Written evidence from Colchester Bus Users'
Support Group (BUS 53)
I can only reiterate that it will be a long time
yet before the effects of the pending BSOG changes are meaningfully
investigable.
But on that subject, one hopes that the Cttee will
note in reporting that, whilst the remitting of 80% (or 60%) of
the tax paid by bus operators is universally deemed to be a SUBSIDY
to buses, the fact that airlines do
not have to pay any tax at all does not
seem to be deemed to be anything resembling a "subsidy"!!
(ditto train companies). The rule appears to be that if something
used largely by wealthier
people gets supported by government, it isn't a subsidy!
With regard to Sen Citizen pass effects on bus services,
you may perhaps be wanting to know if there have been other cases
of drastic service reductions as a result of high passholder use
and operators declaring the LA reimbursement % inadequate, like
the Isle of Wight 2010 cuts. (For which you may like to contact
the Isle of Wight Bus Users Group. I can only say that nothing
like that has happened here, but of course they have an abnormally
high % of Sen Cits on the IOW!
A very few extra journeys have been added on some
country routes here to cater for the new peak in demand after
0900. The Co Council and operators have come to some satisfactory
arrangement on this.
There must be concern, in a good number of cases
in total, about the way in which the free bus travel is artificially
abstracting traffic from parallel rail services in the 0900-1600
period, rendering them potentially vulnerable to cuts in due course.
This has happened locally with the Colchester-Clacton & Walton
services, where the travel time by train is much faster and most
people would probably prefer to use the train if there was a level
playing field, exacerbated by the fact that the train fares are
abnormally high (for no known reason).
I am sure you are aware that commercial operators
do not normally "consult" with either local authorities
or local users when considering changes to routes and timetables!
except occasionally when they may have a "grand alterations
exercise" in hand. In the case of the large groups there
may be general orders from time to time to cut or expand services
for money reasons (or to mount a more aggressive approach to a
rival operator via improved services on particular corridors).
We have however found that both the main local operators
(First and TGM) are willing to consider suggestions made by
us for alterations to services. Our suggestions have in practice
been mainly angled at making changes to schedules for greater
reliability, based on the analysis of the surveys that we do plus
feedback from members. [The operators have info available from
ticket machine data as to running, but that does not necessarily
mean that a problem actually reaches the top of their in-pile,
unless we push it!]. This receptiveness on their part is of course
dependent on the attitudes of individual officers, and can always
change (as it did for several years under the last local TGM manager)
when a bus operator has in post an individual who does not like
the idea of taking notice of other
people's suggestions! We have never had
to seek much in the way of
general enhancements in commercial services
as the daytime service levels here are generally satisfactory
in relation to actual and potential custom. It is of course nothing
unknown for there to be general public requests to operators for
extra buses, particularly evenings, which it is then found that
hardly anybody actually uses!
Essex County Council has a formalised system for
consulting with the relevant parish councils when changes to wholly-supported
country routes are in mind, which is effective. They are - or
have been! - also fairly amenable to suggestions for positive
changes from parish representatives and indeed individual members
of the public writing in. Of course the fact that these things
are so is again to some extent dependent on the personal attitudes
of the individual ECC officers responsible.
January 2011
| 
