Bus Services After the Spending Review

House of Commons Transport Committee

Bus Services after the Spending Review

Eighth Report of Session 2010–12

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 18 and 25 January, 8 and 22 March, 26 April, 3 May, 21 and 28 June and 12 July

Published on 11 August 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Transport Committee

The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies.

Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer)

The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament.

Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge)

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Marek Kubala (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Edward Faulkner (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of additional written evidence

Page 1 D Cooper-Smith Ev w1 2 Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance Ev w1 3 Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) Ev w2 4 Unite - the Union Ev w6 5 Peterborough Pensioners Association Ev w9 6 Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) Ev w9 7 D Laban Ev w12 8 J Bosley Ev w13 9 RNID, Sense, Radar, Guide Dogs, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire Disability Ev w14 10 Community Transport Ev w16 11 Campaign for National Parks Ev w19 12 NECTAR Ev w20, w21 13 TravelWatch NorthWest (TWNW) Ev w23 14 M Simpkin Ev w26 15 P Spick Ev w28 16 Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company Ev w31, w33 17 Dengie Hundred Bus User Group Ev w38 18 U Benjafield Ev w43 19 Harrogate Friends of the Earth Ev w46 20 Leven Valley Buses Ev w50 21 N & H Rowland Ev w50 22 Confederation of Passenger Transport (UK) Ev w52 23 RMT Ev w54, w106 24 EYMS Group Ltd Ev w59 25 National Pensioners Convention (NPS) Ev w62 26 Go-Ahead Group plc Ev w64 27 Association of Local Bus Company Managers (ALBUM) Ev w68 28 Milton Keynes Bus Users Group Ev w70 29 Firstgroup Ev w72 30 Soar Valley Bus Ltd Ev w75 31 Adapt (North East) Ltd Ev w77 32 Suffolk ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England) Ev w78 33 Andrew Last of Minnerva Ltd Ev w80 34 Coastal Accessible Transport Service Ltd (CATS) Ev w86 35 Lancashire County Council Ev w88, w89 36 Colchester Bus Users' Support Group Ev w91 37 Shropshire Community Transport Consortium Ev w92 38 M Rushmere Ev w94 39 R Drever Ev w94 40 D Montague Ev w95 41 J Nevell Ev w96

42 S Norton Ev w97 43 Sherborne Transport Action Group Ev w100 44 R J Farron Ev w101 45 Association of Colleges Ev w101 46 T N D Anderson Ev w103 47 TravelWatch SouthWest Ev w108 48 G Oldfield Ev w111 49 R Sumser Ev w111 50 B Daggers Ev w111 51 A Darbyshire Ev w112 52 J Heyburn Ev w112 53 Age Concern North Craven Ev w112 54 E Jones Ev w113 55 L Friend Ev w113 56 Councillor Sue White Ev w114 57 Kingsdon Parish Council Ev w114 58 Mr and Mrs G R Hollaway Ev w114 59 A Robson Ev w114 60 J E Willett Ev w115 61 D Hibberd, Town Councillor, Wincanton Ev w115 62 N Browne Ev w116 63 N Thompson Ev w117 64 H Whitaker Ev w117 65 Newton on Ouse Parish Council Ev w117 66 Cllr A Turpin, South Somerset District Council Ev w118, w119 67 A Boyce Ev w119 68 C Walker Ev w120 69 D & M Lilley Ev w120 70 M Jackson Ev w120 71 D Walsh Ev w120 72 M McKenzie Ev w121 73 B J Turner Ev w121 74 E A Turner Ev w121 75 S Hicks Ev w122 76 Brympton Parish Council Ev w122 77 C Sweetland Ev w122 78 Cambridge City and Mencap Ev w123 79 T Reese Ev w123 80 J Robertson Ev w125 81 V Boulton Ev w125 82 O Lambert Ev w126 83 Iain Wright MP Ev w126 84 J Hutchinson Ev w128 85 Carperby-cum-Thoresby Parish Council Ev w128 86 J Richardson-Dawes Ev w130

87 Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line Ev w131 88 Mr and Mrs Banks Ev w133 89 J Robinson Ev w134 90 D Caygill Ev w134 91 P Taylor Ev w134 92 J Thompson Ev w135 93 Harrogate District Community Transport Scheme Limited, (Little Red Bus) Ev w135 94 M E Sim Ev w138 95 F Hare Ev w138 96 G Wainwright Ev w138 97 Mr and Mrs Hale Ev w139 98 H Oliver Ev w139 99 C Olley Ev w139 100 P Cowlyn Ev w140 101 J Weeks Ev w141 102 K Gregory Ev w141 103 J Gordon Ev w142 104 W Wainwright Ev w142 105 G Hutchinson Ev w142 106 A Raw Ev w143 107 I McLaughlin Ev w143 108 J Powers Ev w146 109 Bus Users Shropshire Ev w146 110 P Gibson Ev w148 111 Northampton Group of Bus Users UK Ev w148 112 Somerset County Council Ev w149 113 Save Our 6-7 Buses Campaign Ev w150 114 J Raggett and A Lock Ev w153 115 L Huntington Ev w154 116 K Beacham Ev w154 117 Bridget Phillipson MP Ev w154 118 S Long, the Fairer Fares Campaign Ev w157

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence from D Cooper-Smith (BUS 01) There has been discontent in Milton Keynes with bus service for many years, under various operators. I don't think this is their fault—rather, due to MK’s unusual geography and a regulatory/subsidy system that produces perverse incentives. The role of government has been to give fixed-contract subsidy for particular services. This: (i) stifles enterprise/innovation by the operator; (ii) makes the operator rely on fixed subsidy income, minimizing incentive to attract custom; and (iii) is unresponsive to changing needs and involves government officers in decision-making, often remote from customers and taxpayers. Some possible solutions: (a) A “2 tier” service with a few primary/trunk routes using full size buses largely on grid roads, supplemented by secondary routes using smaller vehicles (to maintain decent frequencies) through the estates—these may need higher fares than primary routes due to higher costs. (b) Some smaller vehicles could provide extra bus service during peaks and be utilized for cab-hire in off-peaks. (c) Subsidies to be performance-related (eg related to amount of custom attracted) rather than fixed amount/fixed contract. (d) Replace stage fares with a simple (3?) zonal system. November 2010

Written evidence from the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance (BUS 02) Inquiry into Bus Services After the Spending Review 1. Background 1.1 The Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance (CSPA) is recognised by the Cabinet Ofﬁce as the body that represents retired civil servants. From the approximate 500,000 civil service pensioners the Alliance has an active membership of over 61,000 which are organised into 100 local Groups in England and Wales and, separate Branches covering Scotland and Northern Ireland. 1.2 The Alliance has been fully involved over the last few years both as an independent organisation and through our afﬁliations with organisations such as the National Pensioners’ Convention (NPC) in campaigning for the provision of concessionary travel for pensioners and older people including the Free Bus Pass.

2. Change in the level of administration of the Concessionary Bus Pass Scheme For Disabled and Older People 2.1 Following the consultation exercise conducted by the Department for Transport in 2009 we made a submission calling for the administration of the concessionary bus travel scheme to be undertaken by the upper level of local authorities as exampled by the County Council rather than at the District Council Level. However we also made the point that any such change should not result in existing additional beneﬁts, such as wider operating times for access to bus services sponsored by individual local authorities, should be detrimentally affected as a direct consequence of the change in the level of administration, a point taken on board by the Department for Transport in their response to the consultation exercise. 2.2 Although we welcomed the decision of the Department for Transport to change the level at which the concessionary bus pass was administered, we had expected there to be a consultation exercise undertaken by County Councils in conjunction with District Councils and their equivalents, with interested parties to ascertain whether or not there were likely to be any issues of concern arising from the change in the level of administration. To date we have only been able to ascertain that Hampshire County Council undertook a public consultation exercise in which our local representatives were involved.

3. Bus services after the spending review 3.1 Although we welcomed the change in the level of administration of the concessionary travel scheme for disabled and older people including pensioners, we supported this change without the prior knowledge that the Coalition Government were going to introduce a reduction in the Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG) as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Were we to have had prior warning of this change it is possible we might not have supported the change in the level of administration until the impact of the reduction in the BSOG had been assessed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Transport Committee: Evidence

3.2 Whilst we welcomed the retention of the Free Bus Pass for disabled and older people following the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement in November, we now have very serious concerns that this may prove to be a seriously diminished facility especially in more rural areas where existing public transport provision can be sparse under the existing funding and subsidy provisions. 3.3 The proposed cuts in the BSOG over the next four years will be likely to introduce serious cutbacks in the provision of bus services, but this may prove to be a very difﬁcult issue to monitor given that the administration of the concessionary travel scheme funding is no longer undertaken at the lower level of local authorities. 3.4 In other words although there may have been an advantage to the upper level of local authorities administering the concessionary bus travel scheme, that advantage may well now be undermined by the cutback in the BSOG. Also there does not appear to be, or there seems to be very little provision on the part of the upper tier of local government to undertake any public consultation arising from the change in the level of the administration of the concessionary bus travel scheme, which must pose serious concerns over what consultation is likely to be undertaken regarding the impact of the BSOG. 3.5 If it would prove to be of assistance we would be prepared to give oral evidence to expand on any of the contents of this submission. December 2010

Written evidence from the Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) (BUS 03) As you may recall the Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) represents chief and senior technical officers in a large number of local authorities. These include those with highway and transport responsibilities; such as Transport for London, most London boroughs, Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities and also many of the Districts in two tier authorities (where the county is responsible for Transport issues and the District is responsible for Planning including many aspects of Transport Planning and Economic Development). With the different structures for provision of public transport in Metropolitan areas we also have strong links with officers and seconded officers in combined units in such areas including PTEs; indeed we would wish to give credit to officers in PTEG who have assisted us greatly with our evidence. Our members in individual authorities are often responsible for multidisciplinary departments including Professional Engineers, Town Planners, Surveyors, and Architects etc. We represent professional officers working for the authorities responsible for the transport policy in urban areas where the management of travel is most important and is fundamentally affected by the transport policies of Central Government.

HOCTC Inquiry—Bus Services After the Spending Review Introduction In the covering letter we describe TAG’s role, membership and expertise; we would particularly like to draw attention to the fact that on this subject we represent professional ofﬁcers working for authorities responsible for the transport policy in urban areas and also our close working relationship with combined Transport Units in Metropolitan areas. We would also like to draw attention to other evidence we have previously submitted to The House of Commons Transport Committee. TAG thanks the committee for the invitation to submit evidence and welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into this important topic and would be willing to appear before the Select Committee, should the Committee wish us to expand on any of the points made in this response.

Background While far more political and media attention is given to rail, outside London the bus is the main form of public transport. In the major urban areas the bus carries over 70% of all public transport trips. The bus is also relied upon by the poorest groups in society. 52% of households in the lowest real income quintile do not have access to a car or van. Bus subsidy is good value for money because it contributes to a broad range of wider social, economic and environmental goals. Buses can reduce congestion, emissions and accidents. The cost to society of car use in congested urban areas has been estimated at above £1/km (figure advised by sister organisation PTEG), which, for a typical journey, is many times higher than the current level of bus subsidy per trip. Good bus services can also help stimulate job creation and GDP growth. One recent study, based on DfT guidance, showed that a 60% reduction in bus fares and 20% increase in bus frequency in South and West Yorkshire would generate £5 billion worth of GDP benefits alone. Altogether this work showed that for every £1 spent by government, such a policy would provide £3 worth of benefits to society (£1 of which through increased GDP). Improvements to bus services that benefit local economies (for example by providing access to new cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w3

developments) can also be achieved more rapidly and at relatively modest cost (when compared with major investments in road or rail links). The Government has also made the links between worklessness and bus services: “Social mobility and, in particular, moving people off welfare and into work, often depends on transport infrastructure. If people on isolated and deprived estates cannot get a bus or a train to the nearest city or town, they may be stranded without work and without hope”. Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport Often those people out of work or on the lowest paid jobs need to travel longer distances, at unsociable hours, and often less accessible locations to get to work. They are therefore greatly dependent on bus services which are subsidised in whole or in part by the public purse. Over the last 25 years, apart from London and a few individual other exceptions, there has been a substantial reduction in bus patronage; this is especially in the Metropolitan areas. This has normally been accompanied by increasing car use and trafﬁc congestion. During most of this period it has been Government and Local Government’s policy and intention to increase bus patronage. Further cuts in funding which result in reductions in service levels and increased fares will work against such policies and intentions with serious effects on the transport system for users of all transport networks. These arguments demonstrate that there is a strong long term case for maintaining and increasing current levels of bus subsidy and investment. It is unclear whether government has made an assessment of the full impact of the spending review on the overall reduction in bus subsidies (not just BSOG) on accessibility to jobs and education, on highway congestion and, ultimately on wider government expenditure. Past experience (such as bus deregulation) shows that apparent savings in bus subsidy can lead to a signiﬁcant increase in government spending in the future. We also believe that there is opportunity to make better use of existing bus subsidies by more effective targeting and directing all public transport resources through local transport authorities. Such an arrangement would provide for greatly increased involvement of the local communities in the determination of their essential transport services. We would draw attention to the evidence TAG submitted to the Transport and Economy inquiry where we strongly suggested that if economies were sought for the Comprehensive Spending Review these economies should be made in the major road programme and indeed there should be an increase in investment in public transport.

