APPENDIX 9
Memorandum submitted by the Technical
Advisors Group and The County Surveyors Society and the Institution
of Highways and Transportation
BACKGROUND TO
SUBMISSION
This evidence is a combined submission from
the Technical Advisors Group, (TAG), County Surveyors' Society
(CSS) and Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT). TAG
and CSS are professional bodies representing over 500 senior technical
officers of local authorities in Districts, London Boroughs, Metropolitan
Authorities, Unitary Councils and County Councils in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
Responsibilities of our representative councils
include highways, traffic, transportation, parking and often town
planning and economic development, land drainage, coastal protection
and environmental services, usually including waste collection
and disposal. They also include other functions such as buildings
and front line services as well as management of leisure and property
assets.
Local Highway Authorities are responsible for
around 90% of all roads in England which carry the majority of
car traffic in terms of vehicle miles, about one third of heavy
goods vehicle traffic and a much greater proportion in terms of
local trips, particularly for buses, pedestrians and cyclists.
All journeys by the very nature begin and end on the local highway
network.
The major influencers for Local Authority Technical
Officers, to assist in the effective management of movement nationwide,
are the management of public transport and the effective control
of parking. While new road infrastructure also has its place,
either for the Government's trunk road network, or development
of Local Authorities network, this very often is not likely to
deliver significant improvements in accessibility or indeed transport
and often has deleterious effects on the environment.
The Institution of Highways and Transportation
represents the whole transport and highway profession dealing
with the management of transport and accessibility both for the
public and private sector. It has a membership of over 10,000
and indeed most TAG or CSS members are also members of IHT. All
three of our organisations have recently given other evidence
to the House of Commons Transport Committee including the parking
review and the local transport funding review.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In 1998 there was very strong support amongst
our three associations for the Integrated Transport Policy put
forward by the incoming government. This Integrated policy followed
directly on from the previous Conservative Government's legislation
on the Traffic Reduction Act. However at that time we were disappointed
that the predicted growth in bus use was only to be 10%—if
buses were to meet the policy aspirations there needed to be a
much larger increase than this. Indeed some areas have done very
much better since. We are all agreed that the major legislation
in the way bus services were organised, which took place nearly
20 years ago, and the construction of that legislation is preventing
effective management of public transport as part of an integrated
transport policy. Furthermore with the level of public subsidy
provided to bus operators and the limited controls of the industry
by the public sector the system appears very one sided.
Since the Transport Act 1985 was passed there
has been a fundamental change in the way bus services are provided
and perceived both by the owners of bus companies, their financial
backers and most importantly their customers or passengers. The
fact that the House of Commons Transport Committee considered
the state of the industry in 2002 and now wants to revisit it
suggests that all is not well.
The bus industry is increasingly being led by
large publicly quoted companies on the Stock Exchange. The last
six months or so has seen the take over of small and medium sized
companies by larger groups. This suggests that the emerging oligopoly
and in many cases regional monopoly is the likely outcome unless
fairly drastic changes are made. These large groupings have significant
financial clout and political influence and because of associated
transport interests, eg light and heavy rail as well as in some
cases, other transport interests, they are able to make a healthy
return for their shareholders. Average pre-tax margins for the
main operators outside the London area in 2004 were 9% (Source:
TAS 2005 Industry Bus Monitor) well above those of some other
industries eg food services 6%, (2003) business information 4.2%
(2003) and franchised car dealers 3% (2004).
The three professional institutions making this
submission feel that it is important to put across views which
attempt to show how buses should be considered as part of an essential
element of transport policy along with heavy and light rail, parking
management, traffic management, travel awareness, and some highway
improvements. Buses are key to accessibility, particularly for
the old and young who often have no alternative. But equally importantly
in most urban and rural areas (where track based transport systems
are not extensive) they are the only reasonable effective alternative
to the use of motorcars.
In most urban areas and between urban areas
we have arguably built too much infrastructure already. This is
in turn encouraging more car use, less bus use, more urban dispersal,
more pollution, congestion, and global warming. Reversing this
overall trend is a fundamental aspect of policy. Furthermore new
developments are being increasingly constrained so that they produce
less traffic than their predecessors and therefore they (usefully)
"need" more public transport and particularly bus services.
