APPENDIX 41
Memorandum submitted by Cambridgeshire
County Council
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Brian Smith has been involved in bus
issues in Cambridgeshire since he was appointed Director of Environment
and Transport in 1996. In 2005, he took on the wider responsibility
of Deputy Chief Executive, Environment and Community Services.
1.2 He chairs the Transport and Environment
Committee of CSS (the Society representing local authorities,
including most chief officers with responsibility for Strategic
Planning, Transportation, The Environment, Waste Management and
Economic Development). He was recently appointed Vice-President
of CSS.
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Cambridgeshire has long recognised the
vital role of public transport as part of an integrated transport
approach—both in policy and delivery.
2.2 The population and housing growth of
recent years, and the economic prosperity of the southern half
of the county have added to the pressure on the Cambridge area
in particular. Measures have been taken to restrict vehicle access
to the central area of Cambridge, so reinforcing the key role
of public transport (in addition to walking and cycling—the
latter is vital in Cambridge where 26% of residents cycle to work).
2.3 Cambridgeshire, and the Cambridge area
in particular, are set to see sustainable population and housing
growth of over 20% over the next 15 years. Much of this will be
in areas suited to public transport, and local planners are keen
to explore this.
2.4 The Cambridge area—which is a
centre for work, shopping, leisure and education—is therefore
well positioned to see further growth in the use of public transport.
2.5 There is also an opportunity for bus
operators to capture new patronage from the growth agenda.
3. Has deregulation worked?
3.1 Across the county passenger numbers
have grown by 21% between 2001-02 and 2005-06.
3.2 This success has been achieved through
close partnership working between the County Council, District
Councils, the Bus Companies and the private sector. Innovative
schemes include:
— A network of five quality park and
ride sites around Cambridge that are consistently rated among
the best in the country.
— A new bus station at Addenbrooke's
Hospital built on hospital land in partnership with the health
service, the County Council and the bus companies—around
50 buses per hour now serve the site. Joint promotion philosophy.
3.3 Successful schemes provide a stimulus
and a catalyst for other initiatives.
3.4 Partnership with Stagecoach led to biggest
single Kickstart award of £2.487 million to pump prime a
new network of routes.
3.5 Growth also allows funding to be secured
from section 106 agreements, which can be used to pump prime services
until developments reach a size where bus services can be sustained.
3.6 A large proportion of the overall growth,
however, has taken place within and around Cambridge. In this
area growth has been around 45% over the same period. (Well in
excess of the Local Public Service Agreement of 20% over four
years.)
3.7 This means that the rural areas of Cambridgeshire
are not producing the same level of growth and in some areas may
be in a small decline.
3.8 The lack of ability to cross subsidies
services means that operators are concentrating on profitable
routes.
3.9 Marginal routes that operators may have
considered running if they could be cross-subsidised fall on the
local authority to provide.
3.10 The accessibility agenda is restricted
as a result of the current deregulated environment.
3.11 There is a lack of openness from operators.
Although there is a good relationship in Cambridgeshire between
the County Council and operators this does not extend to information
that operators view as being commercially sensitive.
3.12 The lack of integration on ticketing
has an adverse effect on passengers, but it is interesting to
note we have secured agreement to cross ticketing from DfT on
our planned Guided Busway.
4. Are priority measures having a beneficial
effect?
4.1 These are an integral part of CCC thinking
in the strategic development of the authorities transport infrastructure.
Examples include the introduction of corridor measures at the
same time as opening park and ride sites and the emphasis on these
measures in the LTP and Long Term Transport Strategy.
4.2 Joint discussions are held with operators
and District Councils about strategic direction allowing us to
focus on areas where investment would be "good value".
4.3 Cambridgeshire has a good record of
delivery in this area, which increases confidence for bus operators
in terms of partnership with the authority and the operators'
ability to run a reliable service. In particular the use of evidence,
such as time savings on specific routes assists in encouraging
a joint approach.
4.4 The next phase of priority measure due
to be implemented in Cambridge later this year include infrastructure
improvements, revised one way system and more traffic restriction
measures to free up road space for buses.
4.5 Despite the historic nature of Cambridge
and the clear space limitations car drivers appear to recognise
the benefits of promoting passenger transport and cycle schemes
and do not focus on these measures as a major concern. However,
there are tensions with cyclists where buses and cyclists need
to share space.
5. COMMUNITY
SERVICES
5.1 Community Transport seen as a valuable
and practical solution to rural transport issues and accessibility
where conventional public transport would be unviable or expensive
to provide. It is therefore a vital component of the overall strategy
to ensure accessibility for rural areas and links to main corridors
of service.
5.2 98% of Cambridgeshire parishes have
access to a community transport scheme but there are a number
of concerns with respect to ongoing funding.
5.3 A number of schemes were set up through
Rural Transport Partnership, but this has now been disbanded due
to lack of resources to allocate to schemes.
5.4 Transfer of funding from the Countryside
Agency to Regional Development Agencies has meant that direct
funding has now stopped, placing a number of schemes at risk.
5.5 There is great concern and uncertainty
amongst the volunteers in community transport schemes about where
their future funding will come from, which has led to consolidation
and possible retraction rather than previous expansion of schemes.
6. CONCESSIONARY
FARES
6.1 Distribution of new resources to districts,
through the funding formula has meant that in Cambridgeshire,
with its configuration of district boundaries, has not been able
to provide an enhanced scheme to match the previous scheme across
the county.
6.2 Funding allocations have been difficult
to identify on a district by district basis and do not appear
to have reflected usage or take up in previous schemes.
6.3 Neighbouring authorities have been able
to provide enhanced schemes, which makes it difficult to justify
Cambridgeshire's more restricted scheme to residents.
6.4 Actual minimum scheme is considerably
different to what concession holders were expecting based on the
original budget announcement. Expectation that this would be free
for all and build on the countywide half fare scheme that was
previously run in the county.
7. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
7.1 The resources available to Traffic Commissioners
to investigate complaints against operators are severely restricted
with only eight bus monitors to cover the whole of England, Scotland
and Wales.
7.2 This restricts the impact that TCs could
have since without the realistic threat of being caught or investigated
operators are more likely to perform below required standards.
7.3 TCs and local authorities could work
much closer together but this is difficult without sufficient
resources. However, my personal view is that this could usefully
be incorporated with a stronger "OFBUS" regime.
8. GENERAL COMMENTS
8.1 Cambridgeshire has realised significant
benefits from working with operators in a model which is closer
to a partnership than a Quality Contract.
8.2 Fare levels are key to encouraging bus
usage and the use of discount tickets has been an important element
of the overall approach in Cambridgeshire.
8.3 Any move towards a "London"
model would mean a change in emphasis for local authorities but
could lead to a more coordinated approach where this is not achieved
by partnership working.
8.4 The benefits of competition in encouraging
operators to provide a high quality service need to be balanced
against the challenge this presents in terms of providing information
to the public or partners on usage and the sharing of other development
opportunities.
20 June 2006
| 