Impact of the Spending Review on Bus Network Funding The bus services that passengers will have in a few years time will depend on the cumulative impacts of changes in bus subsidy regimes (for concessionary travel, BSOG, local authority tendering budgets), the viability of the commercial network (which in turn is influenced by the state of the national and local economies) and local authority revenue and capital budgets for measures which benefit bus operations. The key outcomes of the spending review: — 20% cut in BSOG from 2012–13. This corresponds to a 2.2% average cut in turnover across PTE areas. — Rolling of £223 million Special Grant for concessionary travel and £60m Rural Bus grant into CLG formula grant. — 28% cuts in local government funding over the period of the CSR (which in turns influences the ability of local transport authorities to support tendered services). — Significant reduction in Integrated Transport Block (now half what it was prior to in-year 2010–11 spending reductions) which funds small and medium-size schemes (such as bus priority, interchanges and real time information). — New reimbursement guidance for concessionary travel Impact of public. — spending on employment, patronage, and hence the viability of commercial bus networks. The spending review implications for bus subsidy follow a period where bus subsidy has risen considerably. However these increases have resulted almost entirely as a result of the national concessionary fares scheme and the major increase in subsidy for the London bus network. Looking forwards, our sister organisation PTEG estimates suggest that the planned 20% cut in BSOG, along with the transfer of Special Grant into CLG and the expected cut in local government funding, could lead to a reduction of more than 40% in the subsidy available to non-concessionary trips across the major urban areas, which could give rise to significant service cuts and fare rises.

BSOG At 12p per trip in the major metropolitan areas, BSOG represents very good value for money if we bear in mind all the beneﬁts generated by attracting trips away from the private car as well as the dependence of lower income groups on the bus for access to jobs and other opportunities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Transport Committee: Evidence

Although we strongly support the retention of BSOG we believe that better value for money could be achieved by devolving these funding streams to Transport Authorities. Transport Authorities can ensure that the subsidy flows are targeted in a way that reflects local circumstances, opportunities and aspirations. It also avoids the inevitable unintended consequences and windfall payments that result from a flat national “one-size fits all” subsidy regime. For example BSOG payments are currently being used to incentivise the fitting of smartcard readers and AVL equipment even when this equipment has already been fitted and paid for by the authorities. If the funding were to be devolved then more sophisticated approaches could be taken. For example through investing in bus priority measures or in more comprehensive smart ticketing initiatives (which in turn will reduce operator costs and subsidy requirements in the longer term while at the same time improving the service to the end customers). However, in our view BSOG should only be devolved where it can be ringfenced for buses. There would also need to be extensive consultation with operators to ensure that changes to BSOG were made in a planned way to ensure best possible outcomes. We understand that DfT will consider reforms to BSOG in the context of the Competition Commission report although they have announced a 20% cut in BSOG. This would translate into a 2% cut in industry turnover. Although operators have given government reassurances that this won’t lead to an increase in fares, there are other ways in which they are able to recoup this loss of revenue, for example through increases in the cost of secured and subsidised services. As set out above the reduction in BSOG cannot be treated in isolation from the cumulative impacts of wider changes to funding regimes, and that a reduction in one revenue stream to the industry will inevitably lead to an increase in costs elsewhere, either to users or the public purse.

Concessionary Fares The National Concessionary Travel Scheme (NCTS) provides older and disabled people with a valuable service, enabling them to retain independence and access key amenities and social networks. A reflection of its success is the fact that demand (and with it the cost of reimbursement) has been growing at a steady pace. Furthermore, as commercial fares have risen the amount of reimbursement required for each journey has also increased. As a result, NCTS is taking up a growing proportion of public transport budgets. While current funding arrangements have enabled Transport Authorities to cope with the increasing cost of NCTS, a number of changes to funding arrangements coupled with wider cuts to local government budgets could have a dramatic impact on local bus networks. The direct grant, received from DfT by Transport Authorities, has offered the stability needed to be able to secure long term agreements on reimbursement with operators in some instances. These agreements have been negotiated to include additional benefits for passengers, such as arrangements to improve service stability, as well as reducing incentives for operators to raise commercial fares. The agreements also mean that it has been possible to accurately anticipate how much will need to spent on concessionary fares and set their wider budgets accordingly. Operators are happier with these arrangements too as is demonstrated by the absence of appeals where such agreements have been concluded. However, this is all about to change with the subsuming of direct grant into CLG’s opaque local government settlement. As a result, LAs with their own financial challenges, will invariably struggle to meet concessionary fares commitments. The combination of rising reimbursement costs, withdrawal of direct grant, cuts in wider local government funding along with reduced transparency make for potential difficulties. The clear danger is that NCTS will eat into the funding available for concessions to other groups and for wider bus network support. This could have dramatic consequences whereby older people end up with a free pass for a quickly vanishing network of services, whilst young people and children face their concessions being withdrawn. Public transport networks would deteriorate with less extensive, more expensive, less integrated and less accessible networks. TAG understands the context within which funding cuts are taking place. And although we support the move towards greater local flexibility by reducing ring fences from grant funding for local authorities, the case of NCTS is clearly one exception. There is no flexibility in providing NCTS as it is a statutory entitlement. Government has firmly committed to this policy and should, therefore, both provide an adequate level of funding and ensure that funding is effectively targeted at those charged with delivering the scheme. We believe that this can be done by retaining the direct grant element of the funding for NCTS to those charged with administering it and that this represents the best option for achieving clear and transparent funding arrangements. If the special grant is discontinued, as is proposed, then the onus is on government to make sure that it is as straight-forward as possible to deliver the funding to the appropriate body. Only by doing this can government be sure that the process is transparent and, critically, that the funding for the scheme will reach operators and the negative consequences outlined above can be avoided.

Subsidised Services Support for non-commercial services represents 22% of bus subsidy in the major urban areas and supported services make up about 15% of such bus networks. These services ﬁll key gaps in the commercial network— cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w5

for example in the off-peak, in rural areas, to council estates and for shift workers. They also include dedicated school services, community transport and other flexible services providing greater mobility to important segments of the population. Many subsidised services are vital for those in search of employment and therefore have much to contribute to the economic recovery and wider government reforms of the welfare system. DWP guidance puts the yearly fiscal, health and crime reduction benefits of getting somebody into employment at between £7,300 and £14,000. Taking the average subsidy per non-concessionary trip to be 37p in the metropolitan areas this would equate to an average return of between £44 and £84 for every pound spent, where it enabled somebody to become gainfully employed. The ability of Transport Authorities to continue to support the tendered bus network will depend on their wider revenue budgets which in turn will be dictated by funding from the Local Authorities. In addition, the majority of local public transport revenue spend is non-discretionary (with concessionary travel spending making up a significant proportion of that non-discretionary spend).

Reduction in Capital Funding for Schemes that Beneﬁt Bus Services Greater punctuality and reliability of bus services is key to both better services for passengers and more cost effective operation. Bus priority schemes are one way of achieving this and as stated in our evidence to the Transport and Economy inquiry such schemes do deserve higher priority. One of the key sources of funding for smaller public transport schemes (including bus priority schemes) is the Integrated Transport Block, unfortunately this will be 50% lower next year relative to what it was before in-year cuts to 2010/11 budgets.

Getting Better Value for Bus Subsidy Clearly the current arrangements for subsidising the bus industry are highly complex and involve sizeable funding flows. Injecting large sums of public subsidy into what is nominally a free market for bus provision brings with it great complexity, conflict and challenge, is resource intensive to manage and can make effective scrutiny of outcomes challenging. There is also a significant degree of national specification and administration of what is essentially a local service and little opportunity for community participation in service determination. In general devolution of bus funding flows (where it can be ringfenced for buses and where a local transport authority is of the scale to manage it) will enable more cost effective targeting of bus subsidy. One way of achieving both devolution and simplification is through moving to a franchising system (known as “Quality Contracts” in the bus sector). This would allow existing funding to be channelled to the franchising authority (the local transport authority) where it could be pooled alongside other local funding streams for buses, in order to buy the best possible package of services and outcomes (concessions, integrated ticketing, service quality regime) from the successful franchisee. Local communities would also be afforded an opportunity to participate in the design of essential public transport services. This is one reason why TAG strongly support the retention of the powers to introduce Quality Contracts, as set out in the Local Transport Act 2008, but we would go further and suggest that where they are proposed to be introduced, Transport Authorities should be supported. Outside of a quality contracts regime the devolution of BSOG is perfectly practicable. There are however challenges in the pooling of bus subsidy flows to achieve greater outcomes, unless agreement with operators can be reached. This is chiefly because the national concessionary travel scheme is a national and statutory requirement which ultimately operators will expect to be reimbursed. It does not therefore easily lend itself to being merged with other funding flows for the achievement of non-statutory outcomes (such as wider packages of service provision). Less complex systems for determining funding and reimbursement for concessionary fares also have obvious attractions in terms of ease of oversight and administration. However, a simpler system (where levels of reimbursement are less graduated and less responsive to local circumstances) will inevitably create more winners and losers, with the overall level of Government funding tilting the axis one way or the other. In other words greater simplicity can result in outcomes which represent poorer value for money for the taxpayer and/or greater impacts on wider budgets for transport authorities. Additionally, there would unlikely be any increased opportunity for local communities to have an active role in the determination of the overall bus network.

Planning More Effective Networks We believe that it is right that bus users have an independent watchdog to represent their interests and we supported Passenger Focus taking on that role. We do not believe however that it is practical or desirable for a national body with limited staff and resource to become involved in planning local bus networks given that the bus network is an accumulation (on a massive scale) of a numerous local bus networks that have developed over time and which in a deregulated environment change in an incremental way. The bus network is not the rail network—where given the nature of the franchising process it is practical for Passenger Focus to get involved in the limited number of franchising exercises that are undertaken every year. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Transport Committee: Evidence

Given bus networks are essentially local it is the role of locally accountable local transport authorities to take the lead role on bus networks in their areas. However, having said this we believe that Passenger Focus does have an important role to play in advising local transport authorities on good practice in consultation and public involvement, on holding local transport authorities and operators to account where they manifestly fail passengers, and where under a Quality Contract or under other large scale proposals for major changes to a bus network, the scale of the change is such that PF can usefully play a role.

We also believe that there is scope to review the inter-relationships between the various bodies with responsibilities for service monitoring and enforcement, complaints and customer satisfaction surveys. December 2010

Written evidence from Unite—the Union (BUS 04)

1. Introduction

1.1 This submission is by Unite the Union. Unite is the UK’s largest trade union with over 1.5 million members across the private and public sectors.

