Bus services after the Spending Review

Written evidence from Bus Users UK (BUS 14)

SUMMARY

1. Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant:

1. 100% fuel duty rebate should be reintroduced

2. We agree with the suggestion that loss of BSOG would have led to a 10% reduction in mileage and an average 10% fare increase

3. The reduction of 20% in BSOG will not mean that the mileage reduction will be 20% of 10%, as it will still affect marginal services adversely

4. Reduction in BSOG will be (more than) offset by a bigger demand for revenue support

5. Fares increases will be reflected in reimbursement rates

2. Impact of local authority grant support reduction

1. Social impacts of service reduction

2. Reduction in quality of service

3. Risk to tendered services of concessionary reimbursements moving to higher tier

4. Contradictions to other statements of Government policy

3. Implementation and financial implications of free off-peak travel

1. Free travel welcomed; effects on modal shift

2. Willingness of older people to contribute to bus fares

3. Problem of well-used services failing to cover costs

4. Unfairness when local services replaced by DRT

4. Passengers’ views in planning bus services

1. Too little consultation in bus service planning

2. Role of Bus Users UK’s surgery programme

3. Example of bus operator consultation

4. Inconsistency of local-authority approach to consultation

5. Dissatisfaction with service changes in Bath and Milton Keynes

6. Challenge of achieving adequate consultation without overburdening bus operators

Bus Users UK is seriously concerned that passengers will suffer greatly from the combined effects of BSOG cuts, reductions in funding to local authorities and changes to the reimbursement for free off-peak travel. It seems likely that many of the more marginal bus services will be at risk, particularly if funding to local authorities is not ring-fenced. We are already seeing further threats to evening and Sunday services, often in areas where there is no realistic option to the bus for many passengers, typically younger and older people. The income from BSOG repayments, concessionary ticket reimbursement and tendered services has allowed many essential bus services to survive and substantial numbers of passengers stand to lose out if these measures are carried through.

1 The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, including on community transport

1.1 It has long been Bus Users UK’s contention that reimbursing the full amount of fuel duty on fuel used by bus operators would be wholly appropriate. Buses have the potential to contribute to so many desirable societal aims, including social inclusion, carbon reduction, improved mobility for the mobility-impaired, reduction of traffic congestion, urban renewal, preservation of rural communities, educational opportunity etc, and it seems wholly inappropriate to add to the costs for users by taxing the fuel used. We feared that conversion of the rebate to a grant would be seen as public subsidy and make this concession easily expendable: this has proved to be the case.

1.2 We would agree with Campaign for Better Transport’s assertion that the total loss of BSOG would have led to a 10% reduction in service provision and a 10% increase in fares, and fares are already rising faster than the rate of inflation. This particularly disadvantages those in low-income groups and on benefits and is a further disincentive to unemployed people finding work. A good, inexpensive bus service broadens employment opportunities and the converse is undoubtedly the case.

1.3 We are pleased to see the effect has been minimised by reducing BSOG by only 20% and giving two years’ notice for bus companies to adapt to the change. We anticipate that this smaller reduction will reduce the impact on fares, though it will not reduce the mileage reduction by only 20% of the anticipated 10% reduction. Many socially necessary and rural services are very close to breakeven and any small reduction in funding will tip the balance.

1.4 It should be noted that some of the more enlightened bus operators already see the benefit of providing some mileage at the cost of the fuel and the driver in order to maintain a commercial network. Harrogate’s evening services were enhanced on this basis some years ago, and in our locality Abellio Surrey is currently providing evening/Sunday services on such a basis as a ‘use it or lose it’ trial. Any reduction in income will mean that operators will be forced to withdraw such services and the cost to the public purse to replace such services will outweigh any saving in BSOG. In straitened times we have also seen a welcome move towards local authorities working with bus companies to create viable networks on minimal subsidy, rather than adopting the ‘purist’ approach of tendering individual routes. Again removal of income from this equation is likely to result in whole routes having to be re-tendered and the overall public cost being greater than the savings in BSOG. Smaller, independent operators and those still owned by local authorities in particular run at small profit margins and a small reduction in income is likely to have a major effect on such companies.

1.5 Fares increases arising from BSOG will also translate into higher reimbursements of concessionary fares, adding further to the cost on other aspects of the public purse.

1.6 Bus Users UK is essentially concerned with scheduled bus and coach operation and currently has little expertise in the area of community transport. We will therefore refrain from comment on that aspect of this section.

2 The impact of the reduction in local authority grant support to bus services and other changes to the funding of local authority bus schemes and services by the Department for Transport

2.1 Quite clearly cuts in local authority support for bus services will lead to direct reductions in people using services. Hertfordshire County Council’s predictions for the reduction in usage of services in its area due directly to service reductions resulting from cuts in funding amount to 128,000 journeys a year. There is a social impact attached to every one of those journeys; it may be a lost employment or educational opportunity, it may simply affect the well-being of an elderly person no longer able to visit relations or take advantage of a shopping opportunity, and it may well be that the journey is replaced by a car journey. Scaling that level of journey reduction across the country would be a very inexact science, but it is clear that those social impacts multiplied across the country will be considerable, amounting to at least 6million journeys lost.

2.2 Cuts in local authority funding can also result in service quality falling to an unacceptable level. Northamptonshire County Council’s insistence on covering the Northampton-Oxford service, withdrawn as unprofitable, at the lowest possible price has led to a severe degradation of service, with higher fares and even danger to life.
The commercial service was cut back to Northampton-Silverstone, and the rest of the service was provided by an underfunded link on a very low frequency using an inexperienced operator with old, unreliable buses and insufficient running times. As a result, through passengers have to wait at Silverstone, where there are no proper waiting facilities, to continue their journey on a highly unreliable low-frequency service, and pay two fares. This especially affects journeys between Northampton and Brackley. The waiting facilities are a danger especially to lone female passengers after dark, and there are concerns amongst parents for students at the sixth-form college in Northampton having to wait there.
This is one specific situation, but is indicative of what can happen if there is insufficient funding for local bus services.

