Written evidence from S Norton (BUS 59)
1. INTRODUCTION
I contend that cutting bus services probably causes
more kinds of damage than any other area of cut; even one believes
that each form of damage is not serious (and I don't) nevertheless
when one adds them all together they become extremely serious.
Let me start by outlining the logical steps in my argument.
1.1 The economics of bus operation, both for commercial
and supported services, is highly marginal, with little opportunity
to cut costs (Section 2). This means that withdrawal of funding,
however it is done -- by cuts to local transport authority (LTA)
support budgets, reduction in funding for concessionary fares,
or reduction in Bus Services Operator Grant (BSOG), is bound to
lead to cuts in the scope of the bus network.
1.2 Buses are important in that their loss will exacerbate
social problems (Section 3). It is indeed quite likely that some
cuts may cost the nation's economy more than they save. Furthermore,
some of the social problems appear so quickly after services are
withdrawn that it needs to be seen as a matter of urgency to set
up a system which enables services to be maintained.
1.3 Perhaps more than for any other form of public
service, the democratic system has failed to secure an adequate
voice for bus users (Section 4). Therefore the Government's argument
that it is up to LTAs to choose does not hold water.
1.4 Because of the urgency referred to in 1.2 above,
I propose a bus rescue fund which would provide ring-fenced funding
for LTAs to maintain their bus spending for 2011-12 at 2010-11
levels (Section 5). This would provide time to develop a longer
term strategy - and if a year isn't enough then the rescue fund
can always be continued.
1.5 In Section 6, I outline some of the main elements
of my proposed longer term strategy. Perhaps Passenger Focus could
initiate a consultation among bus users to find out what they
think should be the priorities.
1.6 Finally, I estimate how much the proposals I
am recommending would cost in my own county; in my opinion this
would represent much better value than the likely outcome of current
policies.
2. THE ECONOMICS
OF BUS
OPERATION ARE
MARGINAL
2.1 In general buses outside London are thought of
as a "last resort" mode of transport used only by people
without choice. This means that demand has tended to decline inexorably
as people find alternative modes of transport, with little replacement
patronage to maintain overall levels of demand.
2.2 This decline in demand has been exacerbated by
positive feedback effects caused by the imposition of service
cuts and/or fare rises. There are problems of methodology in quantifying
the effects of service cuts, but, for fares, one study[1]
suggests that the long term fare elasticity of buses may be greater
than 1, ie that fare rises actually reduce revenue as, over time,
people switch to alternative modes of transport or cease to travel.
Even if the elasticity is less than 1 the positive feedback effect
makes fare rises and service cuts likely to lead to more fare
rises and service cuts—the spiral of decline, familiar to
users but apparently not to those who wish to withdraw external
funding for buses.
2.3 If bus passengers switch to cars this will lead
to increased traffic congestion which will make buses less attractive
to users and more expensive to operate.
2.4. Cuts to one route can have knock-on effects
on the rest of the network. Passengers can no longer make journeys
requiring a connection to/from a withdrawn service, which affects
patronage of each service on their route (and maybe their return
journey as well). If people acquire cars because of the inadequacy
of public transport, or move away from their area and are replaced
by car owners, many bus routes in the area will lose patronage,
not just the one that is withdrawn or reduced. Also, if people
get out of the habit of using buses when some journeys are made
impossible, this will affect patronage for those journeys that
continue to be possible; furthermore they may cease to pass on
that habit to their children. Similar effects may result from
fare rises.
Given the above one would expect bus services to
be in a state of continuous decline, with service cuts and fare
increases helping to cause but failing to compensate for a drop
in underlying demand, so that operators cannot hope to make sufficient
profit to absorb any loss of external funding. In general, with
some exceptions, this is exactly what has happened in the last
few decades.
3. BUSES ARE
IMPORTANT
3.1 Transport - and in many areas people without
access to their own motor vehicle have no alternative to the bus
- is a human right. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights[2] says "everyone has the right to
freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state".