1.2 Unite the Union’s current membership in transport, together with our membership in other trade groups, such as supervisory and administrative grades, and some maintenance engineering members, exceeds 250,000. Unite represents workers in all areas of transport including coach, tram, taxi, rail, road haulage, logistics, civil aviation, docks, ferries, waterways and, of particular relevance to this inquiry, buses.

1.3 Unite has 90,000 bus worker members and is continuing to grow. Unite has obtained the views of our members through our lay member committees at national and regional level. Therefore Unite is in a unique position to submit a response to the Transport Committee Inquiry into the funding of bus services in England (outside of London) in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Bus passengers, many of whom are on low incomes, pay more fuel tax than wealthier air and rail passengers. While buses still pay a signiﬁcant amount of fuel tax, aviation pays none. The Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) is equivalent to a £437 million a year investment in buses. In contrast, aviation gets a £6.5 billion a year tax break by paying no fuel duty.

2.2 BSOG helps to lower the cost of providing services, resulting in lower fares, a more comprehensive network of services, less congestion on our roads and a better and healthier living environment in our communities. It also helps support the 170,000 jobs in the bus industry and thousands of others in bus manufacturing and supporting services.

2.3 Unite believes that a reduction in BSOG would have damaging and wide-ranging consequences for local communities, public transport services, low-income groups, the UK economy and the environment.

2.4 Maintaining current levels of funding of local authority grants support to bus services and other funding of local authority bus schemes is the absolute minimum requirement that is needed to provide these vital services to local people.

2.5 Unite believes that the concessionary bus fare scheme is money well spent because it provides an opportunity for greater freedom and independence to around 11 million older and disabled people, which in turn produces wider economic and social beneﬁts.

2.6 Unite believes that re-establishing the link between concessionary bus travel and the state pension age is a regressive move, which will widen social exclusion and stop millions of older people from being able to contribute to society.

2.7 Clearly passengers views are extremely important and need to be taken into account when planning bus services and Passenger Focus can play a key role in this area in helping bus passengers voices being heard.

2.8 However it is important not to overlook what can be learnt from the experience of bus workers who are on the buses every day more then anyone else.

2.9 If the Government wants to make improvements to the UK’s transport policy then Unite’s “Safer Way Campaign” would be an appropriate place to start. — a maximum single piece of driving duty not to exceed 4.5 hours; — a maximum length of driving time of no more than eight hours in one day; and — a maximum of 10 hours total working time in any one day. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w7

3. The Impact of The Reduction in Bus Service Operators Grant, Including on Community Transport 3.1 Firstly it is important to put the Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) into perspective. BSOG is the only direct national funding for bus services. BSOG, formerly known as the Fuel Duty Rebate (FDR), is a rebate to bus operators on the fuel duty they pay. 3.2 Operators who run local registered bus services are reimbursed for the major part of the tax paid on the fuel used in operating these services. Government provides a fuel duty rebate on approximately 80% of the fuel used by buses. Bus operators pay fuel duty tax on the remaining 20% of their fuel. 3.3 Bus passengers, many of whom are on low incomes, pay more fuel tax than wealthier air and rail passengers. While buses still pay a significant amount of fuel tax, aviation pays none. BSOG is equivalent to a £437 million a year investment in buses. In contrast, aviation gets a £6.5 billion a year tax break by paying no fuel duty. 3.4 BSOG helps to lower the cost of providing services, resulting in lower fares, a more comprehensive network of services, less congestion on our roads and a better and healthier living environment in our communities. It also helps support the 170,000 jobs in the bus industry and thousands of others in bus manufacturing and supporting services. 3.5 BSOG also helps the Government achieve its aims of carbon reduction, lower road congestion, and social inclusion. The Government has publicly recognised the value of BSOG with the Transport Minister Norman Baker telling the House of Commons on 29 June: “The benefits of that grant are clear: it ensures that the bus network remains as broad as possible, while keeping fares lower and bringing more people on to public transport, with the obvious benefits of reducing congestion, lowering carbon emissions and improving air quality in our towns and cities”.1 3.6 The Department for Transport’s own submission to the review of the local bus market said that BSOG represents high value for money.2 A previous study for the Government by the Commission for Integrated Transport found that every £1 invested in BSOG provided between £3 and £5 of wider benefits.3 3.7 Unite believes that a reduction in BSOG would have damaging and wide-ranging consequences for local communities, public transport services, low-income groups, the UK economy and the environment. 3.8 Bus fares and services: Ticket prices would likely rise by 10%, with a similar 10% cut in commercial bus services. The cuts would seriously affect both urban and rural areas and be most acute in rural areas and on lower-used evening and weekend services. 3.9 Bus operators: Costs would rise by around 10%. Combined with running fewer services, this could lead to the loss of up to 10% of the people employed in the bus industry. Around a quarter of the industry is made up of independent and smaller operators, many of whom run rural and tendered services. Reduced investment would also result in drastic cuts to investment in new buses, with devastating consequences for UK manufacturers and suppliers. Bus operators would carry 10% less passengers for the same level of costs (excluding BSOG) and the same level of revenue as now. 3.10 Local authorities: Transport authorities and local councils, whose budgets have already been cut, would be unable to make up the funding shortfall. The withdrawal of BSOG would make it more expensive to support socially important bus services that provide vital links for local people. 3.11 Government finances: Savings on BSOG would be significantly eaten up by increases in the welfare budget through higher unemployment (including reducing the ability of those with disabilities to return to work), higher costs of supporting previously commercial bus services, and lower tax income from successful bus operators, manufacturers and suppliers. 3.12 Communities: The sharp rise in the cost of bus travel and cuts in bus networks would result in a 10% drop in bus passengers. It would increase car use, worsen congestion, damage the environment and lead to higher costs for businesses.

4. 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 4.1 The backbone of any local transport network is the bus. 4.8 billion journeys are made every year on buses. For the 25% of UK households that do not have a car, to get to work, to school, to visit the shops or the hospital, the first and often only travel choice is a bus.4 4.2 Therefore maintaining current levels of funding of local authority grants support to bus services and other funding of local authority bus schemes is the absolute minimum requirement that is needed to provide these vital services to local people. 1 http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20100629/mainchamberdebates/part005.html 2 www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/10.07.09.bsog_briefing.pdf 3 www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/10.07.09.bsog_briefing.pdf 4 www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/buses/facts cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Transport Committee: Evidence

4.3 Unfortunately local authorities transport budgets have already been cut and they will be unable to make up the funding shortfall. The withdrawal of local authority grant support to bus services and other changes to the funding of local authority bus schemes as well as a reduction in BSOG has made it more expensive to support socially important bus services that provide vital links to many local people. 4.4 All local authority-subsidised services will become unprofitable, requiring either 10% more contract payment or service cuts. It would also push up the costs of running a significant number of school services, many of which are registered as local bus services and qualify for BSOG. All local authority-funded concession travel reimbursement would have to increase by 10% in line with fares. 4.5 At the same time the Government is pursuing a severe programme of spending cuts in which unprotected departments like the Department for Transport are to see budgets slashed by a cumulative 35% over a period of four years.5 4.6 Unite believes that’s increasing investment in transport infrastructure is what is needed at this time. Within the bus industry there is so much that could be done e.g. financial support for tendered bus services, new buses, bus stations, bus stops and shelters and the timetable and service information provided on them. Unite fear that local authority spending cuts will impact heavily in this area and make public transport less attractive and more difficult to use, particularly if timetable and service information is degraded.

5. 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 5.1 Unite applauds the previous Labour Government for extending free off-peak travel for elderly and disabled people on all local buses anywhere in England under the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. 5.2 The concessionary bus fare scheme ensures that bus travel, remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difﬁculties. Bus travel remains the most used form of public transport, especially by older people. So the concessionary bus fare scheme has been a direct tool to help tackle social exclusion. 5.3 The Labour Government estimated at the time of the 2005 Budget that the additional cost of providing free travel on local bus services for pensioners and the disabled would be £420 million for 2006–07 (£350 million for English local authorities, including London and the rest to Scotland and Wales) and £440 million for 2007–08.6 5.4 Unite believes that this money is well spent because it provides an opportunity for greater freedom and independence to around 11 million older and disabled people, which in turn produces wider economic and social beneﬁts. 5.5 However since April 2010 the age of eligibility for a free bus pass in England has begun to gradually increase from 60 to reach 65 for both men and women by 2020. It re-establishes the link between concessionary bus travel and the state pension age. 5.6 Unite believes that re-establishing the link between concessionary bus travel and the state pension age is a regressive move, which will widen social exclusion and stop millions of older people from being able to contribute to society.

6. How Passenger’s Views are taken into Account in Planning Bus Services and the Role of Passenger Focus in this Area 6.1 Clearly passengers views are extremely important and need to be taken into account when planning bus services and Passenger Focus can play a key role in this area in helping bus passengers voices being heard. 6.2 However it is important not to overlook what can be learnt from the experience of bus workers who are on the buses every day more then anyone else. 6.3 Our bus members are telling us that if the Government wants to make improvements to the UK’s transport policy then Unite’s “Safer Way Campaign” would be an appropriate place to start. 6.4 British bus drivers are presently driving longer periods than their European counterparts. This is wrong on grounds of safety because the deepening congestion on Britain’s roads makes their job increasingly stressful and hazardous. The British Driving Hours Regulations currently provide for bus drivers to work for up to 5.5 hours without any breaks, and up to 16 hours in a whole day. 6.5 Unite believes it is time for: — a maximum single piece of driving duty not to exceed 4.5 hours; — a maximum length of driving time of no more than eight hours in one day; and — a maximum of 10 hours total working time in any one day. 5 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf 6 www.parliament.uk/brieﬁngpapers/commons/lib/research/brieﬁngs/snbt-01499.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w9

6.6 How can it be right that in the UK a HGV driver carrying livestock or goods is due a rest after 4.5 hours of driving when a bus driver carrying hundreds of people everyday has to drive 5.5 hours before getting a rest? Is a chicken’s life or a computer worth anymore then a human’s? 6.7 The issue of excessive driving hours and the poor quality of UK regulations ought to be a matter of serious public concern and we urge the Transport Committee to support our campaign calling for steps to be taken to tighten the current driver’s hours regulations. December 2010

Written evidence from Peterborough Pensioners Association (BUS 05) I am chairman of Peterborough Pensioners Association. I verify our members need the bus pass to get to our meetings and visit friends also to get to the doctors and hospital appointments. It is essential having the bus pass to enable older people to leave their homes and so stop becoming isolated, lonely and ill. The measly pension, in some cases £75 a week which is all too common is not enough to live on let alone go to social clubs one day a week. We need the free bus pass it is a necessity not a luxury. November 2010

Written evidence from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) (BUS 06) About SMMT 1. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) is the leading trade association for the UK motor industry, providing expert advice and information to its members as well as to external organisations. It represents companies throughout the automotive sector ranging from vehicle manufacturers, component and material suppliers to power train providers and design engineers. The motor industry is a crucial sector of the UK economy, generating a manufacturing turnover of £51 billion, contributing over 10% of the UK’s total exports and supporting around 800,000 jobs. 2. SMMT welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry into bus services after the spending review and would be pleased to provide further information on issues raised in this submission.

Summary of Comments 3. Demand for new buses used on local services in the UK has been in decline since towards the end of 2008. It is expected to continue to fall until 2012—or even later- before stabilising. For part of that period, decline was mainly the result of changes elsewhere in the economy, which had an impact on demand for travel. However, those wider effects have been overtaken in importance by three factors which are speciﬁc to the bus operating industry and more directly inﬂuence operators’ investment programmes, these factors are: — Changes to the concessionary fares regime. — Constraints on local authority funding. — Reduction in Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG).

Introduction 4. The UK market for buses used on local services overwhelmingly uses vehicles weighing 8.5 tonnes or more. While smaller vehicles are used in some, usually specialised circumstances, the days of intensive urban networks provided by minibuses are gone. 5. There are three market segments: — Midi buses (“midis”)—single-deck vehicles weighing up to 13 tonnes, with around 30 seats. — “Full-size” or “heavyweight” single-deck (“single-deck”)—13 tonnes or over, with 40+ seats. — Double-deck. 6. Three bus manufacturers are based in the UK—Alexander Dennis, Optare and Wrightbus. All manufacture chassis and bodywork and all also build bodies on chassis built by other manufacturers 7. UK bus operators are sensitive to both price and costs. Measures such as the reduction in BSOG or changes to Local Authority support for bus services will tend to prolong the recession as operators will need to reduce expenditure.

