Bus services after the Spending Review

Written evidence from Passenger Focus (BUS 32)

Summary

A Reductions to Bus Service Operators’ Grant appear to be more modest than many had expected and will not come in until April 2012. However, the effect of these, particularly on smaller operators, remains to be seen.

B It is cuts to the funding of local authorities which seem to be driving the immediate cuts packages, with some authorities proposing radical reductions in tendered bus services. Many of these centre on removing weekday evening services and weekend/bank holiday services – something that will have an impact on passengers who need to travel outside the traditional 9-5 core hours. This is something that could have a disproportionate effect on the more lightly used rural services.

C This situation may be exacerbated if changes to the concessionary fares reimbursement regime leave some councils and operators out of pocket. While changes to the reimbursement mechanism are supposed to eliminate the under/over reimbursement scenario we are told by the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) that the recalculation will remove around £100m from the current budget.

D We believe it is in everybody’s interests that councils arrive at better informed decisions through transparent information and effective consultation. Passenger Focus is doing what we can to catalogue the national picture, encourage best practice in consultation and offer advice and help to local authorities. There is also a need to monitor the impact once the cuts have been introduced with further changes made in the light of experience.

1 Introduction

1.1 Passenger Focus is the statutory watchdog for bus passengers in England (outside London). Under the Passengers’ Council (Non-Railway Functions) Order 2010 it has a duty to keep under review and investigate bus services and facilities.

1.2 Following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October 2010, a number of adjustments and reductions to public spending have been announced which are likely to affect local bus services, including:

· a 20% cut in Bus Service Operators’ Grant from April 2012

· a 28% cut in funding for local authorities over the period of the CSR

· consultation on new reimbursement guidance for the English National Concessionary Scheme which, if implemented, could significantly reduce the amount of public money flowing to bus operators

1.3 In a time of cut-backs it is important that the industry does not marginalise the passenger. It is crucial that passengers’ views are sought and taken into account when determining priorities. Passenger Focus – with its independent, evidence based approach - is in a unique position to capture these views. To this end we have summarised some of our most recent research on bus passenger priorities and levels of satisfaction in Appendix A.

2 The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators' Grant, including on community transport

2.1 Prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement in October 2010, widespread concerns were expressed about the abolition of the Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG). In the event a cut of 20% from April 2012 has been interpreted by many of the large bus operators as a more modest and manageable reduction than had been anticipated. We do not have any information about how it has been received by smaller bus companies.

2.2 In some areas there may be opportunities for bus companies to grow their business which could help to mitigate some of the impact of the cuts. Our research on barriers to using the bus in Milton Keynes [1] indicated some of the areas on which they will need to focus if they are to do this successfully – see Appendix A for further details of the research. The full report is available at http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/bus/news-and-publications/document-search/document.asp?dsid=4811

3 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

3.1 The impact of the reduction in local authority grant support may prove to be more significant for bus passengers. Unlike the changes to BSOG, the reduction has not been deferred to April 2012. With local authorities having to prioritise spending on their statutory duties as they respond to a 28% cut in central government grant, the removal of any ring-fenced public transport funding spending is likely to put further pressure on tendered bus services.

3.2 Passenger Focus has been having discussions with officers of North Yorkshire County Council and this may provide an indication of the type of difficulty that local authorities in rural areas are experiencing. The County Council proposed the wide scale removal of Sunday and Bank Holiday tendered services and the withdrawal of most evening tendered services. Our response to their consultation [2] can be found at http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/bus/news-and-publications/document-search/document.asp?dsid=4770

3.3 Our investigations show that such cuts are also being considered by other authorities. We believe that this will have an impact on passengers who need to travel outside the traditional 9-5 core hours: for instance, shift-workers and people wanting access to leisure services, evening learning/study activities and/or health care. Some authorities are considering whether demand responsive transport (e.g. dial-a-ride) can mitigate some of the impacts, but clearly these still require funding. Such cuts could, of course, have a disproportionate effect on the more lightly used rural services.

4 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

4.1 Our own research [3] shows that, perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a high degree of support (96% of those surveyed) for the English National Concessionary Fares scheme. It also found that that older and disabled people had been using buses significantly more since free bus travel was extended to cover trips outside their local area. Not having to pay to use the bus was making it easier for older and disabled people to get out of the house, go shopping and take advantage of sport, leisure and recreation opportunities. Findings included:

· some (12%) people travelling on free passes were making journeys they would not previously have made

· more than a third of pass holders with cars (35%) were leaving them behind, preferring to take the bus

The full report is available at: http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/bus/news-and-publications/document-search/document.asp?dsid=4409

4.2 Bus operators initially claimed that the Government’s proposed changes to reimbursement arrangements on which they consulted towards the end of 2010 would result in a greater reduction of funding than the Government’s estimated £68-132m, and suggested that this represented a more significant and immediate threat to bus services than the 20% reduction in BSOG. While changes to the reimbursement mechanism are supposed to eliminate the under/over reimbursement, we are told by the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) – following the Government’s announcement – that the recalculation will remove around £100m from the current budget.

