3 Bus and rail
Bus
services
16. The bus is the only mode of passenger
transport in many isolated communities. The bus market outside
London is deregulated. In practice, commercial bus operators do
not run unprofitable services to isolated housing estates or rural
areas, focusing instead on profitable major corridors and commuter
routes.[29] Where gaps
in bus services emerge, transport authorities must decide whether
to fund a tendered service to cover unmet transport need.
17. The central Government grant to
local authorities to subsidise 'socially necessary' bus services—the
Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG)—was decreased by 20% from
April 2012.[30] That
decrease affected services to isolated communities, which in turn
limited access to employment, education, key services and social
activities.[31] The 20%
decrease in the BSOG may have been a false economy. pteg told
us:
In our areas—the PTE areas—bus
networks generate £1.3 billion in user benefits, from access
to jobs, training, shopping and leisure opportunities; and that
for every £1 of public money spent you get £3 of benefits
from the socially necessary bus services that connect isolated
communities and connect people to opportunities.[32]
The Government appeared to accept that
argument in the Spending Review 2013, which included an announcement
that "spending on BSOG will be protected for 2015/16."[33]
We welcome the
protection of the BSOG in the Spending Review 2013, but note that
that freeze will not address the gaps in service provision caused
by the 20% decrease introduced in 2012.
18. The affordability and availability
of bus services are particular issues in urban areas outside London.
More than 80% of public transport trips in metropolitan areas
outside London are made by bus, which equates to more than 1 billion
journeys annually.[34]
In the 2011-12 local government funding settlement, funding for
metropolitan districts fell by around 10% in real terms, compared
with a 5% cut in non-metropolitan areas.[35]
19. We considered how bus services are
provided in detail in two Reports earlier in this Parliament.[36]
In those Reports, we identified how transport authorities can
use powers in the Local Transport Act 2008 to shape the deregulated
bus market to meet the needs of local people. In particular, we
highlighted the potential for local authorities to emulate the
success of bus provision in London by introducing Quality Contracts.[37]
A Quality Contract would replace deregulated bus markets with
a franchising system similar to that in London, where the local
transport authority would specify what the bus network will provide
and the private sector would compete for the right to provide
it.[38] Quality Contracts
could be used to ensure the provision of bus services to isolated
communities. Such services could be specified as part of the package
that operators bid for, which would allow cross-subsidisation
by more profitable routes and which will reduce or eliminate the
need for tendered services.
20. Several passenger transport executives
are currently developing Quality Contracts for consultation.[39]
Nexus in Tyne and Wear were the first to launch a formal public
consultation, which closed on 4 June 2014.[40]
We welcome the
initiative shown by Nexus in introducing its draft Quality Contract
in Tyne and Wear. Given that no Quality Contract has yet been
agreed using the powers in the Local Transport Act 2008, this
will be an important test case in determining whether Quality
Contracts are a viable means by which to deliver bus services.
21. Partnerships between local authorities
and bus operators may be the most realistic means of delivering
bus service improvements to isolated communities given current
levels of public spending. Where possible, such partnerships should
include multiple operators and competition should take place within
a framework that benefits the public. That will require local
authorities and the bus industry to show leadership in developing
partnerships, the best of which are based on shared interests
and long-term-relationships.[41]
Stimulating demand
22. The key factor that shaped passenger
transport provision in England since the 1950s was the growth
of private motoring.[42]
Over time, increased car ownership reduced demand for passenger
transport, which in turn reduced passenger transport provision
and incentivised car ownership.[43]
That downwards spiral was most apparent in rural areas, where
the majority of people currently own a vehicle. Some 9% of households
in rural areas in Great Britain do not own a car compared with
45% of people in London boroughs, 33% of people in metropolitan
built-up areas and 27% of people in large urban areas.[44]
Action for Communities in Rural England told us:
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
While there is no alternative, more who can afford to do so are
forced into car ownership. The problem is reversing that trend.
If there was regular and reliable transport, more families would
feel confident not having to rely on buying their own car.[45]
23. We heard that that trend might be
halted or reversed through improved marketing of bus services
to stimulate demand and to make potential passengers aware of
what is available. The Campaign for Better Transport told us that
there isn't enough marketing done
for a lot of the subsidised services. They have tended to be run
because they have always been run, without looking at them properly.
Where local authorities and operators have got together and marketed
networks of services in more rural areas, or even in relatively
urban ones, they have been able to get people back on to buses
who have not been there for a long time.[46]
The Association of Transport Co-ordinating
Officers (ATCO) added:
We know that young people are a
captive market anyway because they cannot drive, and the cost
of driving is now very expensive. I do not quite see operators
stepping up to the mark and saying, "We want young people
to carry on using the bus, not just now but as they get into employment,"
and putting in place innovative products. Maybe I am wrong and
we will see that come through, but at the moment I do not see
them responding as every other industry with a captive market
would do.[47]
24. Bus
operators have a vested interest in maintaining and stimulating
interest in their services through effective marketing.
The DfT must work with the bus industry to facilitate and co-ordinate
the dissemination of best practice in order to maximise revenue
and to minimise costs.