Factors Affecting the UK Bus Manufacturing Industry 8. The UK recession reflects tough economic times, from which the bus manufacturing industry is not immune. However, there are three measures specific to the bus industry which will challenge bus operators over the next two to three years and influence their buying patterns. They are: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Transport Committee: Evidence

— Changes to the Concessionary Fares regime (a reduction of income). — Constrained Local Authority financing (fewer tendered routes, reductions of school bus services, limited new initiatives, funding not ring fenced). — BSOG reduction of 20% (approximately 8.6p per litre)—an effective fuel price increase of 14% overall. 9. The most immediate effect on manufacturers would be for operators to delay purchasing decisions that have already been deferred or reduced in scope. It is an easy choice to delay replacement and keep a vehicle running for another year or two—assuming there is work for it—as the maintenance impact is relatively low (even if maintenance costs increase with vehicle age). If work is not available, the vehicle will be parked up, if owned, or, if it is on lease, it will be returned when the lease expires rather than being retained. 10. Bus services will be focussed on profitable areas and times of the day. Urban services will be defended while rural and small town routes will be the most likely to be given up or reduced. 11. This does not necessarily mean that services will reduce in direct proportion to the reduction in public finances. Bus operators are not a homogenous group: there are smaller businesses that can focus purely on local operation and there have been several instances where a large operator has reduced services only for a local operator to step up to fill the gap commercially. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, the impact will be negative as the total size of the travel market is reducing at a time when fewer people are likely to be travelling and consumers will view their discretionary spend with more care. 12. The recession will therefore be reinforced and prolonged—until a new equilibrium is reached by, perhaps, 2013–14. At that point, the next five-year Spending Review will be in advanced planning and there will be significant speculation about the next round of changes and what form they will take. The shadow of the next General Election will also be apparent on the industry.

Bus Supply in the UK 13. Bus manufacturing is largely a bespoke industry. Operators’ preferences in the way of interior layouts, colours, seats, radio and ticket equipment mean there is a high degree of customisation, most of which is seen in the bodywork. 14. Traditionally, most business in the bus sector has been “body on chassis”, with separate suppliers for each. This has allowed UK bodybuilders to ﬂourish at a time when UK chassis manufacturing declined. UK sourced bodywork continues to have a dominant share of the market. 15. However, an encouraging feature of recent years was an increase in the supply of UK-built chassis (often with the manufacturer becoming a “single-source” supplier to the operator by also building the body). The 2009 picture was (percentages can be added together to indicate overall body share): % UK Body Segment % UK Body and Chassis Double deck 33% 41% Midibus 17% 78% Single deck 65% 8%

Bus Registrations In Recent Years 16. In general, the bespoke nature of the manufacturing industry means that the time between order, delivery and vehicle registration can be extended. Until the start of the recession, lead times sometimes extended to more than 12 months, although the recession has reduced this slightly. This means that registrations also tend to lag behind orders and that any change, even a step change, in customer confidence takes longer to become visible than it does in, for instance, the car market. 17. Over the past decade, bus demand has varied with confidence in the economy. However, the trend since the middle of 2009 has been sharply downwards, as measured by rolling 12-month registration figures: Double deck: minus 41% Midibuses minus 38% Single deck minus 58%

In summary: — In the case of midis, the current market level is the lowest on record since this kind of vehicle was developed 20 years ago. — Single deck buses are now at their lowest point since 2003. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w11

— Double deck buses constitute a more noticeably cyclical sector. After a long period of recovery (post-deregulation in 1986 through to 2003), the market fell back to a low point in 2007 (an annual rate of 609 registrations) before recovering to a peak of 1499 units in mid 2009. Transport for London (TfL) has been a major inﬂuence on recent patterns as numbers of new double-deckers required have varied under its continuous tendering programme.

Learning Lessons 18. The last major changes, on this kind of scale, took place in the 1980s. The removal of purchase support for new buses and the implementation of deregulation and privatisation saw the bus market fall from 3000 units to 236 in seven years (92% reduction) and it took the market 11 years to recover. 19. Since 1980, 26 bus factories have closed in the UK. Though this has happened for a variety of reasons, including business rationalisation and international manufacturing decisions, uncertainties in demand played a major part.

How Big “Should” the Market be? 20. In principle, buses are designed for an economic operating life of approximately 15 years. It is quite feasible to extend it, but maintenance costs tend to rise with age. Other factors such as emissions legislation (Low Emission Zones) and accessibility (Disability Discrimination Act 1995) can change the potential for extending vehicle use. 21. The main local bus fleet in the UK is around 40,000 units, which would imply annual replacement of 2,600 to 2,700 units to maintain the average age of the fleet at around 15 years. This has been approximately achieved over the last 15 years in terms of the number of buses (though there have been changes to the mix of vehicle sizes). However, the total for 2010 is expected to be 1,950 and 2011–12 will see continued falls, so with much smaller volumes the fleet age will rise. 22. This is at a time of increased pressure on air quality; the latest standard (Euro V) was only introduced in 2009 and the next is due in 2014. Similarly, deadlines for 100% use of wheelchair-accessible buses apply from 2015; fewer deliveries now will put at risk the meeting of that deadline across the UK as a whole. (Though many fleets have already met the goal, there are still fleets which are, relatively, a long way off meeting the deadlines.) 23. There is a limited market for second-hand buses (generally for vehicles coming out of London at the end of leases and contracts, as TfL replaces vehicles at between seven and 12 years old). This market is already slowing. Fleet disposals brought on by the three measures will depress the market further and reduce the value of vehicles in operators’ accounts.

Exports 24. The three manufacturers mentioned in paragraph six are all investing in export drives to offset the reduction in UK demand. In addition to the “traditional” markets of Hong Kong and Singapore, they have found steadily growing business in the United States and Canada and are increasing their efforts to sell across Europe and elsewhere. Nonetheless, a strong home market remains a fundamental need. 25. The Irish Republic, which has long been an export market for UK bus builders, provides an object lesson in the potential volatility of export markets. It is not possible to separate urban buses from coaches in the Republic’s statistics but the overall impact of tits recession is clear—from a peak of 469 registrations in 2007, the market has fallen by 90% to an estimated 47 units in 2010. (The fall is 86% from the average market of the past decade.) 26. The major bus fleets in the Republic have cut fleet sizes by either selling older buses or mothballing more recent vehicles. Mothballing means the market is likely to remain low even when the recession eases. Many of the sold vehicles were built by UK manufacturers, and are finding homes in the UK, depressing values in the used vehicle market even further.

Redundancies 27. Though the lead times between order and delivery have become shorter, they are still long enough to give warning of impending trouble. Hence all three UK manufacturers took action in 2009, and again in 2010, to reduce headcount by programmes of redundancies and releasing temporary staff.

Innovation and Support 28. Early uptake of innovation in the form of hybrid buses was essentially driven by TfL, able to bear the additional costs of the new technology. Latent interest outside London was only tapped by the grants available from the two Green Bus Funds in England (and a similar scheme in Scotland), which have seen UK manufacturers supplying most of the demand in the form of their own chassis/body combinations or by supplying the bodywork for others’ chassis. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Transport Committee: Evidence

29. However, the continued development of such products will become more difﬁcult in the near future if demand for “traditional” products continues to fall and funds for investment reduce. Should that become the case, the particular demands of the TfL market will again become the main drivers of innovation. December 2010

Written evidence from D Laban (BUS 07)

Summary 1. This evidence is in reference to the withdrawal in January 2009 of the 639 bus service from Wednesbury to Walsall via Darlaston Road. The service had been operated by National Express West Midlands, but was stopped as the operator claimed there were not enough users to make it viable. 2. I am a local resident. I was one of the organisers of a petition expressing concern at the way the service was cancelled, and claiming that the reason was not lack of use, but the failings of the operator to run a reliable service. The petition called on National Express West Midlands and Centro, the local transport authority, to take steps to remedy the situation and reinstate the route.

Poor Service of Bus 639 3. The 639 bus used to run from the nearest stop to my house every hour on the half hour. It was often late. We would have to wait 45 minutes. Sometimes the bus would pass in the other direction and the bus driver would call out to those waiting, saying that he was not coming back. 4. The bus would run from Walsall to Darlaston around the estate, and if no one was waiting further up on the estate, it would sometimes turn around and go back without completing the route.

Withdrawal of Route 5. Since the service has been withdrawn it has been difﬁcult for some residents to reach the local hospital. One day I had an appointment at the Manor Hospital, at 3.50pm. I had to walk into Darlaston and then catch two different buses. I had to leave the house at 2.15pm in order to arrive on time, as the buses from Walsall to the hospital often run 45–60 minutes late. 6. There are many elderly people in the area, and many who cannot walk to catch the bus in Darlaston. I am a senior citizen, and there are many others older than me in the neighbourhood. 7. Those who cannot catch the bus have to pay £5 each way for a taxi to the hospital. 8. One alternative is to catch the 79 bus from the next street, but this involves a very steep hill. The 79 is meant to run every 10 minutes, but often one has to wait 45 minutes between buses, and they often turn up two or three at a time. This also affects people in Wednesbury, Darlaston and Moxley. 9. The steep hill makes this an unsuitable alternative for the elderly and those with limited mobility. I have strained my arm muscles carrying shopping back from the 79 bus stop to my home. 10. In an email responding to the petition and EDM 975, tabled by local MP Valerie Vaz, Centro spokesperson Babs Coombes named the 327 and 645 as alternative bus routes. However, in order to catch these buses, it is necessary to walk the full length of a park. This can be lonely and unnerving, particularly for the elderly and vulnerable and those travelling alone or in the dark. 11. The email from Centro also names the Ring & Ride service. However this is not always convenient, as seats must be booked two days in advance, and the route can take a very long time as the buses divert to pick people up along the way. 12. Like the 79, the 639 used to take a meandering route. The trafﬁc could make the buses late. But the residents needed the service so much that they were prepared to wait three-quarters of an hour for the bus to come. 13. This matter affects people living on estates in Darlaston and Moxley. It is especially an issue for reaching the hospital. This is a shame as the Manor is a brand new hospital, but local people cannot get to it. There are many people aged 80 or over living in the area who struggle to reach the hospital.

Future Services 14. There is a new estate being built across the road and this would provide many more potential users of a bus service that covered Darlaston Road. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w13

15. I have spent almost two years campaigning on this issue, along with Julie Bosley, who has also submitted evidence. We suggest that the existing 333E route between Darlaston and Walsall could run via Wednesbury and the Manor Hospital. This would be a shorter route than the 639. December 2010

Written evidence from J Bosley (BUS 08)

Summary

1. This evidence is in reference to the withdrawal in January 2009 of the 639 bus service from Wednesbury to Walsall via Darlaston Road. The service had been operated by National Express West Midlands, but was stopped as the operator claimed there were not enough users to make it viable.

2. I am a local resident. I was one of the organisers of a petition expressing concern at the way the service was cancelled, and claiming that the reason was not lack of use, but the failings of the operator to run a reliable service. The petition called on National Express West Midlands and Centro, the local transport authority, to take steps to remedy the situation and reinstate the route.

Withdrawal of the Service

3. It is all very well for Centro to claim that the nearest bus stops (in Darlaston) are only a 400m walk, but 400m is a very long way, especially for elderly or disabled people.

4. The 79 bus is an alternative, but it leaves people with a steep walk uphill. For elderly people this can be impossible, especially if they have to carry shopping. If the 79 is held up then residents have no service at all.

5. People now have to take three buses to reach the Manor Hospital (one into Darlaston, then one to Walsall, then one to the Hospital). An elderly person cannot be expected to do that.

6. I suffer from arthritis and the walk is very difﬁcult for me, even though I live closer to the current route than many local elderly people.

