Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


APPENDIX 28

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Local Bus Undertaking Managers (Album)

  The Association of Local Bus Undertaking Mangers (Album) represents many small and medium sized bus operators throughout the United Kingdom. Our members include Municipals such as Nottingham Transport and Cardiff Bus and a large number of private businesses such as Trent, Western Greyhound and East Yorkshire Motor Services.

Has deregulation worked? Are services better, more frequent, meeting passenger need?

  Bus usage is dependent on a wide range of factors. The most important of these are:

    —  Bus service reliability—passenger surveys invariably show this as passenger's key priority.

    —  The relative speed of buses and cars—the priority allocation of road space and the introduction of major bus lane schemes are vital.

    —  The availability of car parking and it's pricing relative to bus fares.

    —  The quality and attractiveness of bus services.

    —  The full costs of running a car in relation to household incomes.

    —  The extent to which new development is concentrated in urban centres, which buses can serve more easily, rather than, dispersed towards the edge of towns and cities.

    —  The amount car users pay to use the road (road pricing is potentially a key issue).

    —  The level of bus fares.

    —  The extent to which local bus services provide a comprehensive network.

    —  The degree to which operators and Local Authorities work together to achieve real benefits for the passenger and put the interests of the passenger first.

    —  The ease of passing a car or motorcycle driving test.

  Many of these key issues are completely independent of the regulatory framework for buses.

  Evidence from Europe shows that where regulated systems are in place there have been large falls in public transport passenger ridership, eg, in Italy where passengers have declined by 14% between 2002 and 2004.

  Similarly in Northern Ireland bus patronage fell by 3% between 2000 and 2005, under a regulated system.

  Many bus networks operating in a deregulated environment have shown double figure passenger growth eg Lancaster/Morecambe, Bedford, Kidderminster, Oxford and Cwmbran.

  There is no evidence that buses are less effective in England than in any other European country. Commercial unsubsidised passenger levels have generally held up well in all the English PTE areas over the last five years. Where passenger levels have fallen this can be largely attributed to changes in concessionary fare policies and in some cases to demographic factors.

  The Government's new free concessionary fares scheme will however, undoubtedly encourage many more people to travel by bus.

Are bus services sufficiently co-ordinated with other forms of public transport?

  Some people clearly benefit from the co-ordination of bus services with other modes of public transport. It is, however, important to recognise that bus to bus interchange is frequently more important than interchange with other forms of transport and, therefore, has to be prioritised. There are also often more important overall passenger needs, eg that the bus fits in with school or work finishing times rather than meeting a specific time train.

  Lengthy diversions into rail stations or interchange points also often make the total service less attractive to bus passengers by increasing journey times between their origin and destination. Such diversions also often significantly increase costs of operation making services less viable if usage of the multi modal transport interchange point is not sufficient to cover the extra costs involved.

  Bus Operators do, however, work with other transport providers and Local Authorities to co-ordinate services where there is genuine passenger demand.

  The Traveline project also shows bus operators commitment to work with Local Authorities and other organisations to provide co-ordinated information on all transport modes by telephone or via the web.

Are buses clean, safe, efficient?

  Buses are one of the safest forms of public transport with Department for Transport data showing that between 1993 and 2002 there were only an average of 0.4 fatalities per billion passenger bus kilometres. Equivalent figures for cars, motorcycles and bicycles were 3,113 and 41 respectively. During the same period there were only an average 13 serious injuries per billion bus passenger kilometres, whilst the equivalent figures for the car were 33; the motorcycle 1,393 and the bicycle 773.

  Operators have invested millions of pounds in the past few years to introduce low-floor fully accessible vehicles. As a consequence of this investment the average age of the national fleet now stands at 7.12 years.

  Bus safety remains one of the industry's strongest suits.

  Buses are becoming increasingly environmentally clean and data from the European Environment Agency shows that buses produce around 20% of the emissions of cars based on an analysis of grams per passenger kilometre. In addition Euro 3 engines produce 80% less carbon monoxide, around 75% less hydro carbons and two thirds less nitrogen oxides than pre 1990 bus engines.

If not, can deregulation be made to work? How?

  Operators have heavily invested in providing quality bus services and where Local Authorities have adopted pro-active pro-bus strategies to support that investment, significant passenger growth has been achieved.

  Regulation cannot force investment and regulation will not in itself produce service reliability improvements or make buses more attractive in comparison to cars.

  Deregulation has many success stories and in the vast majority of cases the key common feature is that these have been achieved where operators and Local Authorities concentrate on a mutually shared common desire to grow bus ridership and work in close harmony on a voluntary basis.

Is statutory regulation compromising the provision of high quality bus service?

  Competition regulations have limited the extent to which operators have been able to co-ordinate timetables and co-operate in other areas for the benefit of the customer. Legislative changes have also significantly impacted on cost, particularly in respect of employment legislation, health and safety legislation and drivers hours rules. The vast majority of operators fully appreciate the importance of quality to passengers, as well as their growing expectations, and have, therefore, been incentivised to try to minimise the impact of these cost increases on the quality of the product they have on offer.

Are priority measures having a beneficial effect? What is best practice?

  Bus priorities are having a beneficial effect, particularly where a comprehensive network of measures is introduced. Many local authorities are reluctant to implement such priority facilities due to public opposition. Brighton and London demonstrate the benefits that such measures can bring to existing bus passengers and in encouraging modal shift from the car. Many existing bus lanes could be made more effective by increasing their period of operation.

