APPENDIX 30
Memorandum submitted by The Yorkshire
Dales Public Transport Users Group
The Yorkshire Dales Public Transport Users Group
was established in 1996 in response to proposed reductions in
bus service provision in the Yorkshire Dales. We now have around
400 members and undertake many activities in addition to campaigning,
including the tendering and funding of bus services, production
of publicity materials and the organisation of a guided walk programme.
Further details are available on our website.
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?
In the Yorkshire area there are many examples
both of improved services and of services which have worsened
or disappeared since deregulation.
Positive examples of improvements include:
— Commercial services on key corridors,
where frequencies have remained the same or have increased and
new vehicles introduced—eg Harrogate & District Travel's
service 36 operating between Leeds, Harrogate and Ripon operating
to an increased frequency, with high-specification double-decker
buses. This service operates very reliably, despite significant
traffic congestion, with clean, safe, attractive vehicles.
— Key corridors in rural North Yorkshire
where North Yorkshire County Council tenders have specified improved,
standardised daytime frequencies together with modern low-floor
vehicles and infrastructure improvements. Examples of this are
in Wharfedale (Pride of the Dales services 72/74) and Wensleydale
(Dales & District services 156/157), which both have made
good use of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. However there are issues
with evening and Sunday provision (see below).
Other services have however not fared so well,
examples include:
— Mainly commercial services operated
by urban operators which extend into North Yorkshire County from
West Yorkshire—eg First in Leeds service X84 from Leeds
to Skipton. This long-established service is now operated by an
assortment of second-hand vehicles, which are often in poor and
dirty condition. Reliability is poor, partly due to traffic congestion
but also partly due to factors within the control of the operator.
A budget review by North Yorkshire County Council of its tendered
journeys will shortly result in the service being truncated at
Ilkley on evenings and Sundays, resulting in the loss of a key
link.
— The high quality services in Wharfedale
and Wensleydale referred to above are now having their usefulness
reduced by removal of evening services—partly due to local
authority budget reviews and partly due to staffing issues within
the bus operator. In order to reduce social exclusion and for
public transport to provide a viable alternative to the private
car it is essential that evening and Sunday services are provided
on all main corridors.
— Some key visitor destinations in
the Yorkshire Dales now have very sparse services. For example,
the popular village of Malham has only three return bus journeys
on Summer Sundays, and these are provided by minibus. This poor
level of provision is very unattractive to the vast numbers of
visitors arriving by car. It is impossible to reach the popular
town of Ingleton by public transport from the conurbations of
West Yorkshire on Sundays.
Whilst bus operators can provide high quality
services on key corridors, public sector support is clearly essential
in providing bus priorities and in funding socially-desirable
services. Such services should provide a viable and attractive
alternative to the private car not only for essential travel purposes,
but also for leisure travel, thereby facilitating a sustainable
lifestyle.
Is statutory regulation compromising the provision
of high quality bus services?
Regulation is not generally an issue in compromising
the provision of high-quality services, although there is one
area of concern. This is that rulings by the Office of Fair Trading
have strongly discouraged operators from participating in joint
and through ticketing schemes. Such schemes are usually beneficial
to passengers, and should therefore be encouraged not discouraged.
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
What is best practice?
There are few priority measures in place within
our area. This is not generally an issue within rural North Yorkshire,
but many of the surrounding towns and cities would benefit from
increased measures. These should be targeted at the real pinch-points,
and it is important to ensure that once priority measures have
been put in place that sufficient resources are provided to ensure
that they are policed to make them effective in practice as well
as theory.
There is a good case for traffic regulation
in some areas of the Yorkshire Dales, either banning parking in
particular areas or restricting access to certain areas for non-essential
traffic. The picturesque villages of Malham and Reeth are good
examples of places blighted by a huge influx of motor traffic
on Summer Sundays, where traffic regulation of some sort is already
desirable and will soon become a necessity.
Is financing and funding for local community services
sufficient and targeted in the right way?
Bus services for visitors and the local community
should be integrated wherever possible, and there is considerable
scope for this in places like rural North Yorkshire. It is important
however that sufficient capacity is maintained in the local bus
network when pursuing this goal. Small demand-responsive minibuses
are ideal for serving the most rural areas, but they should connect
with larger more direct services on all the main corridors.