7. Elderly people are really struggling. While going from house to house with the petition, I found that many elderly people said they were just not going out anymore. Without an accessible bus stop they decided to stay at home. It is hard for people to rely on their families for transportation anymore, because everyone is so busy.

8. Younger people are also suffering the lack of service. There are many young families on the complex and many of them work in Walsall. They have to pay twice to get to work as they must change buses. This also takes much more time.

9. Centro suggest using the Ring & Ride. I would not use the Ring & Ride because it goes all around the houses. I have also heard reports that there may be cutbacks to this service.

10. Using another alternative route (catching the hourly 327 on Franchise Street), which provides links to the Kings Hill area, involves walking between a park and a ﬁeld. This is not safe, especially for the elderly, vulnerable and lone travellers.

Future Services

11. Residents would welcome even an hourly service along Darlaston Road.

12. There are new builds being constructed across the road from where I live, and there will be people living in the bungalows who would beneﬁt from the service.

13. Centro and National Express have justiﬁed withdrawing the 639 service as they say it was only used by four or ﬁve people. Yet there are other services between Darlaston and Walsall with only a few users. Why is it not possible to merge these services and divert the route to cover Darlaston Road, at least occasionally?

14. Centro and the bus operators are only looking at the negatives and not at the positives when making their decisions about the routes. December 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from RNID, Sense, Radar, Guide Dogs, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire Disability (BUS 11) About us This is a joint consultation response prepared on behalf of six disability organisations, RNID, Sense, Radar, Guide Dogs, RNIB and Leonard Cheshire Disability. We are happy for the details of this response to be made public.

RNID We’re RNID, the charity working to create a world where deafness or hearing loss do not limit or determine opportunity and where people value their hearing. We work to ensure that people who are deaf or hard of hearing have the same rights and opportunities to lead a full and enriching life. We strive to break down stigma and create acceptance of deafness and hearing loss. We aim to promote hearing health, prevent hearing loss and cure deafness.

Sense Sense is the leading national charity that supports and campaigns for children and adults who are deafblind. We provide expert advice and information as well as specialist services to deafblind people, their families, carers and the professionals who work with them. We also support people who have sensory impairments with additional disabilities.

RNIB Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) is the UK’s leading charity offering information, support and advice to almost two million people with sight loss. Our pioneering work helps anyone with a sight problem—not just with braille and Talking Books, but with imaginative and practical solutions to everyday challenges. We also provide information on eye conditions and provide support and advice for people living with sight loss.

Radar As the leading UK independent pan-impairment organisation, we give a voice to 11 million people living with ill-health, injury or disability (IID). We work towards rights to independent living, an end to disability poverty, an accessible Britain, realising potential and unlocking talent of people living with IID, and real equality and justice.

Guide Dogs Guide Dogs is the UK’s largest single provider of mobility and other rehabilitation training for blind and partially sighted people. Our vision is for a society in which blind and partially sighted people can enjoy the same freedom of movement as everyone else and we campaign for equal access to transport and the built environment, shops and services, health and social care. We are currently campaigning for audio visual information on buses—the Talking Buses campaign.

Leonard Cheshire Disability Leonard Cheshire Disability supports over 21,000 disabled people in the UK and works in 52 countries. We campaign for change and provide innovative services that give disabled people the opportunity to live life their way.

Comments We welcome the opportunity to comment on the future of bus services after the Comprehensive Spending Review. Transport is essential for providing access to employment, health services, education, social events and leisure pursuits. However, disabled passengers face many difﬁculties accessing public transport resulting in unnecessary stress, anxiety and isolation. There is a growing commitment within the UK and the European Union to improve access for disabled people. However, we are concerned that the spending review will have a negative impact on the developments achieved so far.

1. The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, including on community transport A reduction in grant will have a negative impact on services, including community transport. The Department for Transport estimate fare increases as a result of the grant reduction.7 This cut will also mean that bus operators will have fewer funds to spend on improving accessibility. For example, it is unlikely that concessions 7 Hansard, 2 November 2010, c702W cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w15

will be extended to peak times, or for a companion, and may be removed within those local authority areas that do provide these concessions.

Peak Time Concessions Peak time concessions are important to support disabled people looking for work or those in work. Peak time concessions are also important so that disabled parents can take their children to school on the bus. In Scotland and Wales there are no restrictions on free bus travel, only England lags behind.

Companion Pass Some disabled people are only able to travel on buses with the assistance of a companion and they must pay the companion’s fare if their local authority does not offer a companion pass as part of its concessionary scheme. As a result, disabled people with the greatest difﬁculty travelling have to pay the same as a non- disabled person in order to use buses, defeating the point of having concessions. Local authorities are unlikely to address this issue in the short to medium term by extending their local schemes to provide free travel for essential companions of disabled people who cannot travel alone.

Audio Visual Information Systems Accessibility of buses in London has improved vastly due to the installation of audio visual information systems. However, a reduction in grant will mean it is unlikely that bus operators outside of London will install this equipment voluntarily, increasing the need for regulation in this area. As these quotes demonstrate, audio visual (AV) displays improve access to information for people with hearing loss: “On a recent trip to Hamburg, I went with my friend on several of the buses in that city and was surprised and delighted to see an AV display on every bus. It informed us of the whereabouts of the next stop throughout the ride and removed all sense of anxiety.” “When I have travelled on buses overseas I have been impressed by AV screens that show the name of the next bus stop. This is probably helpful for people with normal hearing too. Bus drivers don’t always remember to tell you when you reach your stop so AV displays give you some independence and reassurance.” This quote highlights the beneﬁt of AV displays for people with visual impairment. “Before audio announcements started on London buses I tried not to use buses. I had just had too many bad experiences of drivers forgetting to tell me when I had reached my stop and refusing to even speak to me when I got on to the bus. Now I can get on the bus, know what number it is and where it’s heading and know when I’ve reached my stop.”

Disability Awareness Training Disability awareness training can make a massive difference to the accessibility of the bus network. However a reduction in grant will also mean it is unlikely that operators will invest in this. We receive many reports of buses accelerating quickly away from bus stops, without giving passengers time to sit down, as well as wheelchair spaces being occupied by prams or pushchairs. These are important issues for disabled people. For example, one deafblind person told us “When I was walking, but not well, I landed sprawled on the floor of buses several times due to drivers setting off before I’d sat down even though I’d specifically asked them to wait. Sometimes I took a few other people down with me as I fell. On one occasion I was too slow getting to the door to get off, various people were telling the driver to wait, but he shut the doors and drove off. I landed sprawled on the bus floor. There I sat until the next stop. I then had to get off and try to get back to where I had wanted to be. I was with a partially sighted friend. I think that was the day I ended up sitting on the pavement in tears because I just couldn’t go any further, at which point a nice shop keeper came and helped us flag down a taxi.”

Community Transport Services We also believe community transport services may be at risk of a reduction in service. This will impact more negatively upon disabled people as it is this group who are most likely to use community transport services.

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 As discussed above, local authorities that currently offer additional concessions, such as free peak-time travel or companion passes, are likely to cut these providing only the national minimum of free off-peak travel for older and disabled people. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Transport Committee: Evidence

There is already some argument between bus companies and local authorities over whether the reimbursement is working properly; spending cuts are likely to increase these tensions.

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 Although local authorities are required by law to provide free off-peak travel for disabled and older people, we may see creative ways of making it harder for people to get a pass or delaying new applications. We know, for example, that one local authority took over a year when the national scheme was ﬁrst introduced to change existing local pass holders onto the national passes and that during that time they were not taking any new applications.

4. How passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area The ability to participate and have the chance to shape and direct services is important for all members of society, but particularly so for disabled people. Yet, there are too few accessible opportunities for disabled people to give their views. Deafblind people in particular are often excluded. Local authorities and operators should ensure that they engage effectively with disabled people, for example by providing communication support, ensuring the venue is accessible and providing transport for those who need it. With speciﬁc regard to Passenger Focus, it is difﬁcult to pass comment on how they are currently performing in the role of representing bus passengers, having only taken on this remit in April 2010. They have, however, already done some useful work looking at the experiences of disabled passengers. We hope that once the Public Bodies Reform is completed that the role of Passenger Focus will enable it fully to take into account the views and needs of all bus passengers, particularly those who are disabled.

Conclusion We anticipate that the reduction in the Grant will soon translate into reductions in concessions for disabled people, as well as community transport. We would urge the Committee to scrutinise the Department’s plans to evaluate the impact of the reduction and its impact on disabled people. December 2010

Written evidence from Community Transport (BUS 12) 1. Background 1.1 Community Transport is a national charity and social enterprise, operating passenger transport services in six West Midlands districts, three in Greater Manchester and also in Newcastle upon Tyne. The Charity operates 92 accessible and standard minibuses, driven by a mix of paid staff and volunteers, providing more than 400,000 passenger trips per year. 1.2 The services provided comprise: — Transport for voluntary and community sector groups—typically children and young people, older people, disabled people and people on low incomes. — Contracted services in partnership with local authorities, Passenger Transport Executives and NHS bodies—for example for home-to-school services for children with SEN, access to day care and day opportunities for older people, access to primary and secondary health care, where statutory PTS is unavailable. — Tailored services for particular purposes—for example, the Charity’s service taking families to visit offenders in prisons, thereby supporting strategies to reduce re-offending. — Social car schemes—in Coventry and Dudley. — Shopmobility—in Oldham. — Demand responsive transport—for example shopper services in the West Mids and Newcastle and Dial-a-Ride in Oldham. — A Section 22 Community Bus service—the 649, started in Birmingham in December 2010.

2. Effects of Changes to Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) 2.1 The Charity played a role in lobbying for BSOG to be extended to Section 19 operations some years ago. The grant effectively recognised that many of our services are provided to passengers because they are unable to access conventional, timetabled bus services that were already supported through BSOG. We believe this principle of equity is important and that a measure of subsidy for community transport must be retained to address holes in the transport system—especially for older people, disabled people and other socially excluded groups. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w17

2.2 In terms of plans to reduce the value of BSOG by 20% from 2012, it is our view that this will disadvantage non-scheduled service users to a greater extent than conventional bus users. In our case, claimed BSOG has a value of £40,000 per year, which is broadly equivalent to the purchase of one accessible minibus per year; this in a context where we need to replace eight minibuses per year (on a 12 year cycle). There are already huge difficulties in attracting capital investment both because of downwards pressures on contract prices and the decrease in the number of capital grants available from public sources. 2.3 It should be noted that the Charity has only once been successful in attracting capital funding through the Local Transport Plan—from Dudley in 2004.) Greater DfT encouragement for funding modern low floor accessible minibuses (cost, £65,000) through LTP would carry enormous benefits for our service users. 2.4 The Charity is aware of plans to move responsibility for administering BSOG from the central DfT unit to local authorities. We cannot support this move unless there is a legal obligation on transport authorities to ensure that the funds made available will be available to support community transport in direct proportion to the money currently available through BSOG. 2.5 In overall terms, it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of reduced BSOG to our finances; it represents just 2% of the charity’s service-generated income. The real problems lie in the shape of services that will be available to disadvantaged groups and individuals as the effects of the lower local authority spending work through.

3. Reductions in Support by Local Authorities for Transport Services 3.1 In terms of services contracted from local authorities (total forecast value in 2010–11, £1,252,000), it is important to draw a distinction between services provided on a statutory basis and those commissioned on a discretionary basis.

Statutory contracted services 3.2 About half our contracted services are related to statutory home-to-school transport for children with SEN in seven metropolitan districts: Birmingham, Dudley, Manchester, Oldham, Salford, Sandwell and Solihull. From discussions we are having with commissioners, we are not aware of any major changes to SEN transport eligibility, and commissioners are forecasting continued service provision at or near current levels. 3.3 Nevertheless there are pressures of competition in most urban areas. Some authorities have piloted electronic e-tendering run on a real-time, “Dutch auction” basis. In at least one area (Coventry), the result has been the transfer of almost all SEN transport to PHV/Hackney providers. We are concerned that we have, as a result, been effectively excluded from the market, as we are unable to reduce wage costs to the level apparently acceptable to self-employed drivers (below NMW rates). We are one of many agencies concerned that this mode of provision may, if not properly monitored, result in poor quality in terms of vehicles, drivers and safety standards.

