APPENDIX 14
Memorandum submitted by Transport 2000,
Leicestershire and Rutland Branch
In our view, the present system is a mess. Regulations,
and their enforcement, are ineffective or non existent. And deregulation
of bus services has been a failure as far as Leicester and Leicestershire
are concerned.
Transport 2000 (Leicestershire) have three so
called "Quality Bus Partnerships" (QBPs) in our area—Hinckley,
Leicester and Loughborough. We are represented on the Hinckley
and Loughborough QBPs. Despite several requests, we have never
been allowed on the Leicester one, which meets in secret.
We understand the two main operators, Arriva
and First, won't even speak to each other directly. They have
to be spoken to separately at these meetings, we understand, due
to "commercial confidentiality". What price integrated
transport when this happens?
Hinckley QBP meets occasionally, but hasn't
met recently because the County and Borough Councils "didn't
think there was enough to discuss". I disagreed, and said
so, but there is still no news of another meeting. And there are
major service changes pending.
The Loughborough one seems rather better.
But the voluntary nature of QBPs makes them
ineffective. We really need proper regulation, either Quality
Bus Contracts or franchising similar to the London model, and
it is essential that groups such as ours are formally represented
on bodies constituted to deal with such things.
The Traffic Commissioners are totally ineffective
in their regulatory roles. Our Traffic Commissioners are remote
(based in Cambridge) and under resourced. I have made several
well founded and substantiated complaints against individual operators
to them.
To my knowledge, no proper action has ever been
taken and the reasons for this have not been properly explained.
Regulation of services, and disciplinary proceedings
against operators, need to be carried out by a properly resourced
team of experts with a good knowledge of the region concerned,
and carried out transparently. This does not happen now. We suggest
one such team be based in each Government Office region.
Another major issue is the Competition Act.
Politicians must understand that operating buses is not the same
as operating supermarkets. If you're not satisfied with one supermarket,
you may be able to use another.
If your bus service is poor, and/or performs
badly, or the bus operator won't accept another operator's ticket
for the same section of route, you can't "try another bus
operator". There won't be one for you. My local route is
operated by Arriva and Stagecoach. Each register their own journeys
separately, using different route numbers (158 and 157 respectively).
But the route, Leicester—Nuneaton (20 miles long) is exactly
the same.
After some years of neither company accepting
"the other lot's tickets, and after much campaigning by myself,
they will now accept each other's "route specific tickets",
but not the Rover tickets (known as "All Zones" by Arriva
and "Explorer/Goldrider" by Stagecoach), both of which
actually sell quite well.
Despite long winded assurances from the Office
of Fair Trading (OFT), which I have seen, operators don't like
accepting each other's tickets, or working with each other, for
fear of falling foul of the Competition Act and its' huge penalties.
Frankly, we think this Act is harmful to public transport integration,
including bus services, and we think these should be exempt from
it. The OFT should have no role to play in public transport (especially
bus services). They don't understand how it works, and are not
very helpful anyway.
Another big issue is funding, and finance in
general. Many bus services, especially (but not exclusively) in
rural areas and deprived urban areas, were set up as a result
of, and still use, funding from various sources. This includes
Rural Bus Grant, Rural Bus Challenge, etc. This funding is now
coming to an end, and many such services face an uncertain future.
A number of such services have been cancelled, with more to follow.
Also, an increasing number of "marginal"
commercial services are being "deregistered" by their
operators, thus forcing already stretched local authorities to
consider funding these services. Very often, the previous commercial
operator gets the service back, but under contract to the local
authority.
The whole issue of bus service funding needs
a thorough, long term review. It must be done as part of an integrated
transport package involving links with trains, trams, service
coaches, etc, to look at the best achievable public transport
facilities for everyone and overcome the current "silo"
thinking which is endemic in this country.
Also, marketing and general "back up"
facilities need to be a lot better. There should be a recognised
national minimum standard for presentation and availability of
timetable, fare and general service information by all relevant
media, traditional and modern.
All well used bus stops should have up to date,
stop specific service information for all services stopping there.
Many people don't understand traditional "grid" format
timetables.
Real time information should be rolled out to
all principal bus routes. And it must be accurate.
At present, real time and other information
standards in our area vary from adequate to abysmal.
To inspire confidence in the service, good "back
up" is also essential. This includes clear compensation arrangements
for failure to operate services as specified (as train operators
have done for some years). Trent Barton buses in Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire also give passengers their money back if they're
not satisfied with the service. (They don't need to very often,
it seems).
Also needed is adequate, up to date telephone
information in the event of incidents causing delays (breakdowns,
traffic and other problems, etc). These are essential, especially
on less frequent services, but they are almost completely absent
in the bus industry, which often gives the impression that it
just doesn't care about its' passengers in this respect.
23 May 2006
| 
