Memorandum submitted by Bus Users UK
WHAT IS
BUS USERS
UK?
Bus Users UK is a voluntary organisation, previously
known as the National Federation of Bus Users (NFBU). It was founded
by Caroline Cahm in 1985, who is still very much involved in the
organisation, although now as President rather than Chairman,
the post she held for some 20 years. In the absence of a statutory
body to represent bus users, outside London and Northern Ireland,
Bus Users UK attempts to fill this gap, albeit with a skeleton
staff. Our main areas of work are in organising bus user surgeries,
which allow passengers to talk face to face with their service
providers, dealing with written and telephoned complaints, provision
of the bus user representative on the Bus Appeals Body and engaging,
where possible, in policy formulation (eg Local Transport Plans)
to ensure that the passenger voice is heard. The ethos of the
organisation has always been to work in partnership with bus operators,
local and central government. We welcome this opportunity to submit
a paper to this Select Committee.
HAS DEREGULATION
WORKED?
Bus services have been in long term decline
since the 1950s and the start of the era of cheap and accessible
mass motoring, coupled with an expansion of the roads programme
and construction of the motorway network. Prior to the Second
World War cars were a luxury item, as witnessed by the fact that
it was only thought necessary to introduce a car driving test
and licence in 1936. For many people in this country cars are
now perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an absolute necessity. The
change in post war car ownership levels adversely affected all
public transport, Britain's railway network was severely pruned
back following the Beeching Report. Of course, there was no such
report into Britain's bus network, but many rural bus routes have
suffered a not dissimilar fate, although of course such cuts can
be more readily reversed.
Any assessment of whether deregulation has worked
must be considered against this background. Whilst the 1985 Transport
Act was explicitly stated by the then government as a policy measure
to stem the tide of loss of bus patronage, in large part this
was a Canute like ambition, without concurrently seeking ways
of making car travel less attractive and/or more expensive. As
is well known in transport circles, over the last thirty years
or so the relative costs of travelling by private car against
that of public transport has diverged, and continues to do so,
such that while car ownership costs have stayed almost static
(in real terms) the cost of bus and train travel is over a third
higher. Most motorists will dispute this, pointing to the sign
outside the petrol station that shows fuel at £1.00 a litre,
but the analysis shows otherwise. Although fuel prices have increased
recently they are still considerably less than they would now
be, had the fuel tax escalator not been abandoned in 2001.
There are bus success stories of course. London
is often quoted and we will address that issue later. Brighton,
York, Oxford, Cambridge are often (rightly) cited in this connection,
as are routes such as the Blazefield service 36 which uses leather
seated, high quality, double deck buses between Leeds and Ripon.
The bus companies in these places are growing
the market, but they are generally stories of successful partnership
made possible by local political will. Brighton has a first class
bus company that frequently wins awards for its quality but it
does so in partnership with a local (unitary) authority that shares
this objective. It enables this to happen by putting in good bus
priority measures, charging car parking prices that act as a demand
restraint tool, enforcing parking restrictions though effectively
adopting Decriminalised Parking Enforcement measures and generally
pro-actively promoting the bus as an effective transport mode,
rather than a distress purchase suitable only for the socially
excluded.
York, Cambridge and Oxford all operate demand
restraint measures that greatly assist the bus operator in effecting
mode switch, thus helping the local authority to meet Public Service
Agreement (PSA) targets and the government to meet its 12% growth
target over the 10 year period from 2000. This area is explored
further under the next section, Priority Measures.
To summarise, there is no definitive answer
to the question "Has Deregulation Worked?" The free
market in which buses operate outside of London has allowed bus
operators freedom to operate services in new and innovative ways,
but has also in many ways focused on key corridors where demand
is greatest (and thus profitability is at a premium), sometimes
at the expense of less attractive routes which often result in
a subsidised service that, whilst basic, is not attractive to
users.
