Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


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





 
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