Discretionary services 3.4 The other major segment of our contract portfolio is discretionary services mainly, but not entirely, provided to older and disabled to access shops, health care, day care and day opportunities and social contact. The vast majority of these people are 75 or over, have a variety of mobility problems, and would otherwise have to rely on relatives or more expensive care services funded from the public purse. 3.5 We have major concerns that the costs involved in meeting government aspirations for personalised care services—a move which we support in principle and are in some cases providing transport for—will deter local authorities, reducing choice for service users. Indeed we have already seen a loss of some 10% over the last year in the value of such contracts (£140,000)—and a further 25% of our contracts are at risk either in the form of grants or contracts for the 2011–12 financial year. 3.6 The loss of such a large volume of contracted services, if not replaced, is likely to lead to a reduction in paid staff, a shrinking of the fleet and less ability to replace ageing vehicles. Unlike cases where services transfer after tender processes under TUPE regulations, local authorities are usually unwilling to pay for redundancy costs, which add a further twist of the financial screw on our organisation.

Transport for voluntary and community sector (VCS) groups (“Group Transport”) 3.7 Another important impact of the Spending Review cuts is the potential effect on our minibus transport for other VCS groups. Where these groups are unable to supply their own volunteer drivers, many have traditionally been willing to pay the invoiced cost of a paid driver service, drawing on their own grant aid from the local authority. We now have strong indications from regular customers that their public funding is at risk and that their clients, therefore, are likely to travel less often or not at all. This will also impact negatively on the Charity’s ﬁnanced—we estimate by £50–100,000 in 2011–12. 3.8 We have enormous potential to solve this problem by a big push for new volunteer minibus drivers: in theory, this would enable us to reduce invoiced charges by as much as 50%. However, we are ﬁnding that the pool of available volunteers is shrinking for a number of reasons: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Transport Committee: Evidence

— People in the early years of retirement are tending to have less time available for volunteering. — Congestion on the roads and perceptions of liability in the event of accidents are deterring people from coming forward. — The driver licensing change as of 1997 mean that younger volunteers (typically under 35) are usually limited to minibuses with lower Gross Vehicle Weights than the minibuses required by many groups. 3.9 We would suggest that the community transport needs a speciﬁc programme of support for volunteering— including improved ability to ﬁnance PCV D1 minibus driving tests for younger vehicles, which cost in the region of £1,000 after tuition and various fees. 3.10 The effects of uncoordinated VCS transport services are, we believe, of serious concern on a number of counts: — Fragmentation of provision could lead to lower safety standards for children and older people. — An overall increase in the cost to the public purse of purchasing more, less well used minibuses. — The dangers of lower maintenance standards and the temptation for groups to run their own minibuses well past their use-by date.

Grant aid to finance the core costs of community transport services 3.11 Community Transport has traditionally benefited from grant aid from local authorities to support its passenger transport services, as well as for our other business divisions of furniture re-use/recycling and transport-related training. The total value in 2010–11 runs to £732,000, spread across seven authorities. This funding is used to finance infrastructure costs such as rents, office costs, managerial posts, investment in buses—and in one case, direct support for low cost transport for VCS groups. 3.12 However, the prospects for retaining current levels of grant appear bleak. It needs to be noted that this trend is the result of cutbacks in support that pre-date the current spending round but which we expect to continue at a faster rate from 2011–12 onwards: Birmingham Grant cut by 30% over the last two years Coventry 100% cut from 1 February 2011 Dudley Cut by 30% over the last three years Manchester No grant aid available Newcastle Grant applied for (none currently available) Oldham 30% cut expected in 2011–12—shopmobility service in town centre at risk Solihull No grant available—supported by Big Lottery to mid-2012 3.13 The Charity has already streamlined management so as to share costs between neighbouring districts. Any further significant cut in grants is likely to mean reductions in services, possible district closures, higher prices for VCS groups and/or a potential long term risk to the viability of our passenger transport services as a whole.

4. Local bus services 4.1 The Charity does not currently operate a significant number of registered local bus services. 4.2 On December 6th 2010, the Charity commenced its first Community Bus service, run under the more flexible regime for Section 22 minibus-based service brought in under the 2008 Local Transport Act. The 649 Kings Heath service in Birmingham is supported on contract by Centro on a six-month pilot basis to replace a service deregistered by a commercial operator. 4.3 We believe that the new S22 regime is a considerable opportunity for community-based operators and fits well with the government agenda for localism. The support of the local community in the first few weeks suggests the basis for a new model for bringing on services which fit with local priorities and aspirations. At the same time, such innovation will not come about without political support and some investment especially for capital costs. 4.4 We would propose that the DfT should seek ways to develop a new “Community Challenge” scheme that incentivises communities to develop potential new local bus services in partnership with local transport authorities.

5. Changes in Concessionary Fares Arrangements 5.1 The Community Transport charity currently has only one service, the 649 in Birmingham, which beneﬁts from concessionary passes as of right. We also run some shopper services for older people in the Midlands where grant aid is given by Centro on the basis of a free service to older users. 5.2 We believe that the current statutory arrangements whereby the concessionary fare system is limited to registered local bus registration is fundamentally unfair to those people that cannot use timetabled service for whatever reason—lack of mobility, unavailability of an available service, etc. We would support the calls of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w19

many to end this anomaly and target the concession and ﬁnancial support on those people whose mobility is most limited. December 2010

Written evidence from the Campaign for National Parks (BUS 13) The Committee is particularly interested to receive evidence on: — the impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, including on community transport; — 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; — 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; and — how passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area.

Introduction The Campaign for National Parks (CNP) is the national charity that campaigns to protect and promote National Parks for the beneﬁt and quiet enjoyment of all. There are 10 members of the National Parks family in England, covering 9% of the land surface. The statutory purposes of National Park Authorities are to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage; and to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of Parks’ special qualities.

Transport in National Parks CNP is very interested in transport policy and practice in and around National Parks, and is therefore taking a keen interest in proposals to change or cut back public transport services, where these would have an impact on National Parks. In National Parks, the dual transport challenge is ensuring the local population, who are often rural based, can travel to reach essential services and work places, whilst at the same time delivering a safe, welcoming and efficient transport network for the large influx of visitors. All of this must be achieved in a way that sustains the special qualities and character of these beautiful landscapes. This challenge is one that is shared between National Park Authorities, the transport authorities and transport service providers. It is vital that National Parks are connected into a transport system that is fit to meet the pressing environmental and demographic challenges of the 21st Century, including climate change, population growth and people’s changing attitude towards travel and exercise.

Impacts We are very concerned at the impacts of a reduction in Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG), and on local authority support to bus services. We already know of planned cuts to essential long-standing leisure and commuting services that would have a major impact on National Parks, such as the popular Dalesbus and Moors Bus and some connecting services (see eg http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/localnews/ Changes-will-bring-cuts-to.5679822.jp; and http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Colin-Speakman-Cuts- threaten-worldclass.6665777.jp). These services, and others like them (eg the Shropshire Hills Shuttle), have worked very hard to be integrated with the wider transport network, with aligned service times and joint ticketing. They have increased the numbers of park visitors and residents opting to leave their cars at home— thus helping to address climate change, energy efﬁciency, congestion and road safety within the National Parks. Without subsidy through the BSOG, these services would have to charge much higher fares. This would either turn people back to their cars, or make countryside visits and travel unaffordable for many. It would also hit many small business in the National Parks hard, given the relatively high spending on local services by public transport users (especially overseas visitors who tend to be more environmentally aware) in local shops, guest houses, pubs and cafes and visitor attractions in National Parks. Tourism is a major industry in all of the National Parks, a vital source of local employment and important earner of overseas currency. The 2010 review of the Moorsbus service in the North York Moors National Park has concluded that the service will need to cut its number of operating days to deal with the expected loss of external funding. 13.7% of passengers surveyed in 2009 said they would have come to the National Park (by car) on the day of survey if no bus had been available. In 2009 approximately 47% of passengers surveyed did not own a car, and this section of the community at least will be disadvantaged by having access to the National Park restricted. It is very important that the impacts on leisure bus services connecting town and country are taken seriously. National Parks must be enjoyed in a sustainable way, by all sectors of society. Evidence suggests that spending time in beautiful open countryside is a key component of health and well-being, and fundamental to our quality of life—improving bus services to National Parks is one way to ensure that this happens. Local bus services are also vital for the economic and social well being of communities living within the National Parks, especially as these contain a higher than average proportion of older people, not all of whom cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Transport Committee: Evidence

can afford or are physically able to drive a car, but also of young people working in less well paid jobs within the tourist industry who also rely on threatened evening and Sunday services for employment, educational and social opportunities. Loss of rural buses will force people on lower incomes to move out of many villages and small towns in National Parks, creating serious problems of social imbalance as well as shortages of workers in key services sector industries. We draw attention to the opportunities that may be offered through the new Local Sustainable Transport Fund for local authorities to work with National Park Authorities, local communities and stakeholder organisations to ﬁnd new, cost effective ways to meet the needs of both local resident and visitors within National Parks, and urge the Select Committee to encourage and support one or more pilot projects in the National Parks to see if this approach can work. We also encourage the Select Committee to recommend that the guidance on the fund should encourage bids to be made at a National Park scale and for National Park Authorities to have the option to make bids directly to the fund, either individually or in partnerships with the relevant Highway Authorities. December 2010

Written evidence from NECTAR (BUS 16) 1. These comments come from NECTAR—the North East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable. 2. NECTAR is an open, voluntary, umbrella body, established to provide a forum in which the many organisations with an interest in sustainable transport in all its forms can develop a co-ordinated view on contemporary transport issues. 3. NECTAR is one of a national network of Transport Activists; Roundtables sustained through Campaign for Better Transport. As such, NECTAR provides opportunity for the exchange of news, studies and information. 4. It was in the course of our most recent such opportunity—an executive committee meeting on 11 December 2010 that we realised that, much as we might wish to respond constructively to the HoC Inquiry, much of the specific information about the consequences to bus services of all kinds was not yet available to us, or to anybody else. Two main reasons for this stand out: (i) Local authority supported bus services—the most likely ones, in our view, to come under financial threat—run from April to March (ie the financial year), so will not change for another three months yet. (ii) The amounts that the Government has allotted to each local authority have only been made known in the last two or three weeks. With the onset of the Christmas and New Year holiday period, one which this time, exceptionally, includes no fewer than seven non-working days instead of the usual three or four, no local authority can possibly be expected to have formed any definite plan of action over reducing expenditure on its multifarious public service obligations, including those connected with bus services. 5. We know, however, that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council will be holding a public meeting, one of its regular “Public Transport Forum” sessions, on Saturday, 22 January 2011. This is, in our view, the earliest day when a member of the bus-using public may gain even an inkling of what an already hard-pressed body of public transport officials has been able—or been forced—to put forward as cuts, or other adjustments, to the borough’s bus network. 6. As this is undoubtedly the position that, mutatis mutandis, will apply throughout the North-East region for some time yet, we wish to ask that you delay the closing-date for receiving evidence for at least a further eight weeks. 7. Meanwhile, we have noted, from the Government’s Department of Transport Business Plan 2011–15, published in November 2010 and to be annually up-dated, that the Coalition Priorities (under heading B, page 2) include, at No.3, the intention to “encourage sustainable local travel.....by making public transport.....more attractive and effective, promoting lower carbon transport and tackling local road congestion”. This Priority is an expanded version of part of the previous page’s paragraphs headed “Vision”, which also aim “to make transport cleaner and greener”. 8. If, as we hope, this government is sincere in these aims and priorities, then the one thing that it must not do is reduce the amount of money that is spent on providing bus services (and, indeed, any and every other form of transport that produces, proportionally, lower carbon emission figures than do cars and lorries). Yet the terms of this Inquiry start from an assumption that such reduction is already taking place. We cannot underline too strongly the inherent contradiction between the DfT Business Plan as quoted and the Terms of Reference given to those providing and/or sifting evidence that may be considered relevant to “Bus Services after the Spending Review”. 9. We urge, therefore, that not only does the House of Commons Transport Committee agree to our request for a delay to the closing date, as mentioned in §6, but also take what steps it can in its own right to point out that much of what it is likely to receive in evidence is also firm indication that, thanks to this Spending cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w21