Significant rises in operating costs for bus
companies (fuel, insurance, congestion, etc) often results in
constraint in innovation—the operators are reluctant to
try new services at their own commercial risk.
PRIORITY MEASURES
These are absolutely essential to the efficient
operation of any bus service. Trains (and often LRT) benefit from
exclusive use of a reserved track. Buses do not and hence, frequently,
get caught in the same congestion that the car in front is experiencing.
There is no incentive or reason for the car driver to transfer
to using the bus merely to sit in the same traffic jam. This can
be a vicious circle—the bus service gets slower—the
bus passenger buys a car—congestion worsens—the bus
slows down—the next bus passenger buys a car. The opposite,
virtuous circle, of course is that priority measures speed up
the bus, passing the traffic jam—the car driver in the traffic
jam transfers to the quicker bus—the frequency of the bus
service increases to cope with the extra passengers—more
car drivers transfer to the better bus service.
As noted previously there are local authorities
that actively pursue this goal but they are in the minority. Road
space re-allocation can be a very hot political issue, particularly
approaching local elections (as evidenced most recently perhaps
by the change of control of the three west London boroughs through
whose areas the west London tram route is proposed, but as also
seen in many local smaller scale bus schemes eg the suspension
of the Tyburn Road bus priority lanes in Birmingham.) Without
a statutory requirement to provide effective bus priority measures
this relies entirely on determined local political champions.
There is a need therefore for a legal obligation
to be put on transport authorities to measure current bus speeds
at congested areas and then to set out an action plan, perhaps
through the Local Transport Plan Bus Strategy, as to how this
speed will be improved by say 5% over the five year period or
perhaps 10% over 10 years, but with mileposts that ensure this
is not all planned for years nine and 10. Authorities would be
financially rewarded by central government if these targets are
met. If not, penalty payments could be levied by bus operators.
Congestion costs operators (and ultimately passengers) significant
sums of money as the operation runs more slowly. On the West Coast
main line Virgin were financially compensated by Railtrack/Network
Rail as additional Pendolino train sets were required to operate
the planned timetable, due to the failure to provide tracks capable
of allowing 140 mph operation. It is estimated that many urban
bus operators require a fleet that is 10% larger than would otherwise
be needed, simply to deal with the effects of congestion. These
additional resources are currently paid for by the bus user, not
by the "track supplier", so represent a form of taxation
on the bus user and increase the divergence in relative cost of
using the private car and the bus.
Well-policed bus priority schemes are the catalyst
that demonstrates that high frequency, attractive, reliable, value
for money bus services can provide a real alternative to the private
car for some motorists.
Evidence shows that where Local Authorities
invest seriously in such measures, the private sector bus operators
will similarly invest in new vehicles and related initiatives
(such as satellite tracking) to improve the service.
CONCESSIONARY FARES
In its report of December 2002, the government's
own transport policy advisory body, the Commission for Integrated
Transport, recognised the benefit of concession fare schemes,
but recommended that they be standardised on half fare discounts.
One benefit of this would be to spread limited transport budgets
across a wider population so that, for example, reduced fares
could be introduced for younger people up to age 19, or more perhaps,
if in full time education. As we know, this did not happen.
While Bus Users UK welcomes the free scheme
for 60 year olds and over and those with specific disabilities,
the current English scheme is a mess. To some extent government
has defused this criticism by announcing on Budget Day this year
that a "national" English scheme will apply from April
2008.
However this leaves a number of unanswered questions/problems:
— What does "national" mean?
(Will London Freedom pass holders be able to travel as now in
London, on bus, tube and rail, and on bus services elsewhere in
England, but non London residents will only get free bus travel
in London? This would not be fair or equitable. A similar situation
also exists in many Passenger Transport Executive urban areas.)
— What will happen to local schemes
that are currently more generous than the legal minimum? (eg Cornwall
County Council has co-ordinated a free fare scheme on behalf of
the districts that operates 24/7—the new national scheme
has been announced—as now—as applying after 0930.
