APPENDIX 15
Memorandum submitted by NECTAR
NECTAR
— NECTAR is an open, voluntary, umbrella
body, established to provide a forum in which the many organisations
with an interest in transport in all its forms can develop a co-ordinated
view on contemporary transport issues.
— Covering the same geographical area,
NECTAR provides a single, co-ordinated voice for dialogue with
the Government Office for the North-East, One North East, the
Association of North-East Councils, and similar bodies concerned
with transport and related policies at a regional, national and
European level.
— NECTAR is one of a national network
of Transport Activists' Roundtables sustained through Transport
2000.
HISTORICAL PREAMBLE
Bus services were only "regulated"
at all because the free-for-all between rival operators in the
1930s raised far more problems than it solved. When de-regulation
was mooted in the 1980s, a repeat of such free-for-alls should
have been foreseen but, apparently, was not. Their recurrence
showed the folly of the exercise, as inhabitants of Darlington
will testify—Darlington Corporation's bus services, for
example, were ruthlessly put out of business by an aggressive
Stagecoach invasion. May we also cite two examples of how little
the Government of the day understood about the bus industry?
(a) One MP advocating bus competition stated
in all seriousness that waiting bus passengers should at all times
be offered two buses, simultaneously, run by different operators,
to make exactly the same journey at the same time.
(b) The Prime Minister of the day confidently
asserted that any man over 30 seen using a bus was by definition
a failure.
There are, in our view, three other background
points that need to be made. None of them is directly connected
to the de-regulation process, but all affect, or have affected,
bus use figures over the years:
(i) Difficulties in recruiting enough bus
staff (ie two per vehicle) began in the 60s, if not before, and
the resulting widespread one-person bus operation almost inevitably
slowed down average speeds. This would discourage more "time-sensitive"
bus users, who used other modes instead.
(ii) Increasing car use has been a major
factor in the decline of bus use—over at least four decades.
This, combined with a reduction in the numbers of workpeople who
went home and back (by bus or tram) for lunch, as well as to and
from work, as they do now, has caused increasing financial headaches
to all operators, previously running profitably and even, in some
corporation transport areas, contributing bus revenue surpluses
to the local exchequer! However, the "culture" of buses
being expected to cover costs from their revenues has never really
been superseded in the UK as it has been in Europe and beyond.
Yet no such "cost-covering" from revenue is expected
from any private car, which, almost by definition, has always
run at a hefty financial loss, as well as carrying more than its
share of "fresh air" (25% occupancy on overall average,
and then several hours idle in a workplace car-park every day).
(iii) Some enterprising experiments were
made, before de-regulation, to transfer the costs of operating
city bus services gradually on to the local rates bills. South
Yorkshire PTE and London Transport (under Dave Wetzel's guidance)
led, with fares freezes. In our area, both Tyne and Wear and Cleveland
County Council successfully coupled fares-freezing policies with
free travel for OAPs, at least off-peak. As we recall, both policies
led to greater bus use—to the point, in Sheffield at least,
of noticeably reducing other urban traffic. But legal action taken
by some inhabitants of Bromley against London County authorities
in the mid-80s was a set-back to the continued success of bus
transport, to say the least.
Our comments on the issues raised by the Committee
should, therefore, be read in conjunction with this Preamble,
since (to the best of our collective memory) these two ideas,
to keep fares low and to carry senior citizens free of charge,
are the only ones that resulted in increased bus-use. And—please
note—these results did not arise from any form of competitive
bus-operations.
1. Has de-regulation worked?
Are services better, more frequent, meeting
passenger need?
Overall—no. Total UK bus usage, outside
London, has fallen by 40%. This probably arises from:
(a) curtailing of evening frequencies (where
evening services survive at all);
(b) repeated and sudden service-changes,
undermining public confidence in buses in general;
(c) lack of through-ticket facilities between
most routes;
(d) the legal prohibition of any kind of
universal "bus rover" ticket for a geographical area,
as distinct from a specific bus company. Most urban areas have
several competing bus operators; and
(e) the difficulty of finding out where and
when bus services run. Bus-stops saying "all services except
express", "rather than identifying the service-numbers
and carrying an up-to-date departure-list, are far too common.
And a Help-line phone-number, as on most stops, is not much use
to a would-be user who has neither a mobile phone nor the patience,
time and stamina to explain to a disembodied answering voice the
nature of the intended journey.
