APPENDIX 34
Memorandum submitted by Transport 2000,
South West Network
Why has the decline in services not halted?
The reasons are complex but the following have
contributed:
(a) Congestion on the roads. Whereas trains
run unimpeded, buses get stuck in traffic. Buses are thus perceived
as too slow, with nothing to be gained over the car. Most authorities
in the South West quote congestion on local urban roads as a major
problem for buses—this is evident from a survey of LTPs
for the period 2006-11.
(b) Lack of delivery of bus priority measures.
Nearly all authorities in the South West would like to implement
bus lanes and junction improvements that favour bus traffic. This
is evident from the LTP2s being submitted. However, the LTP integrated
transport allocations are far too low to deliver improvements
aspired to, and the regional funding allocation (RFA) is still
gravitating towards road schemes, although we are delighted to
see that at least some urban areas could potentially receive funds
for bus infrastructure. There is a feeling that delivery of bus
infrastructure is difficult because of cross-authority working,
planning problems and the establishment of complex partnerships.
We note that even where RFA money is to be potentially spent on
improving buses (for example in the Bristol and Bath areas) that
the rural shires are convinced that such schemes will slip and
that money not spent will become available instead for bypasses
and other road schemes. We feel that there is a real lack of resources
in local authorities when it comes to delivering good public transport
initiatives. We have often said that a PTE is needed for the Greater
Bristol area. We think it essential.
(c) Frequency is too low: buses that have
a "turn up and go" frequency do well, but waits of even
30 minutes are not acceptable by many people in modern day life.
(d) New development is not on the whole being
designed for service by the bus. Buses should stop actually inside
the development and not on distributor roads on the edge, be frequent
and subject to special status once they are on the road outside
the development, by means of bus priority measures.
(e) In the South West, there is little joined
up thinking when it comes to linking bus and train services together.
There is a lack of investment in interchanges, and there is too
little thought given to the logistics of cross-ticketing and time-tabling.
(f) Fares are perceived by many—especially
students and others on low income—to be far too expensive.
(g) The lack of evening and weekend services
on many routes.
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?
We are not convinced that deregulation has worked.
The result of deregulation has been a decrease in service quality
on the less commercial routes with evening services and weekend
services often not running at all. Deregulation allows local authorities
may to withdraw services in an attempt to save money. This affects
communities where many people do not have a car and have no other
means than the bus for getting to hospitals, shops and so on.
In Bristol alone, 15 services have been recently withdrawn.
Fares are frequently too high for passengers
to pay, even on buses serving large urban areas. The age and type
of vehicle is often inadequate, this being so particularly in
the shire counties.
Deregulation can also lead to situations where
there are too many buses from different companies compete for
road space, with the result that town centres get choked with
queues of buses, and air quality goes down, for example as has
happened in Oxford.
Many Transport 2000 campaigners in the South
West feel that statutory regulation based on the London model
would be more useful than the present system.
Since deregulation there has been under-investment
in bus stations in the South West and we can think of examples
where bus station buildings remain decrepit and minimal—hardly
matching the new modern fleets of buses which use them. Some interchanges
have been built or improved during past years—for example,
Bristol bus station, and, in Wales, interchanges at Bridgend and
Caerphilly—and there have been improvements at Bridgewater,
Barnstaple, Newquay, Wells, Bournemouth and other locations. However,
there is still very much to be done.
Are priority measures having a beneficial effect?
What is best practice?
Bus priority measures have a beneficial effect
in that buses can then drive past queues of traffic. This motivates
people to use the bus instead of the car, because the bus becomes
faster and better way of travelling: is that simple. The problem
is that congestion is everywhere and bus priority measures are
therefore absolutely and critically essential. We have already
touched on this point and explained about problems of delivery
of bus priority measures in the first section in point (b).
The few bus priority measures in place in the
South West have worked well. Where there have been problems these
are as follows:
(a) they don't last long enough—the
priority measures are not continuous;
(b) parked cars in bus lanes;
(c) congested junctions without bus priority
measures; and
(d) bus lanes are only applicable for short
periods of time (for example 7.00 am to 10.00 am and 4.00 pm to
6.30 pm as in Bristol).
The problem of parked cars needs dedicated police
units as in London with a tow-away scheme. Bus lanes need to be
operational much of the day—congestion in our urban areas
is no longer restricted to peak hours. Junctions and roundabouts
need to offer bus priority to add value to the whole bus network.
The LTP2 transport plans in the South West nearly
all point to the essential importance of delivering bus priority
measures in the strategically important cities and towns, particularly
with the demands of the emerging RSS. However, without the funds
to deliver either bus lanes or junction improvements with bus
priority over other traffic, we are in trouble.
We see an urgent need for a PTE or similar to
manage the implementation of bus priority measures in conjunction
with funds allocated by the RFA process. Without a PTE or other
statutory body to co-ordinate and push forward the delivery of
bus priority, we worry that planning delays and the complexities
of cross-authority working will mean that good intentions may
come to nothing. The public transport function need to taken over
by dedicated sub-regional or regional boards. We also suggest
that fuel duty should be targeted by local authorities as part
and parcel of the service as a whole, rather than associated with
whether or not a particular bus runs.
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 role of the Traffic Commissioner needs to
be improved to protect services from being withdrawn with:
(a) powers to carry out more monitoring and
inspections of both maintenance and operating to the registered
time table;
(b) powers to regulate between the local
authorities; and
(c) ability to recommend extra resources
for better running of buses.
Why are there so few quality bus partnerships?
We suggest that the public procurement stages
are too severe and require too many approvals from the DfT bus
and taxi division and Ministers for bus quality partnerships to
finally go forward. The local authority procuring arrangements
and the setting up of partnerships is too difficult in the South
West. Contrast this situation with the use of the Welsh Assembly
Government Transport Act does which takes the power away from
local authorities and transfers the powers and duties to an effective
body. This procurement body can do the job easily and ensures
that quality bus partnerships do indeed get off the ground.
An arrangement with what amounts to a Board
to deliver quality partnerships will definitely be required once
congestion charging or road charging in brought into effect. Franchising
and public procurement is the way that bus and tram services are
run across the whole of Europe—we feel that this is the
way to deliver high quality public services to the UK. Bus services
need to be publicly specified and privately and publicly delivered.
The 1985 transport model does not work because it does not balance
the views of the community effectively against the duties under
the Companies Act on private shareholders.
The need for public transport user forums
Public transport forums are needed across the
country with adequate funding. The Regional Transport Forums were
set up following the abolition of the RPC, but they are not yet
established in all regions. We recommend that they should all
be put in place, to give public transport users a voice in all
regions.
Concessionary fares
We would like to see concessionary fares offered
right across the South West, as a regional wide scheme.
27 May 2006
| 