There is a similar statement in paragraph 1 of Article 2 of Protocol
4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[3]
For an explicit statement that public transport is
regarded as a basic human right by Amnesty International see page
23 of[4] (the headline article). Who are we to protest
about the deprivation of rights in foreign countries - admittedly
in this case the villagers have other grievance than buses --
when many of our own villagers are similarly deprived.
3.2 Withdrawal of buses can cause social hardship.
Several case studies are mentioned in the recent report by the
Campaign for Better Transport[5] and I have nothing
to add to this.
3.3 Buses are environmentally friendly. All the problems
referred to in the following paragraphs would be relieved if more
people used buses instead of cars.
— 3.3.1 Globally,
the biggest environmental issue is climate change. If our country
continues to use the car as the "default" mode of transport,
there is no way that we can hope to reduce our carbon footprint
to levels that, if replicated globally, would not cause climatic
disaster. (Electric cars are no solution - it will be a long time
before we can hope to generate enough renewable electricity to
power them all at current levels of usage.) Note that this implies
that not only do we need to retain our current buses, we need
to strengthen the network so that it can cater for a much wider
variety of journeys -- see Section 6.
— 3.3.2 The
more traditional environmental issues - air pollution, noise,
land take, danger, congestion - haven't gone away.
3.4 The withdrawal of buses can damage our economy.
This applies at both microeconomic and macroeconomic levels.
— 3.4.1 As
is shown in,[5] people need buses to get to work. Inability
to get to work can cause a very substantial loss to the economy.
(Note that these days many jobs require evening and Sunday working,
so it cannot be assumed that this problem can be avoided by concentrating
cuts at these times. Shops and tourist attractions depend on buses
to bring at least some of their customers.)
— 3.4.2 An
increase in fuel taxation for cars would help to fulfil both macroeconomic
and environmental goals. But one argument commonly used it is
the hardship that might be caused to people who depend on their
cars as a result of inadequate public transport. If supporting
an extensive and attractively priced public transport network
could be regarded as an investment enabling fuel tax to be raised
to levels which reflect the long term need to reduce fuel consumption,
it would be seen as an investment with a very high rate of return.
In other words, more spending on buses could actually help to
reduce our budget deficit.
— 3.4.3 Even
if climate change does not force the world to moderate its appetite
for fossil fuels, supply problems ("Peak Oil") are likely
to. Each time the world recovers from recession, excess demand
will lead to price rises which will push the world back into recession.
The only way out, as far as I can see, is to reduce the carbon
intensity of our economy, including our transport system, which
means developing an extensive public transport network based on
high load factors (see paragraph 6.7 and[6] for an
indication of how this might be done).
3.5 Last but not least comes the quality of life.
One of the most insidious effects of cutting buses is likely to
be the clearing of bus users from the countryside by making it
impossible to live there without a car, so that they are forced
to move to the cities. Even when those who stay can still access
their basic needs, they are likely to suffer from increasing isolation
- which can be detrimental to health, especially for older people.
And many people's quality of life is dependent on their ability
to make certain journeys, such as visits to the countryside by
public transport, including visits to friends and relatives who
live there.
4. THE DEMOCRATIC
DEFICIT
There are a number of reasons why the usual democratic
safeguards aren't working for bus users.
4.1 In many LTAs few if any leading councillors actually
depend on buses. Many people complain when decisions about public
sector schools are made by people who send their children to private
schools, but this problem is much more prevalent for transport.
At best LTAs will lack expertise on user attitudes towards buses;
and in some cases they appear to lack empathy too, having decided
that the needs of bus users don't matter.
4.2 Few LTAs make serious attempts to engage bus
users in discussions about what they need. During the last round
of major cuts (in the 1980s) the first intimation many people
had that they were losing their bus service was when it didn't
turn up at the bus stop. Things may have improved since then,
but cuts are usually still pushed through too fast to enable bus
users to mount an effective campaign. I suspect that some LTAs
are very happy with this situation, as it means that every time
they face a short term financial deficit they can bridge it by
cutting buses.