Are bus services sufficiently co-ordinated with
other forms of public transport?
Most certainly not. Indeed, many services do
not even seem to be co-ordinated with other bus-routes—even
those run by the same operator. Against this, several Stagecoach
routes in Hartlepool, Stockton and Middlesbrough are publicised
as separate when in practice they run through beyond their advertised
termini, changing their route-numbers en route. More sources of
passenger confusion!
Some bus-stops are labelled "X Rail station",
despite being up to a quarter of a mile away from it—Billingham
and Stockton both "enjoy" this privilege. Middlesbrough
station's nearest bus-routes run along what is, in effect, an
Urban Clearway—no bus-stops allowed, but traffic lights
and pedestrian crossings aplenty. So we repeat, with feeling—no,
they definitely are not. Nor does there seem to be any easy way
for a local authority to make them meet—Hartlepool's welcome
plan for a new Bus-Rail Interchange at the town's rail station
has taken years of frustrating negotiation, with one goal-post
change after another. It may finally open in mid-2007—after
six years' gestation.
Elsewhere in our region, matters are somewhat
better, in that Newcastle Central and Sunderland rail stations
are both very close to bus stops, and Bus-Metro interchanges,
purpose-built, are at Four Lane Ends, Gateshead and Heworth, as
well as (since 2002) at Park Lane, Sunderland. However there are
far more bus-routes passing through both cities' centres that
do not serve the main station. Durham station has few buses actually
climbing the steep road up to it, but is, in practice, closer
to a main bus-route than the Tees-side examples above. Darlington
Bank Top and Chester-le-Street are not noticeably linked to bus-routes,
and it is only at certain stations on the Tyne Valley line, notably
Hexham, that any attempt seems to have been made to link rail
and bus services—most often in connection with Hadrian's
Wall services (route AD 122) paralleling both Wall and rail line.
Are buses clean, safe, efficient?
Safe they may be, and many in our area are CCTV-equipped
to protect driver and passengers alike. But too often they are
operated by older vehicles brought in from other parts of the
operator's nation-wide empire; they are smaller than what their
route requires; access from the road and movement along the bus
are difficult, for various reasons, despite drivers' willingness
to wait until passengers have reached their seats. Spaces for
shopping/luggage/push-chairs are not always conveniently-placed,
and—" even on the "easy access" vehicles—there
is no guarantee that the next bus will have enough room for all
the push-chairs that await it. As for wheel-chair access, that
is even more of a lottery. We do not, in sum, regard these points
as signs of "efficiency" of service.
[If not]; can de-regulation be made to work? How?
Frankly, no. Operators now are profit-driven,
forbidden even to cross-subsidise between their own routes. Thus
a few core routes run almost self-defeatingly frequently, while
the rest, whose clientele depends on them just as much (eg for
hospital visits), are down-graded or even taken off completely.
Again, examples of withdrawal abound: for instance, no fewer than
three parallel east-west residential roads in Hartlepool have
lost erstwhile half-hourly daytime services; there remains a tendered
service, five times daily, along just one of them. Local authorities
who wish to replace such services by tendered substitutes find,
too often, that their budgets will not stretch to doing so—and
the entire bus-using population loses. We point out, too, that
the dearth of evening services not only discourages bus use then:
it causes loss of day-time traffic as well. And as for prospects
in rural areas . . .!
2. Is statutory regulation compromising the
provision of high-quality bus services?
We find it difficult to understand what this
question means. "High Quality" is often in the eye of
the user, so that for some—including many who have had to
desert buses in recent years—speedy transit times are crucial,
and imply much faster boarding than that currently allowed by
most routes' "Stop-me-and-buy-one" fare collection systems.
London's buses are far better in this respect, with their frequency,
flat fares and Oyster Card prepayment systems; and London's buses
are, as we understand it, "regulated". If we are right,
the answer to Question 2 is "No—on the contrary, it
is a pre-requisite to such provision as matters now stand".
Away from London, we note that, especially for
rural bus services, some local authorities who can afford to provide
tendered rural services have had to use the clauses in their contracts
to force operators to maintain even a basic vehicle standard.
We also note that operators increasingly play off one set of users
against others when revising and "improving" local bus
services: Arriva on Tees-side has openly admitted that its 30
April changes are based on the fact that "more people use
route X than route Y, so route Y must come off". Statutory
Regulation might at least alleviate this kind of absolute service-withdrawal,
and the whole divide et impera approach to bus operation.
