APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by The Confederation
of Passenger Transport (UK)
The Confederation of Passenger Transport (UK)
(CPT) represents the operators of bus, coach and light rail systems
throughout the United Kingdom. Our members include major integrated
groups such as Arriva and National Express and a large number
of small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, nearly all
the UK's publicly owned bus companies are members of the Confederation.
Has deregulation worked? Are services better,
more frequent, meeting passenger need?
Bus ridership is determined by a range of factors:
— The relative speed of buses and cars—priority
allocation of road space to buses is a key component of this.
— Bus service punctuality.
— The availability and price of car
parking.
— The extent to which new development
is concentrated in urban centres, or dispersed towards or beyond
the urban fringe.
— The initial and ongoing costs of
running a car in relation to household incomes.
— The ease of passing a car or motorcycle
driving test.
— The way car users pay to use the
road (an annual sum or pay-per-day).
— The availability of public transport
alternatives (trams, metros, trains).
— The intrinsic attractiveness of the
bus service.
Most of these factors are completely independent
of the regulatory framework for buses and it is impossible to
determine in any objective way whether a decision on the regulatory
framework, taken more than 20 years ago, has "worked".
It is valid, however, to compare recent experience
of bus ridership in the UK with other comparable EU states where
public authorities maintain control of bus investment, times and
fares.
In France, in the 10 year period to 2004, passenger
numbers in urban transport grew by only 1.4%, on average, per
year. Over the same period, the proportion of costs met from fares
fell from 51% to 39%. This compares with average falls of 1.4%
per year in England (outside London) in a context of passengers
meeting 68% of the costs of bus services through fares. [1]
Public transport use (principally bus) fell
by 14% in Italy's large cities (where all services are regulated
and co-ordinated by public authorities) from 2002 to 2004. [2]
Within the UK, bus ridership in the regulated
market of Northern Ireland fell by 3% between 2000 and 2005.
By contrast, bus networks working under the
deregulated system in Exeter, Oxford, Cwmbran, Cornwall, Bournemouth,
York, Bedford, Peterborough, Basingstoke, Lancaster/Morecambe
and Kidderminster all achieved double-digit passenger growth from
2003 to 2004.
There is no evidence to suggest that buses are
less effective in England than in any other EU state. Indeed,
ridership by unsubsidised passengers has generally held up well
in all the English PTE areas over the last five years. Where there
has been an overall fall, it can be attributed to demographic
factors and changes in concessionary charging policies.
Early indications from our members are that
the Government's recent decision to give older and disabled people
free local travel wherever they live will contribute significantly
to the Government's patronage targets.
Are bus services sufficiently co-ordinated with
other forms of public transport?
Co-ordination with other modes brings benefits
to people making complicated journeys but generally creates disbenefits
for others, either by increasing the costs of bus operation or
by moving bus stops towards interchange points and away from places
where people actually want to go. However, there are many excellent
examples of co-ordination where it is relevant to passengers.
Thanks to Traveline, a joint endeavour between
authorities and operators, and the Government's Transport Direct
service, it is possible to get co-ordinated information on all
transport modes by telephone and on line.
Are buses clean, safe, efficient?
Thanks to self regulation and ever-more-demanding
EU standards, a new bus is a clean bus. The industry has made—and
kept—a voluntary commitment to improve the average age of
the national fleet, which now stands at 7.12 years.
The bus industry has a highly-developed safety
culture. Whilst there is no room for complacency, the mode remains
a safe one.
An environment where revenue has to be won from
passengers in competition with other modes and with private transport
is a strong spur to efficiency.
If not, can deregulation be made to work? How?
We have laid out ample evidence that bus services
can attract passengers without changes to the regulatory framework.
Investment will flow into quality bus services
where the factors set out at the beginning of our submission are
favourable to buses and their passengers. You can not force investment
by regulation, nor does increasing regulation change the relative
attraction of buses and cars.
It would be difficult to change the regulatory
framework without blocking opportunities for innovative firms
with new ideas. CPT members across the country, covering both
urban and rural areas, could show members of the Committee how
they have successfully identified and met passenger demands that
another operator has overlooked.
Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services?
Not to a significant extent (although the industry
is burdened with certain ill-conceived restrictions that make
operation more difficult and more expensive without matching benefits).
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
What is best practice?
Yes, but there is scope to do more and make
existing measures more effective. Recent work by The Robert Gordon
University has identified benefits from more extensive and better
enforced networks of bus lanes. The study shows that there are
cities with substantial bus priority, such as Leeds, where buses
are still disrupted by congestion, suggesting that there is scope
for even more priority measures.
Is financing and funding for local community services
sufficient and targeted in the right way?
The quantum of spending on subsidies for transport
for certain people, and the priorities for allocating it, are
a matter for elected representatives.
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?
We have devoted our energies to ensuring that
operators are properly reimbursed for the costs of delivering
the Government's agenda. This will continue to be the case in
2008. The current plethora of local scheme conditions (in England)
confuses passengers and staff.
Why are there no Quality Contracts?
A "market testing" exercise by the
PTE Group has indicated that quality contracts would entail new
financial risks for authorities and substantial public spending
on bus garages where satisfactory facilities already exist. As
far as we are aware, nobody has proposed a bus "offer"
under a QC that would look much different from the one provided
now.
Time-limited franchises in a QC environment
cannot match the continuity of investment that operators are in
a position to make under the current regime.
There would be tremendous upheaval for workers
and users in the transition from the current system, and with
every change of contractor.
There is ample evidence that all legitimate
public policy objectives can be achieved by means other than quality
contracts.
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?
The systems to safeguard public safety and the
other interests of passengers need to be considered in the round.
The Traffic Commissioners are very powerful but they can only
act when they have evidence of poor performance. The resources
available for gathering this evidence are very limited, and this
tends to mean that the Traffic Commissioners do not get the chance
to exercise their powers when, in the view of responsible operators,
they should.
Given that the same individual can be a bus
passenger, a car driver and a taxi passenger one day, and be living
it up with her friends in a stretched limousine the next, the
Government's efforts to protect consumers need to be evenly directed
towards these sectors. Our perception is that the bus industry
gets broadly the right level of regulatory attention at present.
Is London a sound model for the rest of the UK?
London is unique transport environment characterised
by significant long distance commuting, limited and expensive
central area parking and the Congestion charge. The London model
includes:
— Unified control over the important
parts of the highway network and over road charging policy. Locally
unpopular highway measures can be progressed for the greater good.
— Comprehensive local tax-raising powers
for transport and a strong bargaining position for funding from
central Government.
— Large budgets for priority, policing
and for the provision of services.
Authorities outside the capital could achieve
comparable results by spending comparable amounts of money and
taking bold decisions on road allocation—without changing
the regulatory system.
Buses in London are an undoubted success story
but they have not always been so. The regulated environment has
seen periods of feast—including, arguably, the present—but
also times of famine with low investment, poor performance and
minimal attention to the needs of passengers. The political focus
and will to succeed that has brought about the current situation
in London can be applied elsewhere without the need to change
the regulatory framework.
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?
The future for the bus is brightest where space
is at a premium and air quality is important. Buses are second
only to bicycles in their ability to move people cost-effectively
with a minimal impact on congestion and the environment. If local
policy makers concentrated on:
— the availability and price of car
parking;
— accessibility planning so that the
places people want to go to are clustered in urban centres, not
spread around the suburbs;
— the relative speed of buses and cars
through congested areas; and
— the price paid for using a car—reflecting
its consumption of space and emissions of pollutants;
bus ridership would grow. Any of these actions would
give a greater return than tinkering with the regulatory framework.
22 May 2006
1 Source: Union des Transports Publiques Paris, Report
2004. Back
2
Source: Report on Local Public Transport: state of the art and
development prospective. Earchimede Strategy Consultants, committed
by ASSTRA-Associazione Trasporti, and ANAV-Associazione Nazionale
Autotrasporto Viaggiatori; Italy, 2005. Back
| 