For some urban areas Local Authorities have
been able to develop a specific sub set of public transport arrangements
by constructing park and ride sites and subsidising bus services
between the park and ride sites and city centres. Unfortunately
the scope in such urban areas to provide comprehensive public
transport services is far more constrained by the 1985 legislation.
Thus people who drive part of the way have much greater assistance
from the public purse than people using public transport for their
whole trips—this is clearly illogical.
While County Councils have thoroughly appreciated
the subsidies available to provide rural buses, by their very
nature this is a safety net to provide people who haven't got
cars in such areas with some accessibility, it is not part of
the overall key transport management effort. One-off short term
funding opportunities are not the answer to the problems in rural
areas. A longer term view should be taken, which takes into account
the problems of rural accessibility to facilities, and the potential
expansion of Community services. Far too often passenger expectations
are raised in the short term leading to a certain level of patronage
which while significant, is still not a commercial proposition.
This raised expectation often cannot be ignored by the Local Authority,
leading to higher levels of demand on already over committed budgets.
The urban areas and the linking to the high-speed
rail network are the key aspects of transport planning that the
bus has a major role. In rural areas, where alternatives to the
car are even more scarce, the bus is a vital tool in providing
access to necessary services. Community transport and social car
schemes must not be seen as the sole solutions to rural access
problems.
Within London there is an entirely different
framework and Transport for London (TfL) is able to plan its bus
network in a fully integrated way and to a significant extent
link it to the tube and rail system. TfL staff are members of
TAG, CSS and IHT and we understand they are giving separate evidence.
Similarly TAG and CSS advise the Local Government Association
and they are also submitting separate evidence.
In Northern Ireland the pre-1985 situation exists
which allows the transport authority to run exactly the services
it considers it needs. While there has been criticism over publicly
run services of all kinds over the last 30 years there is still
a lot to recommend this way of service provision in a situation
where there can never be effective open competition on provision.
Moreover, it should be noted that methods of target setting and
monitoring performance of public bodies has significantly improved
over the last twenty years, thereby developing a more business-like
approach.
OUR VIEWS
ON THE
QUESTIONS RAISED
IN YOUR
LETTER ARE
AS FOLLOWS
Has deregulation 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 deregulation be made to work? How?
On the basis of a test we would submit—"are
the transport policies being delivered and particularly increased
use of buses for all and especially for those disadvantaged"—the
deregulation system has not worked.
When the legislation was enacted in 1985 there
appeared to be a clear belief from the then government that more
and more travel could be accommodated in an ever-increasing road
system. Many professionals and others doubted at the time whether
that was a sensible policy or aspiration, many more in 2006 now
doubt that the vision of the government in 1985 was realistic
or sensible.
Nevertheless there are areas where there are
now more passengers and undoubtedly there was a decline in bus
use before the 1985 legislation. There are some newer buses and
some more investment, some new routes have been introduced, but
probably many more lost. Certainly in recent years there has been
improved marketing. The current trend of private bus operators
is to concentrate their resources on the major corridors and at
core times by increasing frequencies and leaving cash strapped
local authorities to try and resource services where there is
an identified social need. This includes the provision of school
services where, despite problems of vandalism from time to time,
operators are able to extract a high price from their provision
because they are considered essential.
In London without deregulation the bus services
have been fairly dramatically improved with very large increases
in passengers and consequently effective management of total traffic
and reduction in traffic in many parts of London. However, it
is recognised that this has been underpinned by strong financial
support. Outside London fares have outstripped the retail price
index by a considerable margin and the cost of running a car has
reduced in real terms.
With the increasing monopoly of bus companies,
some having also diversified into rail, theoretically it should
be much easier to co-ordinate the different forms of public transport.
However, with the greater monopoly position being developed and
without control of fares, the public transport operators will
be in a position to maximise revenue without the responsibility
that the public sector has of managing an integrated transport
system to allow accessibility for all. Bus fares in many cases
are substantially more than the marginal cost of running a car
without the door-to-door comfort, convenience and infinite frequency
that the car brings with it.
Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services?
