incentive to attract new entries to the market, as
a consequence the current situation whereby the U.K is dominated
by three major operators, does not encourage new competition.
Passengers needs are well served in urban areas during peak times,
unfortunately, with recent restrictions on drivers hours (WTD)
and higher operating costs, commercial operators are less inclined
to operate marginal or contracted services. Sundays can justifiably
be used as a statutory day of rest. On the whole, with the ongoing
requirements of DDA, vehicles are becoming far more acceptable
to bus users. Tendering authorities are unable to stipulate 'new
vehicles' for socially required services due to the high depreciation
costs. Even when operators are being indirectly subsidised by
'free concessionary pass schemes', in particular the large national
company's, they do not re-invest this subsidy into new vehicles,
claiming in one instant, that it is the passenger who is being
subsidised, not the company! Co-ordination between different modes,
e.g rail and bus, is not well appreciated by either senior or
local management. All they have in mind is their insular way of
providing services. Quite often, another mode is seen as being
competitive. A requirement for local operators to take into account
'connections' when adjusting timetables, should be monitored by
the Traffic Commissioner for the area.
- Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services? Answer:
No, it is purely down to an operator's commercial decision as
to whether they invest in new vehicles or, achieve higher returns
for their shareholders. When a major operator has recently announced
it will de-register any service that does not achieve a 115% return,
irrespective of its costs, it can no longer be seen as a 'public
service'. Investment in marginal services is purely a commercial
decision, not as a result of regulation.
- Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
What is best practice? Answer:
Consistency in design and implementation along with the rigid
enforcement of clearways are needed. The policing of bus-stops
and pull-ins also need rigid enforcement, especially where local
authorities have invested in raising kerbs and other 'ease of
access' improvements for bus users.
- Is financing and funding for local community
services sufficient and targeted in the right way? Answer:
Local community services are very much the 'Cinderella' service
provided as an add-on function of a public transport or Social
Services department in a local authority. It does not receive
priority funding or recognition by elected members or even the
senior officers. Perhaps the franchising of a local network to
a local bus operator might bring a degree of professionalism into
these services. Operating to tight contract specifications, it
will help to bring the bus operator a greater awareness of needs
in the community. It would also help to dispel some concerns over
the confusion still about over Section 19 and Section 22 requirements.
Furthermore, when local authorities assess 'value for money' on
tendered contracts, is it fair just to use the £ per passenger
comparison?
- Concessionary fares - what are the problems with
the current approach? Does the Governments proposal to introduce
free local bus travel across the UK for people with disabilities
and the over 60's from 2008 (in England) stand up to scrutiny?
Should there be a nationwide version of London's Freedom Pass-
giving free or discounted travel on all forms of public transport? Answer:
Free local bus travel for eligible persons has been available
in Wales and Scotland for a while now. Whereas in Wales there
are no 'peak time' restrictions, it is obviously a worry in England.
Surely this can be judged as being discriminatory, especially
for those over 60 still being in employment. One would expect
that a major justification for the free travel scheme was to reduce
the need for car travel. Certainly a nationwide card for free
bus travel and ½ fare rail travel should be considered. At
present a 1/3 fare pass is available on rail. If the apportionment
of revenue foregone is to be accurately done, a reliable system
done centrally or regionally needs to be established. Perhaps
the ultimate proposal, particularly for bus travel, should be
to allow free travel for all. Franchising each bus service, which
would still be provided under competition and contract terms would
stipulate quality and quantity of service. It would be easier
to establish networks in which users can move around in confidence.
What cannot be allowed to happen is a return to the stalemate
of pre 1985.
- Why are there no Quality Contracts? Answer:
Because a) most operators don't understand the concept and b)
do not want to see their commercial freedom from being eroded.
As mentioned before, most operators both locally and nationally
do not see beyond their noses, so that any change to the current
system is viewed as suspicious. Also, middle management in larger
organisations are fearful of their jobs and performance and do
not wish to change the system.
- Are the powers of the Traffic Commissioners relevant;
are they adequately deploying the powers and resources that they
currently have? Do they have enough support from Government and
local authorities? Answer: When operators
are in a competitive situation, changing their timetables or routes
in order to defeat their competitor, no account is taken of the
passengers needs. It can become a winner takes all, often to the
detriment of the passenger. Larger operators can by pure might,
force the smaller local operator out of business. This local operator
may well have a better empathy for the local market. The T/C does
not take this into account whenever variations are submitted.
T/C's should have discretionary powers to insist on periods of
stability for a fixed period (beyond the statutory 56 days as
at present) When a new operator applies for a licence, or when
there is a change in the CPC holder, the T/C should be able to
ask for proof of 'management experience' or, at the very least
a management qualification, even if it is only a relevant NVQ.
Too often, sons and daughters are put through their CPC and are
totally inept when coming to the management of the company. This
is particularly important when dealing with complaints etc. from
members of the public.
- Is London a sound model for the rest of the U.K. Answer:
Franchising is good for determining quality and quantity, which
is what the passenger wants. It is not what the operator wants
as they are unable to exercise their commercial freedom to open
or develop new markets. It is also difficult for new entrants
to the market, as they do not have the opportunity to operate
commercial services to sustain them through the 'fallow' years
where they have not been fortunate to secure franchises.
- What is the future for the bus? etc…. Answer:
Buses do have a future, unlike trains, they do not have major
overheads of infrastructure to support. Trains are better adapted
to carry large numbers of passengers safely and quickly, particularly
over longer distances. What is needed is a more positive approach
to bus provision, both by politicians and the media, Practice
what you preach and use the services, not just in London, but
in your constituencies. The perceived users of buses are seen
as either delinquents or desperate. In rural areas, bus service
provision is the only means of access some people have, as they
may no longer be able to drive a car and are unable to afford
taxis. Perhaps the most radical approach would be to enable free
travel for all on local bus services, franchising services, or
a network of services, stating quality and quantity requirements.
This should be done ideally on a regional basis, rather than a
local authority base, as there are major differences in the approach
to public transport between L.A's. There is a serious need to
develop Spatial Planning and Transport Planning together, planning
local and regional needs. Hopefully, it would raise the professional
approach to Transport Planning as a whole. Where it would not
appeal to the Government of course, is the potential loss in tax
revenue from the reduced use of the car. Perhaps an alternative
income stream should be investigated. What about putting a 1p
on each mobile phone call or text? In this growing communications
market, the revenue could be significant.
May 2006.
Brian Bigwood FCILT FInstTA
|