4.3 Shire counties are ideally placed to avoid electoral
punishment if they cut buses now. Cuts on the scale threatened
weren't even being talked about in 2009 when the last elections
were held; and by the time of the next elections, in 2013, many
people will have been forced to leave their homes as seen in 3.5
above; it is unreasonable to expect them to stay in their county
for the sole purpose of being able to punish the party which controlled
the council when it became impossible to maintain a decent quality
of life there.
4.4 People who wish to use bus services outside their
LTA area have no voice in the services they need. For example
people in both of the urban areas surrounding the New Forest National
Park—Southampton and Bournemouth—have no vote on Hants
CC which is responsible for procuring socially important services
within the Park.
4.5 The principle of "localism" cannot
be used to justify violations of human rights (see 3.1 above).
Would the Government be willing to allow local education authorities
to close their schools and force parents to go private? If the
answer is "no", why is transport different?
4.6 Furthermore, localism only makes sense when local
authorities have the ability to raise the money they need to provide
the services the people want (fiscal autonomy). This is obviously
not the case at the moment.
4.7 The concessionary fares system means that LTAs
actually have a disincentive to maintain services because they
have to reimburse operators for the use of services by passholders,
including those from outside their area.
4.8 There can be problems with cross-boundary services,
especially where one or both of the LTAs is more interested in
saving money than providing a high quality network.
5. SHORT TERM
PROPOSALS
An idea that could be implemented very quickly is
to provide a fund for LTAs throughout the UK on a per capita basis.
LTAs would be required to use this to bring their levels of bus
support for 2011-12 up to 2010-11 levels; if there was any left
over they could use this as they liked.
How much would this cost? My own county, Cambridgeshire,
has decided to go for the "zero option'' of phasing out all
bus support, so if we can save buses in Cambridgeshire most other
LTAs would probably be spared cuts.
According to an email I received from a Cambridgeshire
CC transport officer, Cambridgeshire faces a cut of £0.69
million in 2011-12. Assuming a county population of 570,000 (the
2005 figure given in page 154 in),[6] and a UK population
of 60 million, this means:
— that
a national fund of just £73 million could save buses in Cambridgeshire.
This idea would buy us breathing space to develop
a more long term policy. If one year wasn't enough it could be
continued for a second year.
One way of financing this policy which wouldn't cause
much damage would be to charge for concessionary passes (but continue
to allow their holders to travel free). How about a charge of
20 pounds, halved for holders of Senior Railcards?
6. MEDIUM AND
LONG TERM
PROPOSALS
I suggest that Passenger Focus should consult bus
users and others on what they thought was needed to underpin a
stable and attractive bus network. Here are my own ideas.
6.1 LTAs should be required (and funded) to provide
the equivalent of redundancy pay to any bus users who found themselves
unable to get to work as a result of service cuts. I hope that
this would prevent the implementation of cuts that would have
this effect.
6.2 LTAs should be required (and funded) to pay a
"remote areas allowance" (RAA) to people living in areas
without specified levels of public transport, in recognition of
their increased cost of travel. The RAA would be means tested
so that wealthy people (but not "middle income" people)
would be ineligible. It would replace the Government's proposed
fuel equalisation scheme which has a similar motivation but which
would only benefit motorists. However I hope that this would give
LTAs the incentive to provide sufficient public transport, in
all but the remotest areas, to avoid the need to pay RAA.
6.3 Planning authorities would be given guidance
not to allow speculative developments (ie those without an intended
user) in areas where the LTA would have to pay an RAA.
6.4 LTAs should be given guidance to allow public
use of all school buses in areas where other services are irregular.