See also, however, Question 7 (Traffic Commissioners).
3. Are priority measures having a beneficial
effect?
Yes—if and when bus priority is (a) sufficiently
and suitably wide-spread, and (b) actually enforced. Such measures
do exist, and can improve running-times considerably (especially
if they include traffic-light priority). But we feel that most
bus-lanes in our region are introduced on sufferance rather than
as part of a pro-bus policy; and those that do exist are often
disregarded by other road-users, as well as being the recipients
of "blind eyes" from passing police. A further difficulty
for one and all arises when, as in many cases, they only apply
during certain hours of certain days—and how many motorists
have time to read closely the small print on every Bus Lane sign
while driving past?
It occurs to us that, if some more of the local
authorities' public transport planners actually used their local
buses (more) regularly, we would see more progress on bus priorities.
As it is,
(i) at least one bus lane in central Middlesbrough
has actually been scrapped; and
(ii) it was galling to find, some years ago,
that Stockton's planners thought that traffic lights in its centre
were programmed for bus-priority. Any town bus-user could have
put them right.
What is "best practice"? We offer
three suggestions:
(a) All bus-lanes should be continuous (many
now end at road junctions), applicable 24 hours a day, seven days
a week, and enforced rigorously.
(b) Traffic-lights, at least in town centres,
should be programmed to give buses priority at all times.
(c) Buses should have automatic priority
to pull over in to or out from bus-stops rather than waiting,
as now, until some kind drivers slow down enough (or, in some
cases, move their parked vehicles) to let them get to or from
their lay-by.
We have seen little of any of this in our areas,
so we should strictly not cite it as "practice"—yet!
4. Is financing and funding for local community
services sufficient and targeted in the right way?
Again, what does this mean—does it refer
to (i) school contract services? (ii) the voluntary sector's minibuses,
run on a wing and a prayer, but often indispensable for sports
teams and senior citizens' groups for whom stage-carriage services
are rarely convenient? (iii) rural transport partnerships?
We see a good case for assembling and maintaining
a pool of vehicles suitable for hire and use by schools (pupil
transport, sports teams, cultural visits in term time), health
authorities (links between widely-separated hospitals for transfer
of patients, nursing and other medical staff) and other voluntary
organisations who need them periodically. If existing funds and
staffing resources do not allow such a scheme to exist and to
meet every such need, our answer to this question has to be NO.
5. Concessionary fares—what are the
problems with the current approach?
Free travel for senior citizens has been with
us before (cf Historical Preamble, Point 3) and it in our view
should be maintained, with adequate finance for all local authorities,
rural as well as urban. Its main aims should be (a) to deter elderly
motorists from using cars that they can no longer safely drive,
and (b) to help the less-mobile to make visits to shops, medical
institutions, places of entertainment, friends and relatives—at
little or no cost.
However, several local authorities have had
to think again before continuing to subsidise some marginal bus
services, especially evening and mainly rural workings, both of
which are, not surprisingly, seen as little used. To us this seems
a vicious circle—as several affected senior citizens have
said, what is the point of free travel concessions if there are
no buses to use when they want them?—and it goes back to
the question of finance. The rules of de-regulation have clearly
not helped here (cf Qu 1, "Can de-regulation be made to work?")
and probably never will. If the Government's compensation-levels
to local authorities for them to pay bus-operators were increased,
and/or their basis altered, in senior citizens' favour, most urban
and rural bus networks would look far healthier than they do now.
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?
Only with the same provisos listed immediately
above. However, extending the free travel scheme across the entire
UK will (or should) remove some of the existing anomalies, thrown
up by the nature of local authority boundaries rather than by
malice aforethought.
An extra difficulty does arise, even so, with
the definition of "local". Several bus-routes in the
North-East (usually prefixed "X") are ostensibly local
but cover up to 40 miles each way in all—most notably routes
X1 and X10, linking Middlesbrough and Stockton with Newcastle
by varying routes but comparatively speedily. They issue free
tickets within Tees-side or Tyneside local authority boundaries;
would their many short-distance passengers want a sudden ban on
these? A conundrum to be considered along with the next sub-section—but
not before we suggest that the National Express Coach network
as such should not admit nation-wide Senior Citizen pass-holders,
even after 2008.
Should there be a nationwide version of London's
"Freedom Pass"—giving free or discounted travel
on all forms of public transport?