4.3 In response to the financial cutbacks, many local authorities appear to be preparing to scale back their more generous concessionary fares schemes. Cornwall, for instance, is scaling back its 24-7 scheme to the statutory minimum (i.e. 0930 to 2300 Monday to Friday) from 1st January 2011. Elsewhere, reductions in the hours of operation may in any case be rendered largely academic where evening and weekend services are withdrawn, e.g. as has been proposed North Yorkshire: a concessionary pass only being of value if there is a bus service available to take the passenger to where they want to go at the time they want to go there.

4.4 There has been much discussion about the decision in 2008 to extend the local concessionary fares scheme into a national initiative. The arguments being whether there were other priorities on which this money could have been better spent and whether additional benefits could have been wrung from operators at the time. Whatever the merits of this argument we are, to coin a phrase, where we are. The scheme has been introduced and it is clear from our research above that cuts will have an impact on mobility. It is crucial therefore that such decisions incorporate a proper impact assessment designed to identify genuine cases of hardship: for instance, disabled/vulnerable passengers who have planned/regular health care appointments before 0930. Having provided such a benefit we feel it incumbent on an authority to assess the impact on marginal/vulnerable groups of passengers before taking it away. We would also want to see discretion being shown where appropriate. For instance, a 0930 restriction will have a disproportionate impact where there is, say, a 0925 service and an hour or more wait until the next service. Finally, it will be crucially important that any decisions to reduce the concessionary fare scheme are communicated well in advance to passengers.

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

5.1 Passenger Focus has so far carried out passenger satisfaction research in 14 areas of the country and is discussing with operators and local authorities how services can be improved to address areas where satisfaction is low and where an improvement would result in an increase in overall satisfaction levels. We have published this research [4] , which is available at http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/bus/news-and-publications/document-search/document.asp?dsid=4386

5.2 Our research suggests that passengers place a high priority on more frequent buses going to more places and getting a seat (all three of which appear in passengers’ top five priorities for improvement – see table in Appendix A). There is little if any evidence that passengers understand how bus networks are put together, why routes serve the destinations they do, why buses run with the frequency they do and why vehicles with a larger or smaller capacity are used.

5.3 We also know that passengers value a stable service. In Bus Service Changes, published in September 2010, we reported that nationally two thirds of passengers do not find it acceptable to make changes to bus services more than twice a year. Yet in practice it is common for services to change more frequently. More passengers (75%) look at the bus stop than anywhere else to find out when services have changed, and yet as we have seen, too many stops do not even have timetables in the first place (see Appendix A, paragraph 2.1) let alone information about service changes.

5.4 If the typical passenger is unlikely to understand the rationale for the existing network, it is even less clear what opportunities they have to influence it. We are encouraging bus operators and local authorities to feed relevant complaints and comments into their network planning processes, and to consult passenger representatives.

5.5 Nevertheless, we believe that the current climate of service reductions provides local authorities and bus operators with an opportunity to develop an effective dialogue with bus passengers. It also presents an opportunity for a radical rethink: fundamentally reviewing networks which may have evolved over time, combining budgets with other departments, and looking at new ways of meeting transport need, through new partnerships and more flexible deployment of vehicles and drivers. There is further reference to some of these issues in the Rural Bus Strategy, recently discussed by our Board: http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/Board_papers/1011/Nov%2010%20BM%207.2.pdf

5.6 So we wrote to all local transport authorities on 11 November, asking them to let us know if they were contemplating significant reductions to their bus services and drawing attention to the importance of transparency and effective public consultation. We recommended that this should include:

· full details of all services for which they propose to withdraw funding, and which services will remain

· figures for the number of passenger journeys affected and the amount of public money expected to be saved, disaggregated by route, day of the week and time of day

· a detailed assessment of the benefits of the current bus services provided and of the impact of the proposed service cuts on bus passengers, on the delivery of their Local Transport Plan objectives, in particular in relation to traffic congestion and parking

· a formal study of alternative options explored and the reasons for not putting them forward

· a review of the contribution flexible transport solutions could make to mitigating the effects of the proposed reductions in mainstream local bus services

5.7 To date, out of the 88 authorities we contacted, we have received replies from 20 and have been able to source details of a further 28 via authorities’ websites.

5.8 Our approach to the challenging financial climate is exemplified by our response to the consultation on service reductions in North Yorkshire. The County Council proposed the wide scale removal of Sunday and Bank Holiday tendered services and the withdrawal of most evening tendered services. We responded by saying:

· We recognise that the Council has difficult choices to make and has a right to decide locally.