The withdrawal of local bus service funding
previously provided by the Countryside Agency is a major issue.
The Agency provided useful funding for a number of routes which
were useful to both visitors and residents in the Yorkshire Dales.
The good work being done by the development of these services
is now in jeopardy following the withdrawal of this funding and
consequent reduced service provision.
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?
West Yorkshire PTA has extended its concessionary
fare policy to include cross-boundary journeys to and from neighbouring
North Yorkshire. It has however specifically excluded the DalesBus
leisure services from this scheme—which is a great disappointment
to many West Yorkshire residents. We would suggest that it would
give far better value for public money if nationwide half-price
travel were to be offered to all over-60's—even many pensioners
would like to pay something towards their travel costs.
Why are there no Quality Contracts?
We are not really in a position to comment on
this, but the obvious answer is that local authorities have not
seen these as the most cost-effective way of providing public
transport and social inclusion within their areas. We would not
dispute this view.
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 powers of the Traffic Commissioners are
relevant, and would generally seem to be well exercised, although
a number of buses continue to be operated in very poor condition.
There may be scope for some tightening of standards.
A small number of companies persist with somewhat
dubious operating practices, for example a major operator of contracted
services in North Yorkshire does not use ticket machines on many
routes. This sort of practice should be within the remit of the
Traffic Commissioners to control.
We are concerned also that the "five minute"
rule strictly imposed by the Traffic Commissioners may sometimes
work against the interests of the passenger. Some bus companies
are now so concerned about failing to comply with this rule that
they are building excessive running time into the schedules, so
as to be able to accommodate delays which happen only occasionally.
This can lead to un-necessarily extended journey times that are
annoying to passengers, and provide a poor alternative to the
private car. Whilst we want to see reliable services, greater
flexibility in the implementation of these rules would be beneficial
for customers.
Is London a sound model for the rest of the UK?
London is a very different operating environment
from the rest of the UK, so solutions which are appropriate there
may well not be appropriate elsewhere. The elements of the London
model which would probably be of most relevance elsewhere are
the congestion charge, bus priorities and integrated ticketing.
The contractual mechanisms for operating bus services are likely
to prove expensive in operation elsewhere, and not the most cost-effective
way of providing services in line with customers' needs.
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 bus has a bright future, so long as it is
given sufficient investment. It provides access to public transport
for far more people at far lower cost than the railways. In order
to provide the best service it is essential for a number of organisations
to work in partnership together, including:
— bus operators, providing high quality
services and meeting the needs of the market;
— local authorities, providing appropriate
bus priority measures and funding for socially-necessary services;
— central government, pursuing environmentally-sound
transport policies—benefiting public transport through appropriate
taxation and investment decisions; and
— user groups, such as ourselves, providing
vital feedback on how services can best meet public needs.
In order to boost patronage a real commitment
is needed from all these bodies to work together. Increased regulation
is not essential, or even desirable, to make this happen.
Bus services most definitely should not be in
the business of carting fresh air round the country, but there
is great scope to improve and increase bus services so that many
more people can regularly travel by bus. However, it is important
not to expect every single bus journey to be packed with passengers,
but a well-designed bus network will see each bus carry many people
over its working day. It is also folly to restrict the provision
of bus services to the busiest times—this will merely provide
a poor alternative to the use of the private car and encourage,
rather than discourage, increased car ownership.
Increased and improved bus services also need
to be given time to develop—we have seen a number of schemes
which provided new services which were starting to increase usage
towards viable levels, but were then withdrawn due to insufficient
patronage. Similarly it has to be said that we have seen large
sums of money poured into services which clearly had no realistic
chance of success, and should never have been undertaken in the
first place. This is partly due to schemes such as "Rural
Bus Challenge" which in our view placed too much emphasis
on innovation, but didn't support potentially far more useful
schemes which could have successfully developed existing services.
We hope that you find this feedback useful.
In conclusion from our local perspective we believe that buses
are absolutely vital in providing sustainable access to the Yorkshire
Dales National Park and surrounding area. We would very much welcome
the provision of some funding to the National Park to allow them
to develop bus services to facilitate sustainable tourism in the
area, for the benefit of visitors, residents and the local economy,
to fill the void created by the withdrawal of Countryside Agency
funding.
25 May 2006
| 