In principle, we would all say yes, enthusiastically.
But, again, similar problems would arise. There is a continuing
discrepancy between the conditions in which bus operators and
their rail counterparts have to operate. In brief, rail has to
finance its track, station and rail police maintenance costs in
full, which helps to explain why subsidies to many rail operators
reach such giddy totals (apparently). It does not seem fair that
bus operators, by contrast, are excused from more than token contribution
to the cost of road maintenance, and make no contribution to the
costs of road traffic police, urban or rural street-lighting or
other maintenance (even, in many cases, to bus-shelter, bus-stop
and bustimetable-frame provision). The relevance of these points
lies in how the Association of Train-Operating Companies might
greet the idea of a rail and bus pass (never mind ferries, as
in Merseyside and Tyne and Wear)—unless the Government could
promise adequate finance to the rail operators.
At a long-distance level, efforts to introduce
a national all-age (ie 26-59, in effect) Railcard have repeatedly
stalled, and National Express has shown no noticeable eagerness
to add a similar card to its present Senior Citizens' facilities.
This does not discourage us from suggesting that, if the perceived
costs of using public transport—at any age—are ever
to compare with those of motoring (widely recognised as having
declined, proportionally, while rail and bus fares have increased),
then some such all-purpose public transport pass must be introduced
with all haste. And that could solve the "express" bus
dilemma (X1, X10 and their like) posed at the end of the previous
sub-section.
6. Why are there no Quality Contracts?
We understand little of the background to these,
and try not to confuse them with the more frequent "Quality
Partnerships" of which there are several, to not much noticeable
effect. We understand that a pilot Quality Contract in Scotland
is being watched by others who may be induced to imitate it later.
Meanwhile, if—as we hope—such Contracts
would empower Local Authorities to force certain minimum standards
of bus-service from all operators within their territory, thus
corresponding to the present Rail Franchise system, we would certainly
be eager to encourage their wider introduction, with suitably
demanding (but not unreasonable) targets set, especially on standards
of vehicles used.
7. Are the powers of the Traffic Commissioners
relevant?
Emasculated as these were at the time of de-regulation,
they do not seem to have achieved much more than sometimes removing
mechanically-inadequate vehicles from service. To that extent,
and with some operators' continuing temptation to skimp on vehicle
maintenance, yes, they are—but see also below.
Are they adequately deploying the powers
and the resources that they currently have?
If we knew more clearly what these powers are,
we could answer more usefully on this. However, from the users'
point of view, we suspect that their resources are limited, judging
by the constant stream of sudden bus-service alterations (and
not just the annual local authority service-tendering process)
ever since de-regulation (cf our response at Question 1, point
b, above).
Do they have enough support from Government
and local authorities?
It depends what is meant by "support".
There has been a recent case of a local authority actually persuading
Traffic Commissioners to waive the normal time-requirement for
notice of an impending service-withdrawal. We deplore this totally—the
service was a tendered evening route and the notice of its cessation
was little more than a week, if that, to anyone not living on
the service's actual route.
We would add that, if Traffic Commissioners
could compel operators to comply with much stricter standards
of vehicle quality, service-frequency, reliability and length
of prior notice before any service details are altered, life for
bus-users would improve quite a bit—and so would life for
non-users, if higher bus-patronage were matched by lower car-use
in the same area.
8. Is London a sound model for the rest of
the UK?
Its bus services are certainly far easier to
use than those of most UK conurbations, and this is mainly because
of policies introduced and implemented by London's Mayor, Ken
Livingstone. These include:
(a) The largely-regulated nature of the whole
bus undertaking.
(b) Its close integration with the London
Underground network (eg several bus-routes terminating at an Underground
station).
(c) Its simple fare-structure (Oyster Cards
in particular) and flat fares.
(d) The helpful variety of travel passes
of all sorts, coupled with Oyster machines' evident ability to
count up individuals' bus-use so as to stop deducting any more
once the cost of an All-Day Pass has been reached! We have nothing
like it in our area, even in Tyne and Wear.
(e) In central London, the Congestion Charge
(despite its unpopularity with many theatre-goers).
The recently-announced extension of Oyster Cards'
scope to include suburban "heavy" rail services is also
enviable the only North-East parallel might be the TransFare system,
again in Tyne and Wear. But this question brings us back to the
conclusion in Point 3 of our Historical Preamble, which is that
only by reducing fare-levels and giving senior citizens free travel
(on every local travel mode in one area) may increased bus use
be reasonably expected.
