Select Committee on Transport Memoranda



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

  1. The operator
  2. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 3 November 2006