There is very little statutory regulation and
while the Traffic Commissioners monitor certain routes, the reliability
of most bus routes, outside London and some other specific cities,
is extremely poor and certainly not an attractive alternative
to the use of a motor car. The captive nature of the majority
of bus passengers militates against effective customer responsiveness
of the bus operators to ensure a quality service. Regulation in
terms of competition is almost non-existent for many parts of
the country and bus companies are very reluctant to make available
to the public any meaningful performance data.
The costs and difficulty for any new operator
to set up in any given area are very substantial with very high
risks, some from being squeezed out by existing operators. We
have been advised that even fairly large coach operators are unwilling
to enter even a contract bus market for companies for fear of
anti-competitive practices by the large bus operators.
Competition legislation has restricted agreements
on fares and timetables even if brokered by the transport authority,
preventing the implementation of area wide season tickets covering
all operators and all modes.
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
What is best practice?
Undoubtedly in the London area, before the 1985
Act, from London boroughs in the period when they were the main
Highway Authorities for London, and TfL and London boroughs since,
the bus lane programme has been very effective at supporting the
massive improvements to bus services in London. In some other
major cities bus lane programmes are flourishing and are changing
the balance but mainly in city centre areas. Outside such locations
the numbers of buses, after the steady erosion of bus passengers
over the last 50 years, seldom appears to justify the use of a
dedicated lane, this is especially critical at the interface between
the Government's trunk road system and the urban road system.
Furthermore it needs to be recognised that the opportunities for
priority are severely restricted on the majority of the local
authority network that is single carriageway within tight land
constraints.
The Government's trunk road system has without
doubt generated substantial numbers of extra car trips commuting
into our cities; this often causes major queues on the outskirts
of cities at a point where it would be highly desirable to give
buses priority and queue traffic further out (where incidently
there is often space). To sell such a strategy to local people
is particularly difficult, especially now that the majority of
people in such locations have grown to accept that the car is
the only way they can deliver the life style they have grown accustomed
to. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes have been quite successful
outside the UK however, these have been inadequately supported
by the Department of Transport, either on their own (trunk) road
system or through development of the detail to make them effective
and enforceable. For relatively low costs and within a relatively
short time scale, HOV lanes could be introduced on a much wider
basis but should probably start from the trunk road system.
Is financing and funding for local community services
sufficient and targeted in the right way?
These important services have been consistently
under-funded over a long period. Urban and Rural Bus Challenge
funding provided a possible funding route until its recent unfortunate
withdrawal. Local community groups experience difficulties in
securing capital and revenue, especially the latter—all
too often a promising community-based social enterprise founders
because revenues cannot be secured to continue operations; the
burden then falls on the local authority secured service method
of provision which is often unavailable, or ill-suited to the
particular transport requirements of individual communities. The
current subsidy stream is a blunt tool which fails to deliver
the necessary benefits. The role of secured scheduled bus services
is to plug the temporal and spatial gaps in an area's bus network,
rather than taking a co-ordinated view on what services a community
requires, and how best these can be delivered.
Concessionary fares—what are the problems
with the current approach? Does the Government's proposal to introduce
free local bus travel across the UK for disabled people and the
over 60s from 2008 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?
The present system introduced on 1 April 2006
is messy, has led to worse arrangements for users in certain parts
of the country, because of boundary configurations and a national
scheme in 2008 will simplify things. It should be administered
centrally. In respect of other modes, Greater Manchester has been
able to allow free off peak travel by bus, tram and train.
There needs to be a recognition of Councils'
and PTE's input to area wide schemes, both financially and administratively,
in making local schemes far more attractive to service users.
Any national scheme should be nationally funded, but administered
either through councils, or through the existing Bus Operators`
Grant mechanism.
Why are there no Quality Contracts?
The complications in setting up quality contracts
have been very great, and while some authorities have been thinking
about setting up quality contracts, so far no-body has been successful.
One major reason is that the operators will not allow sufficient
influence on fares, changes to services or information to the
public. Quality Services can only realistically operate in a given
area with a single operator with no on the road competition. With
the present structure such single operators would be in a total
monopoly and would not have the interests of the local transport
policy at heart, rather the bottom line profit.