Review, the Coalition’s Business Plan is bound to fail in its aim to promote lower-carbon transport and tackle road congestion. 10. The recent Christmas and New Year holiday period has highlighted, once again, the inequitable provision of public transport in general in this country. Unlike most other European countries, we have to do without all buses and trains on Christmas Day itself, as well as (in most areas) a similar dearth throughout Boxing Day. On New Year’s Day itself, customs vary—no buses in North-Eastern England (our territory) and few trains, mainly those from further afield eg Transpennine services between Manchester and Middlesbrough, rather than the local Northern Rail services. 11. There have been a number a sporadic attempts by user groups and other transport supporters to persuade bus operators and the local authorities in their operating areas to introduce at least a limited bus service on some or all of these three days. Usually this has met with little success. It is not that local authorities and/or bus operators are against the idea in principle: but they have not been prepared to take the financial risk that they see in putting such services on. This, to us, is a clear sign that public transport is regarded as a fall-back to private travel provision—and, with spending cuts looming, this (dis)regard is hardly going to be superseded by an improvement in bus service-levels on these, or indeed other, bank holiday days each year. Once again, this militates against the Government’s declared aim of encouraging greener and less polluting forms of transport [cf. §§ 7 and 8 in our original submission]. 12. This year’s unusual additions of Bank Holidays-in-lieu (27, 28 December and 3 January), has probably produced more than the average confusion for bus users over exactly which buses are running, to which timetables, on any of these disrupted days. One example, from the Teesside area, will illustrate this: Monday 3 January, designated a Bank Holiday in 2011, saw widely-contrasting levels of bus service in the borough of Stockton (and elsewhere, as served by the bus operators concerned). Stagecoach ran a full Saturday service (ie little different from a normal Monday in most respects) for those in the northern and eastern areas of the borough (plus Billingham and the south end of Hartlepool, in effect); Arriva, on the other hand, ran a Sunday service for those living to the south and the west, particularly on the Eaglescliffe and Yarm corridor, where this resulted in one bus per hour rather than the normal weekday 10-minute service. 13. Spending cuts are hardly likely to encourage anyone to try even to smooth out this discrepancy in future years, never mind to improve the level of bus provision overall. We submit this as an additional, seasonally- inspired piece of evidence for the likely adverse effects on bus services of the Government’s funding cuts, in direct contradiction, as stated earlier [§9], of its aims to encourage use of public transport as a means of reducing road congestion. But we would still appreciate a two-month extension of the time available to complete our search for specific evidence of actual cuts for the House of Commons Select Committee to consider. December 2010

Further written evidence from NECTAR (BUS 16a) 1. These comments come from NECTAR—the North East Combined Transport Activists’ Roundtable. As noted below, they are a modified version of what we sent to the House of Commons Transport Committee in early January this year, with the addition of remarks prompted by firm evidence of local authority bus cuts in the North-East region of England as at 25 February 2011. 2. NECTAR is an open, voluntary, umbrella body, established to provide a forum in which the many organisations with an interest in sustainable transport in all its forms can develop a co-ordinated view on contemporary transport issues. 3. NECTAR is one of a national network of Transport Activists’ Roundtables sustained through Campaign for Better Transport. As such, NECTAR provides opportunity for the exchange of news, studies and information. 4. In responding to this Inquiry so as to meet the original 4 January 2011 closing-date, NECTAR realised that much of the specific information about consequences to bus services of Government-imposed local authority cuts would not be available until well after that date. We are thankful, as well as glad, to see that, as a result of requests by (presumably) many others across the country as well as by NECTAR, the House of Commons Inquiry closing-date has been put back to 28 February. Our remarks are in two main parts—the general and the particular.

(a) General Observations 5. We have noted, from the Government’s Department of Transport Business Plan 2011–2015, published in November 2010 and to be annually updated, that the Coalition Priorities (under heading B, page 2) include, at No.3, the intention to “encourage sustainable local travel.... by making public transport.... more attractive and effective, promoting lower carbon transport and tackling local road congestion”. This Priority is an expanded version of part of the previous page’s paragraphs headed “Vision”, which also aims “to make transport cleaner and greener”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Transport Committee: Evidence

6. If, as we hope, this government is sincere in these aims and priorities, then the one thing that it must not do is reduce the amount of money that is spent on providing bus services (and, indeed, any and every other form of transport that produces, proportionally, lower carbon emission figures than do cars and lorries). This prohibition applies just as strongly whether the reduction in funding is specified directly by central government or achieved, at one remove, by manoeuvring local authorities into compliance in the face of lower overall levels of income. 7. Yet the terms of this Inquiry start from an assumption that such reduction is already taking place. So we cannot underline too strongly, once more, this inherent contradiction between the DfT Business Plan as quoted and the Terms of Reference given to those providing and/or sifting evidence that is considered relevant to “Bus Services after the Spending Review”. 8. We therefore urge the House of Commons Transport Committee to take what steps it can in its own right to point out that just about every item of evidence it receives for this Inquiry is firm indication, also, that thanks to the Spending Review the Coalition’s Business Plan is bound to fail in its aim to promote lower- carbon transport and to tackle road congestion with any success. 9. Before moving to specific summary details of proposed bus cuts known to us, we make an increasingly significant general point about Bank Holiday period bus service reductions, especially as applied to the Christmas and New Year holidays. These, in 2010–11, highlighted more than usually vividly the inequitable provision of public transport in general in the UK. Unlike most other European countries, we have to do without all buses and trains on Christmas Day itself, as well as (in most areas) a similar dearth throughout Boxing Day. On New Year’s Day itself, customs vary—no buses in North-Eastern England, and few trains, mainly those from further afield, eg Transpennine trains between Manchester and Middlesbrough, rather than local Northern Rail services. 10. We have tried to persuade transport operators to run at least limited services on these three days, but with no success—it is not that local authorities and/or bus operators are against the idea in principle, but that they have not been prepared to take the financial risk that they see in putting such services on. This, to us, is a clear sign that public transport is still regarded, in practice, as a fall-back to private travel provision. There is also a hidden bias against the bus as a form of transport, in that we know and support strongly the continuing moves by rail operators towards a “Seven-Day Railway”, by vastly improving the frequency and quality of Sunday train services. The most conspicuous example of this is the forthcoming East Coast main-line timetable reforms that begin on 22 May (a Sunday, appropriately enough), with Sunday afternoon and evening frequencies, at least, to match those on weekdays. 11. If rail operators can do this, privatised as they are, why is the same not seen on the buses? Absence of more than skeletal bus services on Sundays of all kinds is bad enough, never mind on Bank Holidays, for which most bus operators think a Sunday service will do. But the many threatened withdrawals of existing local authority-supported Sunday services will, if carried out, mean that vast tracts of the country—even of some urban areas—will in effect have no bus services at all for two days in succession at Easter weekend, two Bank Holiday weekends in May, and on the last weekend in August—and these are exactly the days on which many people will have more chance to get out and about than normal. To add insult to injury, this year’s total is increased further, by the Royal Wedding Bank Holiday on Friday 29 April—just after most service-cuts are newly in place. 12. Does the Government have any plans, we wonder, to level the imbalance between private and public transport by limiting car use by the same amount? This is not as fanciful as it might seem—Athens is said to have banned half the car-fleet on alternate days to combat its urban congestion and pollution problems, theoretically grounding every motorist for 182 days each year. If we add up all the Sundays and Bank Holidays in a normal year, we get sixty days on which, for an increasing number of people, bus travel will be impossible. Is that a rational element in any campaign to encourage increased use of public transport? Or may we, perhaps, look forward to an early announcement that, to treat all kinds of road transport users equally and fairly, motorists, too, must henceforth lock cars away in their garages for 60 days every year?

(b) Particular Instances of Threatened Bus-cuts 13. Recently-prepared Local Transport Plan 3 bids in the Tees-side area put great weight on the development of better public transport as the only way to reduce road traffic congestion, and to deal at least in part with excessive CO2 emissions. (This opinion, incidentally, is even shared by our regional Highways Agency, of all people!) The increasing cost of petrol now adds even more urgency to this aim. Yet councils in at least two of the five constituent boroughs of the Tees Valley—Hartlepool and Stockton—have had to vote to cut bus-service provision, at times drastically, at just the times of day and days of the week when growth in bus use is most desirable—evenings and Sundays. The other three boroughs, Redcar, Middlesbrough, and Darlington, have not published any specific information in time to include it here, suggesting that they are faced with agonising choices that they know will bring hardship to many, and not just bus users—many jobs nowadays call for irregular and/or unusual working hours, weekends and evenings included. So we must, in fairness to all the council officials concerned, repeat our view that this entire bus-cutting exercise has been driven by a doctrinaire government reduction in funds to local authorities, manipulated in such a way that the general public might be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w23

led to think that it is the local councillors on whom the blame should fall, when the reality is usually otherwise [cf. §6 above]. 14. Hartlepool borough services are the worst affected of any in the North-East—despite the considerable amount of poverty and deprivation that exists, particularly but not only in the urban area. Large swathes of the town, including High Tunstall, Hartlepool Headland, Rift House, Owton Manor, Seaton Carew, Elwick village and Dalton Piercy village, will have virtually nothing on Sundays and after 18.30 on any evening. The villages may well retain no buses at all, even during the day on weekdays. This is bound to cause quite unacceptable social isolation, in clear breach of several clauses of the Transport Act of 2000, for instance. 15. There is another worrying aspect to the Hartlepool cuts. Most of the dedicated Hospital bus links are also in the list for withdrawal. This in itself is bad enough, but should be read alongside some proposals for a new hospital eight miles west of Hartlepool town centre, whose functions are not all clear but which will call for regular, frequent and reliable public transport throughout every day and night for those many people living in the town without their own cars. It is true that the first round of government cuts included the cancellation of this project, but a lot of local energy is being put into finding alternative funding for it, government cuts notwithstanding. Even so, a situation could exist in which, if the hospital is built, buses could be laid on in its first years and then removed at little notice later on, for reasons similar to those that have caused the rash of bus service cuts now. This, admittedly hypothetical at present, is not a situation that any user of public transport can view with optimism. 16. Stockton borough services The council in this borough has striven endlessly to keep the range of tendered bus services that it has. Last September, it even managed to re-introduce a direct evenings and Sundays bus link between Middlesbrough and Billingham that had been taken off a few months earlier for fiscal reasons. Yet this is one of seven routes for which notice of withdrawal has had to be issued—just as its existence was beginning to make itself felt among the people in the areas for which it was designed. 17. Northumberland county services It is to this county’s great credit that practically all the tendered bus services operated now will survive after this April. NECTAR suspects, but has no evidence for the theory, that the method of working out grant employed by this government works in favour of counties of this size and type, to the detriment (however unintentional) of the more urban areas such as Hartlepool and Stockton. But equally we have no grounds for thinking that Northumberland’s present level of service-support can be maintained into the 2012–13 funding season. 18. Tyne and Wear area To the best of our understanding, bus services are largely protected from cuts, at least in the 2011–12 financial year. This does not preclude changes in service-levels later on, but at least it continues a long-standing commitment by this conurbation to the maintenance of good-quality public transport as widely as possible. Concluding remarks: 19. We know that the Inquiry aims to find out the effects of the cuts on bus services, and we have tried to keep to its terms of reference as far as we humanly can. The problem with doing this, even after the welcome extension of the “reply” period, is that the effects of even the mildest of cuts will not be seen until the start of April at the earliest. As a closing remark, therefore, we should like to express our disquiet at the fact that the Traffic Commissioners, to whom all applications for changes in bus service operations must be made, 56 days in advance of their intended start-date, do not have any powers to hear objections from the general public. If they had, of course, they would now be inundated with such complaints, and no doubt the bus cuts would have had to be postponed to match. We ask the House of Commons Transport Committee members, therefore, to take into account this obstacle to bus users who wish to do anything practical themselves towards limiting, or even preventing entirely, reductions in their bus services. 20. Over and above the details and the legalities, we are reminded of a remark by George Bernard Shaw— “Advice to those thinking of getting married—don’t”. Once these bus cuts are in place, anyone thinking of giving up a private car in favour of total dependence on public transport in this country can hardly be blamed, despite the entirely different context, if, sadly, he or she takes GBS’s advice. February 2011

Written evidence from TravelWatch NorthWest (BUS 18) 1. Introduction 1.1 TravelWatch NorthWest (TWNW) is an independent organisation representing users of all forms of Public Transport in NW England. 1.2 TWNW has made a number of responses to DfT and HOCTC in which since 2008 we have tried to address various potential scenarios and how they might impact on the bus industry. Most of these effectively rehearse the questions asked in this present call for evidence. The general theme of our responses has been to caution against reducing the overall level of support for unremunerative but socially desirable registered local bus services. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Transport Committee: Evidence

1.3 There are a number of strands of evidence in our previous responses8 which we brieﬂy summarise in an annex to this paper. References are made to these strands in our current response to the speciﬁc issues the HOCTC has selected for this inquiry.