However it will be very difficult and confusing to have local
variations under a national scheme, so Cornish residents may experience
a worse scheme from 2008.)
— Who will administer the scheme and
what will the reimbursement mechanism/formula be? The current
allocation of funds via district councils, that have no public
transport responsibility is a nonsense.
— What will happen to parallel rail
routes if the scheme does not include the railway?
— What will happen where the bus takes
a longer route than the train eg the Bere Peninsular in Devon
where the return bus journey to Plymouth takes three times as
long as the equivalent rail journey. Why should a concession traveller
experience an inferior service?
— Given the social and health benefits
of encouraging older people to get out and about on the bus why
should the money for the concessionary travel scheme come out
of a transport budget? There should be contributions from health
and social care budgets.
— How will we encourage young people
to continue travelling by bus if we continue to enable them to
get a driving licence at 17, but then charge them a full adult
fare on the bus? The message is clear—buy a car. If we lose
this end of the market, the age of the bus travelling population
will inevitably increase and the volume diminish, contrary to
the stated government objective to grow bus use.
ROLE OF
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
Most bus passengers put reliability at the top
of their agenda. A large proportion of the letters of complaint
we receive are concerned with reliability and it always forms
a significant number of the issues raised at surgeries.
When and where a bus company fails to perform
due to its own shortcomings, it is vital that an effective enforcement
mechanism exists adequately to address and remedy this, speedily.
The Traffic Commissioner network, as currently organised, is not
adequately resourced to do this and needs reform. Non performance
related to unreliability has to be monitored and recorded by special
Traffic Commissioner employed staff before any action can be considered.
To be regarded as valid the monitoring must be of a significant
proportion of the services in question. None of the Traffic Commissioner
areas employ enough of these Bus Compliance Monitors. For example,
we understand that the Western Traffic Area (that stretches westwards
to Lands End from a line stretching from Swindon to Gloucester)
employs less than two full time monitors. This is a huge physical
area. With this insignificant number of staff, it makes it impossible
for any meaningful monitoring to be done on any sizeable scale.
Listening to the comments of the Senior Traffic
Commissioner at a conference earlier this year it seems he also
feels hampered by having to work to different pieces of legislation.
The other regulatory body that has a significant
(and frequently very damaging) role in the bus industry is the
Office of Fair Trading (OFT). While there is clearly a need for
bus passengers to have some basic safeguards in place that prevent
bus companies exploiting consumers, the OFT has done little to
benefit the bus passenger. Complicated rules have been introduced
that, regardless of OFT protestations, have had the effect of
discouraging joint ticketing. Bus companies are prevented by the
OFT from actively co-ordinating timetables, despite the fact that
in the majority of cases this would clearly be to the passenger's
benefit, rather than disbenefit.
Currently bus operators are required to register
routes with the Traffic Commissioner, whilst sending copies of
that registration to all Transport Authorities (county and unitary
councils) through which the service will operate. Given the responsibilities
of these same authorities for inputting data to Traveline, it
would make more sense for the Transport Authority to receive and
authorise registrations instead AND to have the duty for monitoring
those routes in their areas.
There would be a separate organisation (which
may or may not be regionally based) that would respond to this
information. The analogy could be the role of the police in investigating
alleged crimes and collecting evidence. This information is passed
on to the Criminal Prosecution Service that then makes a decision
whether a prosecution will be carried out and if so prosecutes
using the evidence provided by the police.
This same organisation would also take over
the competition role of the OFT, removing OFT from any public
transport responsibilities.
A further obligation to be placed on this new
body would be that of monitoring Transport Authorities progress
in meeting bus speed improvements as laid down in their LTP (or
equivalent). This body would have a twin track approach to this.
Firstly in annual appraisals of progress and secondly in assessing
whether a lack of bus priority or poor on street parking arrangements
have an effect in producing poor bus service reliability. In this
case the Public Inquiry could result in a fine being applied to
the Transport Authority.