  More extensive bus priority measures are required in our cities and towns across the country. Dedicated bus lanes are the key, but significant improvements in reliability can also be achieved through GPS and traffic light priorities. There should be greater funding incentives for local authorities that are prepared to introduce such measures all day to reduce traffic congestion and comparable financial funding penalties for those local authorities that fail to take a long term view by not addressing these issues.

  From an operational control perspective some bus companies trying to introduce new bus to base radio communication systems would also benefit from the Government making it easier for operators to secure band three radio channels at an affordable rate.

  Significant numbers of car users will be attracted to the bus if bus journey times are considerably speeded up relative to the car.

Is financing and funding for local community services sufficient and targeted in the right way?

  More funding should be allocated to pump priming bus service improvement projects that have a good business case and a potential long term future. A separate bus kick start fund should be retained either ring fenced within the Transport Improvement Fund or outside it. Album is concerned that the new TIF monies will largely be devoted to major road/light rail/infrastructure projects rather than on service enhancements.

  More funding should also be targeted to schemes where operators are willing to match or partially match fund the investment.

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 Government's new April 2006 English concessionary fares scheme represents a considerable overall improvement on the arrangements that were in place previously for the majority of senior citizens. There has, however been considerable public confusion, particularly in areas where very complex schemes have been introduced by some Local Authorities in respect of cross boundary fares.

  The other major problem with the 2006 scheme has been the allocation of the funding to individual local authorities, which was not based on actual travel or anticipated take up. The monies were also not ring fenced solely for use to fund concessionary travel. As a result of this some Local Authorities have received insufficient funding to cover the costs of the new scheme, whilst others have received too much and have diverted some of these funds to other purposes.

  Important lessons must be learnt. The administration of the proposed 2008 free English national scheme should either be administered on a central basis or, at the very least, on a regional basis in order to ensure that the funding available is used for concessionary travel purposes.

  It is also important that sufficient "additional costs" funding is budgeted for, especially for operators in major tourist centres such as York, Bath, Blackpool and Brighton, as the new national free scheme will undoubtedly generate considerable extra bus travel.

  Free or discounted national travel on other forms of public transport should only be considered if there are sufficient funds available. The costs associated with implementing such a scheme are likely to be considerable not only in terms of fare forgone reimbursement, but also in terms of providing the required additional capacity on rail.

Why are there no Quality Contracts?

  There is clear evidence that bus patronage growth and all legitimate public policy objectives can be secured without resort to Quality Contracts. The successes in Cambridge, Lancaster, Brighton and many other areas where operators and Local Authorities concentrate on improving service quality for passengers and making the bus more attractive, have shown that Quality Contracts are unnecessary.

  A "market testing" exercise by the PTE group has suggested that Quality Contracts would require Local Authorities to take new financial risks and substantial public spending on depots, although satisfactory garage facilities already exist.

  Time limited Quality Contracts would not encourage operator investment to the same degree as the current deregulated environment. Contract renewal periods would also cause considerable uncertainty and concern for both passengers and staff.

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 Traffic Commissioners powers in respect of safety and service quality are not only relevant, but also extremely important from an industry standards and a public confidence perspective.

  Overall the industry gets the scrutiny that is required , but the Traffic Commissioners can only take action when they have evidence of poor performance Additional investigative resources are needed to ensure that the standards achieved by the majority of reputable operators are also adhered to by a small minority of other operators.

  The Traffic Commissioners should also be given powers to take action against Local Authorities which consistently fail to address traffic congestion issues raised by operators and which prevent them from achieving the Traffic Commissioners punctuality targets. At the present time operators can be fined and have restrictions put on their licences (including revocation) for non compliance. Local Authorities have no such incentive to take action to address Service reliability issues, which is intrinsically unjust, as many of the factors which cause service unreliability are in the control of the Local Authority and not the operator.

Is London a sound model for the rest of the UK?

  London is not a sound model for the rest of the country. The levels of financial subsidy involved are simply not affordable elsewhere.

  Having said that buses in London have been a great success story and there are key pointers for the rest of the country. These include:

    —  Limited and very expensive central parking.

    —  Considerable expenditure on bus priorities, enforcement and service reliability measures.

    —  Unified control of vital parts of the highway network and road pricing policy.

    —  Strong political pro bus leadership and support for congestion charging.

    —  Comprehensive local tax raising powers for transport.

  Local Authorities outside London could achieve similar (but proportionate to spending) results, if they tackle the road allocation issue, without any change to the regulatory system.

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?

  Bus passenger numbers will be boosted if there is greater commitment to:

    1.  The introduction of more widespread bus priority measures to improve punctuality and the speed of the bus relative to the car, together with appropriate enforcement.

    2.  Ensuring that major traffic generators are located in central urban areas or in parts of urban areas, which are well served by public transport.

    3.  Restricting the free movement of cars in central urban areas and making sure that the true environmental cost of car usage is reflected in parking charges and road pricing.

    4.  Encouraging some Local Authorities and operators to adopt the best industry practice of many of their colleagues. Genuine constructive partnership working between operators and Local Authorities is the common feature of the vast majority of the UK's bus success stories.

  All of the above will achieve far more than a change in regulatory regime.

24 May 2006





 
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 26 October 2006