2.3 We are also concerned at the fact that from next April concessionary fares and service support will come from the same local authority. Thus first-tier authorities will increase their concessionary fare liability every time they tender a local service: and of course the converse is the case. This could lead to the irony of the most promising services not being put out to tender because of the impact on the budget for concessionary fares reimbursement.

2.4 There is an irony in the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions telling unemployed people to use the bus to access work opportunities at a time when service levels are under threat and fares could be forced up even further. Fares have risen by 30% above inflation in the last 15 years (DfT Statistics, Bus 0405b) as it is, affecting adversely the most disadvantaged sector of society, and measures that will have the effect of driving that rise further will clearly create additional hardships in such socio-economic groups. Moreover one of the Department for Transport’s strategic objectives is, according to its website:

‘to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society.’

It goes on to say:

‘The Department is looking to enhance social inclusion and the regeneration of deprived or remote areas by enabling disadvantaged people to connect with employment opportunities, key local services, social networks and goods through improving accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability.’

Cuts to bus services at this time are entirely contrary to this ‘strategic objective’, could affect economic recovery and will adversely effect other priorities such as carbon reduction.

3 The implementation and financial implications of free off-peak travel for elderly and disabled people on all local buses anywhere in England under the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007

3.1 Naturally we welcome the introduction of free concessionary travel. It has opened up new travel opportunities to older people in particular. Research by Passenger Focus (‘Englandwide Concessionary Bus Travel - The Passenger Perspective’, July 2009) confirms that the policy has been useful as a tool to create modal shift. It found 35% of journeys outside the local area by concession holders were by people who would previously have made the journey by car. It seems likely that much of this latter benefit could be lost by removing the free travel pass.

3.2 However we are frequently told by older bus users at our surgeries that they would prefer to pay a token fare to ensure their bus service was preserved. There is a recognition that the cost is high and that it is better to pay a small fare on a bus that is there than to have a free travel entitlement and no bus on which to use it. With more than 1.5billion journeys undertaken by passengers with a concessionary pass in England in 2009/10 (DfT statistics Table BUS0105) a 50p per journey contribution could yield up to £750m, although that figure would reduce with the resulting reduction in use. Reintroducing a charge is not desirable, but it could be a better alternative to service cuts. It might also encourage local authorities to tender services which would then yield revenue.

3.3 There have been cases of services carrying large numbers of pensioners yet failing; possibly the most well-known is Harrogate & District’s Harrogate-York service which failed through being so well-used by pensioners that the average income per passenger was insufficient to sustain the service.

3.4 One area of concern is the withdrawal of conventional bus services in rural areas and other places where public transport is marginal. We have recently been alerted to passengers having access to a conventional bus service withdrawn in rural Cumbria. Demand-responsive services have been cited as the answer for those left without a service, and were in this particular case: but apart from the inconvenience caused by the requirement to book your journey in advance, concessionary passes are not valid on these services. Thus passengers with passes find themselves having to pay for journeys that were previously free and which vary little in substance from parallel journeys made by other residents on conventional bus services for free.

4 How passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area.

4.1 There is little evidence of bus companies consulting passengers before introducing or changing bus services and Bus Users UK would welcome moves that would encourage consultation as part of the process.

4.2 Bus Users UK’s well-established surgery programme is a good forum for bus passengers to make their views known to operators and local authority officers. We are very willing for our surgeries programme to become part of a consultation process (and indeed this has already happened: a surgery was held in Staines in December 2009 as part of the first tranche of Surrey County Council’s recent consultation on bus service revision), as would structured focus groups with Bus Users UK acting as intermediary between operators/local authorities and passengers. Bus Users UK provides surgeries where requested (subject to our limited resource) and would be favourable to requests by local authorities (or operators) for surgeries to coincide with consultation on service revisions.

4.3 Some operators have undertaken consultation; Stagecoach Manchester for example consulted over the conversion of its Woodford/Bramhall-Manchester service 157 to the limited-stop X57, to good effect.

4.4 Local authorities vary in this respect, with some consulting to good effect (the first phase of Surrey’s review ended with a good outcome following public consultation and discussion with local operators). Somerset conversely is intending to make a £2m cut in a county where 70% of bus services rely on local authority support without meaningful consultation of users. We understand too that Cornwall has accepted the value of its bus service and effectively scrapped proposals to reduce bus service funding.

4.5 We have recently become involved with highly dissatisfied bus users in Milton Keynes and Bath where bus service changes have been made, having a major impact on people’s lives, with no consultation, and in both cases aspects of the previous network has had to be restored, though leaving passengers without the links they need for several weeks in the process. And of course when the link is restored irreparable damage has been caused.

4.6 We realise enforced consultation could create a further serious burden on operators, especially the smaller ones, and indeed we have recently, through Bus & Coach Buyer magazine (3 December 2010), challenged the industry to adopt a voluntary practice of consultation We also fear that allowing small-scale changes without consultation could create situations where bus services undergo major change by a series of small revisions, maximising disruption and uncertainty for passengers.
This is not an easy situation to remedy, but people are finding their lives seriously disrupted by bus service changes of a magnitude which would not be allowed on rail without consultation: yet buses carry more than twice the number of passengers that trains do, including London Underground.

December 2010