FINANCING OF
LOCAL BUS
SERVICES
At present, although the 1985 Transport Act
requires transport authorities to identify gaps in bus provision
and empowers them to provide socially necessary bus services,
there is no mechanism to ensure that revenue funding is available
to finance this. This can result in a need being recognised, but
the service not being provided. At a time when the LTP Accession
software is identifying and quantifying gaps in accessibility
many local authorities have already, or are about to, cut their
local bus subsidy support budget. There needs to be a statutory
duty imposed on these authorities to fund identified gaps in service
and to maintain that funding.
BUS USER
REPRESENTATION
As already noted, only residents of London and
Northern Ireland are covered by statutory, government funded bus
user bodies. Bus Users UK is happy to fill the resulting gap,
but is working on a shoe string. The Welsh Assembly Government
has addressed this in the Principality by supplying core funding.
Although we have an obvious interest, we would argue that DfT
must address this problem in England.
IS THE
LONDON MODEL
THE WAY
FORWARD?
It is incontestable that bus services in London
have improved beyond recognition over the last few years. As a
result many people argue that regulated services are, therefore,
the way forward. However there are other significant differences
between London and the rest of the country:
— An effective demand management system
is in place, in the form of the congestion charge, set initially
at £5 per day but now at £8 per day.
— A level of bus revenue subsidy is
applied that is almost double all the revenue funding in the rest
of the UK put together.
— Effective bus priority measures exist.
— Car-parking charges in the central
area are perceived as high, making public transport use in the
central area a real alternative.
— Transport for London has a strategic
role that also covers highways.
The regulated framework is secondary to these
features. If these measures were to be adopted across the UK the
argument about regulation would be irrelevant.
The London model is attractive because the level
of public subsidy allows a comprehensive network of bus services
to operate, complimented by an effective Underground system and
strategic highways management/demand management.
QUALITY CONTRACTS
Bus Users UK is not convinced that regulation
alone is the way forward. However, it may be that a trial QC area
should be established to allow an evidence base to be amassed
and assessed so that an informed answer can be supplied to assist
the decision-making process. We are aware that South Yorkshire
PTE is exploring this possibility at present. The biggest failing
of a PTE taking on this mantle is likely to be that arsing from
that fact that PTEs have no highway powers. As a result, while
it may be able to specify the bus network, it will not be able
satisfactorily address any road space reallocation issues.
Any "London-based" system would require
significant public financial investment and must include wider
highways powers for the Transport Authority.
Another aspect that is little used is a "Statutory
Bus Quality Partnership". An example of this should have
been in operation in Birmingham and would have made for an interesting
pilot/study. In essence a partnership, there would have been,
for the first time, measurable standards for all partners to adhere
to. Whilst not having the same legal standing as a Quality Contract,
the perceived benefits for passengers would have been significant.
However, this project has floundered because of the lack of political
will from the local authority.
WHAT IS
THE FUTURE
FOR THE
BUS?
Bus Users UK concurs with the sentiment that
"we cannot be in the business of carting fresh air around
the country". We do not support bus provision regardless
of need, but, as argued in this submission, believe that a bus
service must be provided and adequately funded where there is
proven need.
The May 2006 paper from the Association of Transport
Co-ordinating Officers (ATCO), Local Bus Service Provision
The case for regulatory reform, makes the case for Quality
Network Agreements (QNAs). As an organisation we have always supported
partnership as the way forward, as already quoted in the section
Has deregulation worked? QNAs are based on this requirement.
Much of the regulation debate is centred on
the PTE areas, and thus a trial in one such area may be the way
forward to assess the pros and cons of such a framework.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, rural services
are often under threat. Whilst often not being commercial attractive
for operators, local authorities are left to pick up the pieces,
providing a very basic, often unattractive service.
Services in rural areas should be subject to
a nationally agreed minimum standard, taking into account population,
local amenities, places of employment/leisure, etc.
22 May 2006
| 