Community Rail Partnerships
25. Around 170 railway stations serve
isolated communities.[48]
Many of those stations are supported by Community Rail Partnerships
(CRPs). We heard that CRPs
bring together a number of disparate
interests who have an interest in the success of their local railway.
The core membership includes the local transport planning authority
(county or unitary councils in England), the train operator and
the rail user group. Other members may include district, town
or parish councils, Network Rail, National Parks, universities
or heritage railways. A wide spectrum of supporters are drawn
from local people, amenity groups, the Women's Institute, local
traders and indeed anyone who wants to see improvements to their
railway.[49]
In addition to facilitating local rail
transport, we saw how Community Rail Partnerships can drive rail-based
tourism in our visit to Colne Valley (see Annex).
26. The Association of Community Rail
Partnerships explained how partnerships provided leadership to
co-ordinate voluntary activity:
CRPs are typically run by a paid
partnership officer, usually employed by the local authority,
sometimes on a part time basis. Much of the financial support
for promoting the lines and making minor improvements comes from
train operators, the tourism sector and (until recently) from
local authorities. The work is mainly done by volunteers, from
customer service and leaflet distribution to landscaping, station
gardens and running special events such as music trains. In particular,
volunteers provide new ideas and are ambassadors for the railway
within their communities. The value of time of the volunteers
supporting CRPs has been estimated at £27 million a year.[50]
Employing partnership officers appeared
to be a sound investment given the subsequent level of voluntary
activity. We heard that the average benefit to cost ratio of a
community rail scheme is almost 5:1.[51]
27. Crucially, train operating companies
supported CRPs:
The train companies are extremely
supportive of community rail partnerships, to the extent that
they are now an integral part of the rural railway. It is quite
difficult to imagine the rural railway operating without those
CRPs. They bring benefits in terms of local focus and practical
support in a range of ways for train companies and rail services.
They provide innovation at a local level. In particular, they
engender the kind of partnership working that is quite important
to ensure that rural routes are successful.[52]
28. The Association of Community Rail
Partnerships provided an example how such partnership working
can deliver bespoke transport outcomes for isolated communities:
The best example I can give is the
line between Blackburn and Clitheroe, where they did not have
a Sunday service for a long time. By community agreement, they
agreed to have the fares slightly increased on Monday to Saturday
in order to offset the cost of running a Sunday service. Now the
Sunday service is very successful, and very popular because it
was by community diktat.[53]
29. CRPs do not attract ring-fenced
funding. After the 2010 Spending Review, funding for Community
Rail Partnerships decreased in line with cuts to local authority
budgets.[54] The DfT
told us that it "supports the setting up of new Community
Rail schemes". There seems little point in setting up such
schemes if they are not financially sustainable.[55]
The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) told us that
it
obviously cannot fill the gap that
is left by central or local government funding, because that is
where the substantive amount of funding for local services comes
from. We are always prepared to help at the margin.[56]
We welcome that ATOC's recognition of
the value of CRPs. In addition, CRPs could help themselves by
working with train operating companies to ensure that revenue
is maximised through the efficient payment of fares. They could
also seek to build partnerships with local industry to support
local rail, a process which might be co-ordinated by local enterprise
partnerships.
30. Community
Rail Partnerships are a cost-effective way to facilitate passenger
transport in isolated communities, but their future viability
may be threatened by a funding shortage.
The Association of Community Rail Partnerships must lead the
CRP sector in taking up the offer of financial help from the Association
of Train Operating Companies. It must also work with train operating
companies and the DfT in sharing best practice on maximising revenue
from fare collection.
31. We
welcome the DfT's recognition of the value of Community Rail Partnerships.
The DfT must translate its support for Community Rail Partnerships
into ring-fenced funding to reinforce the sector, which is a proven
means of harnessing the power of volunteering to deliver passenger
transport in isolated communities.
29 pteg (TIC 033) para 5.2 Back
30
DfT (TIC 098) para 17 Back
31
pteg (TIC 033) para 5.3 Back
32
Q158 Back
33
DfT (TIC 098) para 17 Back
34
pteg (TIC 133) Back
35
pteg (TIC 033) para 8.6 Back
36
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2012-13, Competition in the local bus market,
HC 10; Transport Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2010-12,
Bus services after the spending review, HC 750 Back
37
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2012-13, Competition in the local bus market,
HC 10, para 68 Back
38
pteg (TIC 033) para 5.4 Back
39
pteg (TIC 033) para 5.4 Back
40
Nexus, Bus strategy Back
41
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2012-13, Competition in the local bus market,
HC 10, para 80 Back
42
Q18 Back
43
DfT (TIC 098) para 8 Back
44
DfT (TIC 098) Annex A Back
45
Q20 Back
46
Q23 Back
47
Q167 Back
48
Association of Community Rail Partnerships (TIC 056) Executive
summary Back
49
Association of Community Rail Partnerships (TIC 056) para 5 Back
50
Association of Community Rail Partnerships (TIC 056) para 6 Back
51
Association of Community Rail Partnerships (TIC 056) para 7 Back
52
Q66 Back
53
Q72 Back
54
Association of Community Rail Partnerships (TIC 056) para 7 Back
55
DfT (TIC 098) para 17 Back
56
Q89 Back
| 