There is a need to demonstrate that a Quality
Contract is the only practicable way of delivering its Bus Strategy.
This leads to the implication that voluntary partnerships have
not worked, which would suggest that neither would a Quality Contract.
Quality Networks are perhaps more appropriate, as they allow more
flexibility, and would be more useful in assisting local authorities
and operators increase patronage and meet accessibility and congestion
targets.
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?
As mentioned above, the customers, if they had
real power and influence, are by far the best mechanism to ensure
good, effective and economic bus services. The Traffic Commissioners
are very remote, not associating with local travel and cannot
do anything more than monitoring a few isolated parts of a service.
A bus service like a post service needs the vast majority of the
service to be as promised. Spot checking a few individual incidents
does not provide such monitoring. It is a function that should
be delegated to local highway and transport authorities for given
areas. Operators also abuse the "42 day" notice period
to "blackmail" local authorities into assisting services
that are producing slightly less profit or perhaps small losses.
Is London a sound model for the rest of the UK?
While we understand TfL will be giving evidence
to this inquiry, without doubt London has been successful at maintaining
and increasing bus patronage and holding traffic growth to zero
or reducing growth. London has had other advantages of substantially
more available funding. However, if you compare London's use of
total resources for transport, including the money spent on say
length of trunk road per head of the population, the total funding
available to London has probably not been dissimilar to other
parts of the country.
If similar funding that had been available for
trunk roads outside London was available to a Local Authority
to spend on buses and the London public transport "model"
was available for the rest of the country, substantial improvements
to buses may well be deliverable. Similarly the Northern Ireland
model may well have significant merit. There are, however, some
highly successful bus operations where a city or even some other
public sector organisations have maintained control over the bus
services. One interesting example is the University of Hertfordshire
operating the Uno Bus Company, which is now the second biggest
operator in Hertfordshire, and provides one of the best services
outside a major urban area in the UK. This bus service is operated
in a not dissimilar way to the way TfL operates buses.
We need to develop a model for outside London
which recognises that both the public and private sector have
qualities and that they should be harnessed, eg understanding
the market, the passenger and links with the local community.
The concept of regulated competition for a specified service is
probably the right approach but there are a lot of detailed points
which would need to be resolved.
What is the future for the bus? Should metropolitan
areas outside London be able to develop their own form of regulated
competition? Would this boost passenger numbers? If not, what
would? Does the bus have a future? In addressing rural railways,
the Secretary of State has said that we "cannot be in the
business of carting fresh air around the country", is the
same true for buses?
Within major urban areas, providing we adopt
an integrated planning and transport approach, there should be
a number of corridors where sufficient passengers can be attracted
to a bus service, especially if we introduced more controls on
car use, and more priority measures for buses.
For real rural areas we need a solution to allow
people that are not able to use or cannot afford a car to maintain
reasonable accessibility to services and for social interaction.
How best to achieve this using community transport, post buses,
supported taxi services, etc. is at the other end of the spectrum.
It also needs to be recognised that other agencies have an impact
on accessibility in rural areas. For instance, access to the local
GP surgery may be impaired if the surgery is amalgamated with
others some distance away, even if there is an improvement in
the service provided.
For many other areas between, and within smallish
towns, bus services have markedly deteriorated since 1985 and
need reinstatement as part of a sensible transport strategy. The
"fresh air bus" description is used by many operators
for such areas, however in such areas the school bus market is
thriving, but because of noise and indeed snacking habits, etc,
of youngsters, buses monopolised by young people become fairly
unattractive for others. The reversal of the last 50 years downward
trend in bus use and the active encouragement of choice passengers
back on to buses is a transport policy necessity. This inevitably
means a substantial level of change in advantage between buses
and other modes of transport by pricing of cars. Such a change
can be delivered with road pricing, area based "congestion
charging", parking charges for all parking spaces, together
with a transfer of money from other transport spending and effective
subsidies to bus services.
While we do not generally support any commodity
being free at the point of use, there needs to be a substantial
transfer payment between car use and public transport use for
society and for our cities and towns to have a real future.
22 May 2006
| 