We also remind the committee that London does
not rely solely on buses for its local travel needs—apart
from the Underground network, there is at least one tram network,
in and around Croydon, and others are actively being prepared
for. The contrast with even the larger conurbations outside London
could hardly be more stark—in fact, places such as Leeds
are, to their embarrassment, laughed at by many in urban Europe
because they are still totally without light rail. (Leeds's "twin
city", Lille, has two new metro lines, as well as a refurbished
two-line tramway). Yet this lack of trams is in no way the fault
of Leeds councillors, any more than Liverpool's councillors should
be blamed for Government refusal of their light rail proposals—the
fault lies squarely with the DfT. See further, in Question 9.
9. What is the future for the bus?
It depends on how the bus industry is treated
by the powers-that-be. If buses are regarded as a serious weapon
in the continuing fight against road congestion generally, instead
of as purely a profit-making exercise, they have a vital part
to play. But they must be seen as part of a varied public transport
alternative to the highly-subsidised private car. They must not
be seen as cheaper versions of local stopping train-services,
nor as substitutes for urban tramway routes, even in "guided
bus" form. In more rural areas of the country, their social
role should be emphasised at the expense (literally) of any profit-making.
Buses in general should be costed as a potentially very efficient
means of reducing or even removing road congestion, saving several
hundred thousand pounds (at the very least) by obviating the need
for widened roads, or, worse, adding yet more by-passes and road-duallings
to this already over-tarmacked country. As with many rail services,
efforts to attract more users of existing services, by whatever
(fair) means, can result—over time—in continuing increases
in patronage, turning loss-makers into much better-used local
routes, with improved finances to match. A service-industry such
as public transport has no call to be treated as a market-dominated
money-making exercise.
Nor, incidentally but very importantly, are
remarks about "carting fresh air around the country"
called for. Though some buses or trains do run nearly empty at
the start or finish of their journeys, their overall occupation-figures,
over an operating day, are demonstrably higher—even on rural
services—than those of any private car, as we have noted
at Point 2 of the Historical Preamble, above.
Should metropolitan areas outside London
be able to develop their own form of regulated competition? Would
this boost passenger numbers? If not, what would?
To the first part of this question, yes—but
do not confine such powers to the metropolitan areas. Nottingham
and Warrington have managed to keep a significant stake in at
least one of the major bus-operators in their areas. It has been
well remarked that, if "competition" is to be genuine,
there is in logic no reason to deny local authorities the right
to run bus services as. part of their local service provision.
Per contra, the loss in many areas of this local "ownership"
of bus services may have led to a similar drop in community spirit,
and a greater readiness to forsake public transport as a whole.
However, in seeking to predict whether "regulated
competition" would boost passenger numbers, we find ourselves
back with the two precedents mentioned in Point 3 of our Preamble—South
Yorkshire and London Transport only put up bus use because they
kept fares low and did not have to compete with other bus operators.
Continental Europe manages to maintain, and in may areas boost,
urban passenger numbers largley if not totally because its conurbations
maintain unified control of all types of public transport within
their boundaries—we have heard of no exception to such "unity"
anywhere, even when transport undertakings are in practice operated
by independent firms, not the local council as such. This approach,
despite occasional explosions about how much the annual subsidy
has had to increase, gains a great deal more respect for good,
cheap, unified public transport than seems to apply in th UK,
except possibly in and around London.
Does the bus have a future?
We have already answered this, in effect, in
our remarks about its value as one weapon of several to maintain
a more sustainable alternative to use of private cars. So we add
two more general points:
(i) As more and more British holidaymakers
return from continental destinations marvelling at the cheapness
and greater convenience of local transport, road and rail, so
too will the hidden demand for vastly-improved and cheaper public
transport in British cities increase (cf Preamble, Point 3).
(ii) It is the upcoming younger generation,
now still at school, who will determine how well or badly British
bus practice attracts users. When most of the current school population
that uses the bus at all is presented—twice daily—with,
not just a crowded vehicle, but a wearisome wait on a pavement
to pay an over-worked bus driver the same fare, day in and day
out, how can any of us be surprised that their overwhelming reaction
to reaching their 17th birthday is "Thank goodness I can
now begin driving lessons"?
22 May 2006
|