Royal Mail should be required to bring back postbuses, over 90%
of which have been withdrawn in recent years. Works buses should
also be made public where suitable. Positioning workings should
also be opened up—they could play a particular role in assisting
leisure travel to the countryside.
6.5 LTAs would be required to develop Bus Network
Strategies in consultation with bus users. This would start immediately
but would eventually be incorporated into the Local Transport
Plan process. Bus Network Strategies would specify minimum service
levels for all parts of the LTA area; and if the LTA wished to
reduce service levels it would first have to apply to vary its
Bus Network Strategy accordingly. Specific guidance would be given
to require LTAs to facilitate cross-boundary travel.
6.6 The Government should contribute a proportion
of an LTA's transport spending, ie the more they spent the more
they would receive, as happened with Transport Supplementary Grant
in the 1970s. This would encourage them to provide a high quality
network (which is in the interest of the country at large for
reasons such as those given in paragraphs such as 2.4, 3.4.2 and
3.5) and offset the disincentive mentioned in 4.7.
6.7 LTAs would be given a duty to market their networks.
For example if schools taught adolescents how to use buses for
leisure travel, in financial terms this would surely be a long
term money spinner. (I myself grew up in London at a time when
London Transport also covered the Home Counties, and it was coming
across items of LT publicity at the age of 14 that turned me into
a lifelong bus user—well it won't be lifelong if the bus
network disintegrates completely, as is looking all too likely
at present.) In recommending this I am conscious that marketing
consultants have described a deregulated system as "unmarketable"—see
page 85 of[6]—but LTAs do have the option of
going for a Quality Contract system similar to that operating
in London. We may also need larger LTA areas.
6.8 LTAs should be encouraged to develop Swiss style
integrated transport networks where buses and trains are timed
to connect with one another. (This would probably require their
enlargement as suggested above. Changes would probably also be
required to the rail franchising system - see pages 155-6 of).[6].The
benefits of the Swiss system form the main theme of[6]—see
in particular the section on Sternenberg (pages 3-5), which is
in the excerpt referred to in this reference. The author comes
to the conclusion that the reason why this system works so much
better is that people can use its easy interchanges to make a
much wider variety of journeys than is possible at present.
7. CONCLUSION
Where would all of this lead? Well, for the first
time, bus users would have a say in the services they depend on.
The development of a Swiss style network would lead to radically
improved modal shares for buses, and public transport in
general; for example, the figures of[6]
suggest that if Cambridgeshire's modal share for journeys to work
increased to that of Zurich canton minus Zurich city, it would
go up from 8.4% (page 154—note that I'm excluding walking
and cycling journeys) to 37.5% (see page 49). With a subsidy per
journey of 30p (the figure for Zurich canton given in page 140),
this would cost £23.2 million, or 78p per person per week.
Considerably more than the present figure (2010-11) of less than
10p per person per week, but hardly unaffordable - it would take
nearly a decade before it reached the cost of Cambridgeshire's
(largely unwanted) guided busway.
This contrasts with the likely effects of current
policies: an increasing proportion of the country's transport
spending is used to support an ever growing motor vehicle fleet
and fossil fuels that are ever more expensive (before tax); while
those who do not have access to their own vehicles are ever more
excluded from society by transport problems, only relieved (and
not for those who are car-free by choice) by dial a ride type
services which are expensive to provide on a per passenger basis.
REFERENCES
[1] TRL paper 593
http://www.demandforpublictransport.co.uk
page 16 (page 24 of PDF file).
[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.
[3] European Convention on Human Rights,
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html.
[4] Amnesty International UK magazine issue 165
(January/February 2011).
[5] "Buses Matter", Campaign for Better
Transport (January 2011), see:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/11.02.23.buses-matter.pdf.
[6] "Transport for Suburbia", by Paul
Mees, 2010, Earthscan
http://www.earthscan.co.uk, ISBN
978-1-84407-740-3. An excerpt from the book can be found at
http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/beyond-the-automobile-age.
March 2011
| 