· We welcome that the Council is consulting local people on its proposals, rather than simply announcing service reductions.

· It is disappointing how little research the Council appears to have done into the impact of such major proposals and how little attempt appears to have been made to look at alternative options prior to consultation. Consultees can ask questions, but in the absence of more detailed information, it is difficult for them to draw many conclusions.

· Whilst the current consultation represents a missed opportunity, it is not too late to build a more effective dialogue with local people, explaining benefits and impacts, listening to their views and modifying proposals to respond to their comments.

· We would welcome a review by the Council of last bus times, particularly on weekdays and further engagement with the community transport sector to seek cost-effective options for meeting demand by means of flexible transport solutions.

5.9 By contrast, Central Bedfordshire Council invited community representatives to attend a workshop and complete a questionnaire which asks for comments on their approach to meeting people’s transport needs, for example:

· Sixteen of the bus services that the Council currently supports require a subsidy for each individual passenger trip of more than £2.50. Is it reasonable for the Council to set an upper limit for such trip subsidy? If so, what should this limit be?

· Should there be a minimum number of passengers regularly using it for the Council to support it? If so, how many should this be?

· The Council also asks respondents to rank smaller scale, demand responsive, local flexible services (such as taxi-based services, community transport services, car sharing and rural car clubs) according to which is most useful, and seeks comments on inviting the community to provide more transport services itself.

5.10 We have been encouraged by the recognition, from a number of the local authorities that have replied to our letter, of the positive role Passenger Focus can play in facilitating effective consultation, empowering local passengers to engage constructively with their local authority. Wherever possible we are talking to local bus passengers and will use their comments to inform our responses to consultations.

5.11 We would hope that local authorities would take note of local representations they receive, modify their proposals and give feedback explaining their final decisions. In any case, the impact of any changes should be monitored and reported in a transparent way, with further changes made in the light of experience.

January 2011

APPENDIX A – Passenger Focus Research

1. Passengers’ Priorities for Improvement

1.1 In March 2010 we published a report on Bus passenger priorities for improvement. Passengers’ top priorities in England (outside London) were:

2 Bus Passenger Survey

2.1 In July 2010 we published the results of our first Bus Passenger Survey, reporting on the views of 18,500 passengers across 14 areas of the country. Key findings were:

· Overall passenger satisfaction with their bus journey ranged from 84% to 92%

· The proportion of passengers satisfied was generally lower for the length of time spent waiting for the bus (68%-82%) and whether the bus arrived on time (67-84%)

· The proportion of passengers satisfied with the frequency of buses ranged from 59% to 77%

· The proportion of fare-paying passengers satisfied with value for money ranged from 46% to 68%

· Shelters were available at between 54% and 77% of stops; timetables at between 33% and 73% of stops

· The provision of electronic displays showing the arrival time of the next bus ranged from 1% to 47% of stops; the provision of a route map ranged from 2% to 41% of stops

· The proportion of passengers satisfied with ‘on bus’ features such as seating, personal security and comfort was generally high, standing at 70% or higher in all areas

· The two aspects of the ‘on bus’ experience that generally fell below these standards were the information provided inside the bus (58%-73%) and the cleanliness of the inside of the bus (67%-85%)

· The proportion of passengers satisfied with the bus driver never fell below 74% in any area, and was often more than 80% or even 90% in some cases.

3. Barriers to Bus Use.

3.1 In December 2010, we reported the results of focus groups in Milton Keynes on Barriers to Bus Use. Many found it difficult to get started: identify the routes they needed, find the right stop and work out what time their bus left. Bus stops could be hard to spot, and many had no timetables or shelter from the elements. Poor lighting at bus stops also made participants feel less safe.

3.2 Many found actual bus journey times faster than expected and valued being able to get off right in the city centre rather than having to look for (and pay for) a parking place further away, but the time getting between their home and the stop, and waiting for the bus, gave car travel a significant advantage. This was exacerbated by not being able to rely on buses turning up on time, which some felt made them unsuitable for going to work or other time-critical journeys. More frequent buses were needed in the evenings to give them an advantage over taxis after a night out.

3.3 Participants identified a range of barriers associated with the behaviour of other passengers – fear of crime, anti-social behaviour, poor hygiene and cleanliness – and the requirement to share a confined space with them. Concerns were also raised about bus drivers going too fast.

3.4 They expressed a number of anxieties about fares and tickets, such as the difficulty of buying tickets (knowing where to buy them from, knowing which ticket to buy, the need to have the right money) and the perceived high cost of bus travel for children and families .

3.5 Smart, clean buses got the thumbs-up, but were not enough on their own to overcome the negative perceptions created by the other barriers.