2. The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators' Grant, including on community transport 2.1 TWNW supported the extension of BSOG to Community Transport operators9 on the grounds that they are increasingly used to provide public passenger transport and was subsequently pleased to note that (as we anticipated) the Local Transport Act 2008 now provides useful relaxations on the use of large Community Buses and smaller “Permit minibuses”10 to provide registered local services. As there are similar relaxations on the provision of “taxi bus” services it seems logical to argue that they too should qualify to receive BSOG. 2.2 The local bus market is imperfect. It is contestable “on road” 11 but it is not transparent. Passengers are generally better off without “on road” competition. Where it exists they have great difficulty in ascertaining the fares for their intended journeys, which can, and often do, vary between different operators on the same route. Interavailability of tickets and integration of timetables is usually minimal. The creation of statutory Quality Partnerships or Quality Contracts (Local Transport Act 2008) could help to address this, but progress on establishing these is painfully slow. 2.3 Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) can have no certainty that when a service is deregistered this is because it has become non commercial. It may rather be that the operator in tactically deregistering hopes to win the subsequent tender for its replacement—always assuming the LTA wishes to and can afford to support this. 2.4 The market is also becoming increasingly oligopolistic resulting in fewer tender bids and at inflated prices. 2.5 A number of anti-competitive practices persist. “Spoiling registrations”, to run just ahead of an incumbent operator, and predatory pricing, are common strategies intended to increase market shares and ultimately remove competitor(s). 2.6 Inevitably any reduction in BSOG will impact on operators. In such a competitive climate it will not be difficult for them to disguise some, or all, of the above strategies as being commercially unavoidable.

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 Any reduction in LTAs’ funds for supporting non commercial routes is likely to result in service reductions, either total or at off peak times such as evenings and Sundays. LTAs’ ﬁnancial inability to “buy back” such deregistered services might force them to seek more imaginative funding sources and more innovative solutions. Small scale initiatives such as the use of taxi buses at off peak times can sometimes be best value for money (BVM).12 3.2 The Coalition Government’s proposed consolidation of the plethora of revenue support mechanisms into a ringfenced single pot could be helpful. There are suggestions,13 which could usefully be pursued, of including BSOG and funds to cover re-imbursement for Concessionary fares in these pots and of then paying them to the LTAs. This would have the effect of making many networks almost entirely non commercial and of giving the LTAs greater control through a tendering and franchising regime making competition almost entirely “off road” and “for the market” rather than “in the market”. Greater reliability and network stability might also result. 3.3 Suggestions14 that the level of support for local bus services could be linked to patronage should take account of how this could disadvantage rural services. A better suggestion might be to link funding to performance, but this must be predicated on complete transparency of operating data and also upon Trafﬁc Commissioners and their executive arm VOSA being adequately resourced. There would need as well to be a statutory duty on operators to disclose relevant data.

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 There is a strong likelihood that the overall grant15 to LTAs to cover the reimbursements they make to operators to compensate them for their “revenue foregone” will be reduced. There may well be a National formula based re-imbursement in England.16 Although this could have the twin merits of correcting alleged 8 All these can be read at www.travelwatch-northwest.org.uk/consultations 9 “Local Bus Support—Options for Reform” TWNW Response to DfT consultation May 2008 10 with eight or less passenger seats 11 “Local Bus Market” (response to OFT) TWNW June 2009 12 “Calculation of reimbursement to operators for concessionary bus travel” Response to DfT by TWNW November 2010 13 “Tendered Network Zones” ATCO 2009 14 “Local Bus Support—Options for Reform” TWNW Response to DfT consultation May 2008 15 Including the special grant to “atypical authorities” 11/2010 16 as in Scotland and Wales cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w25

historic overpayments and of reducing the number of operator appeals care must in this case also be taken to ensure rural transport services are not discriminated against. 4.2 Although LTAs and operators will doubtless complain of “rough justice” and the creation of “winners and losers” the above is probably the best compromise in the short term. However as smart ticketing and other operating data capture and sharing spreads the possibilities of more accurate and fair reimbursements will increase. In particular LTAs’ complaint that re-imbursement is based on journeys made rather than passengers’ residence would be addressed. 4.3 Even so, in the short term, operators will either claim to have experienced, or possibly will have done so, ﬁnancial loss as a consequence of the provisions of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. They will also, with justiﬁcation in some cases, claim that full fare paying passengers are being “crowded out” on some services with consequent revenue loss, forcing them (despite allowances in the reimbursement formula to compensate for additional costs such as extra capacity) to consider deregistrations. 4.4 Overall, any reduction, either intended or consequential, in funding LTAs and through them operators for their statutory requirement to offer free concessionary bus travel can only have a similar effect to the possible reductions in BSOG et al considered in response to the two earlier questions.

5. How passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area 5.1 TWNW has long argued for strong regional, multi modal passenger representation.17 We welcomed the provisions of the Local Transport Act 2008 section 74 which enabled the extension of Passenger Focus’ (PF) remit from rail to cover also bus, coach and tram services. We argued in our evidence to the HOCTC that there should also be a standardised countrywide complaints handling procedure. 5.2 However PF does not is not currently resourced to take this on and we are now concerned that following the comprehensive spending review it may be downsized and/or some of its functions shared with the mono modal Ofﬁce of the Rail Regulator (ORR) or even Consumer Focus.18 5.3 TWNW is technically the descendant of a statutory SubCommittee of the Rail Passengers Committee for NW England19 and is able to give regional input to the now national Passenger Focus. Bus Users UK (BUUK) is an industry funded non statutory organisation which handles complaints on a voluntary basis and refers those unresolved to a Bus Appeals Tribunal. Like the TravelWatch network20 BUUK’s geographic coverage is incomplete.21 5.4 There is thus demonstrably an unfulﬁlled role for some aspects of bus passenger representation in the regions which voluntary organisations such as ourselves would be willing to assume given the necessary funding and statutory authority. (Author of paper—Paul Fawcett MPhil. FCILT)

Annex Date Issues Strands Nov 2010 Calculation of reimbursement to operators Possible overall reduction. for concessionary bus travel A national reimbursement formula could reduce appeals. Formula should ideally not discriminate against rural services and should be based on where passengers’ reside rather than where their journeys commence. Oct 2010 Local Transport Funding Inability of LTAs to support deregistered services Case for consolidated single funding pots to embrace also reimbursements for BSOG, Revenue Support, and concessionary travel “make up” Sep 2010 Transport and the Economy Economic regeneration should not be sole criteria (response to HOCTC Inquiry) Revenue support imperative, imbalance with capital spending. Deregistrations making networks unstable. Small scale interventions can be good Value for Money (eg use of taxi buses) 17 evidence of NW Public Transport Users’ Forum (NWPTUF is now TWNW) to HOCTC May 2006 18 aka Citizens’ Advice Bureau—“Rail Magazine” 1/12/2010 19 The NW Public Transport Users’ Forum was a statutory sub committee (Transport Act 2000) of the RPC for NW England and eventually became TWNW, a Community Interest Company. 20 Covering the statutory London Travel Watch and some English Regions. 21 Ditto—and extending into Scotland and Wales cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Transport Committee: Evidence

Date Issues Strands May 2010 Improving bus passenger services by Deregistration and tactical withdrawal of regulation commercial services causing network instability. Oct 2009 Extending the remit of Passenger Focus Regional multi modal representative model advanced Bus passenger complaints handling confusing and currently inadequate. Jul 2009 Administration of concessionary travel Top tier LTAs should be Travel Concession Authorities. [Accepted] Need to reduce numbers of operator appeals Jun 2009 Local Bus Market Quality partnerships and Contracts. (response to OFT) Market contestable on road but not transparent— fares information not generally available before travel. Diminishing “off road” competition. Industry now oligopolistic, competition for the market replacing competition in the market. Fewer tenders and prices inﬂated. Predatory pricing and tactical registrations. Jan 2009 Eligibility for concessionary travel N/a May 2008 Local Bus support Approval of payment to LTAs and extension to Community Transport services. Linking to passenger trips more disadvantageous to rural services than linking to passenger/ kilometres. Linking to performance depends on availability of transparent data and resources for monitoring. May 2006 Bus Services across the UK Inter alia, argued for a “Voice for Bus Passengers” Evidence from NWPTUF to HOCTC The argument accepted and legislated for in Local Transport Act 2008

December 2010

Written evidence from M Simpkin (BUS 19) Thank you for inviting views from bus users. I am a recently retired local government ofﬁcer with experience in social services and public health policy. A car owner, I have always been an advocate and user of public transport, including at work.

1.0 General Comments Based on my Professional Experience 1.1 The reduction of the Bus Operator’s grant was forecast in the Department’s consultation paper (impact assessment) to have the probable consequence of fewer services and more expensive fares. Buses still seem to be seen as a less desirable form of transport except for those who have no alternative and this impact would only help further to undermine bus usage (still falling as I understand). This will affect all areas of the economy and all age groups. There must be particular concern about the impact on younger people—who are losing EMAs as well. Special rates for students are only part of the answer. Young people will be less able to afford to get to work and an inability to travel to work or leisure will lead to more local congregation with the potential for increasing anti social behaviour or the perception of it. (My son has to walk 35 minutes to and from his tiring minimum wage job because he cannot afford local bus fares and has nowhere safe to store a bicycle). Cuts which affect reliability, information services (eg real time) and cleanliness of buses, will also diminish usage. 1.2 Off Peak Travel: Most attention seems to be paid to commuter services which are economically essential, reliably used, the most overcrowded and, presumably, the most profitable. However off peak travel has a crucial role not just for non-employment travel (including hospital visits) but also for enabling more staggering of travel times, part time and flexible working arrangements, and therefore both carbon emissions and work- life balance. 1.3 Service planning: The present structure outside London does not enable satisfactory networks of services. Different ticket prices and poor ticketing systems are also a major deterrent to bus use. By contrast London buses (which may locally be taken for granted or seen as an expensive luxury) are the object of great envy from bus users in other cities. 1.4 Community Transport: The local authority where I live (Sheffield) has for some years subsidised or provided particular vital services which were not commercially attractive enough including a circular service which links a poorer (and unhealthier) area of the city with one of the two main central hospital complexes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w27

The revision and contracting of this service to Sheffield Community Transport has led to far better usage (very often by older people). Any threat to this service would have wide ripples of consequence. 1.5 Coach services: In the UK there is no widespread culture of using coaches as opposed to rail or care. Users are generally from poorer income groups including students, older people and people from countries where coach travel is much more widely accepted and often of a better standard. Few PTEs or planning authorities give any special attention to planning for coach services (whether local commuting or intercity) and it can be hard to find mention of them in local transport strategies. This is partly because of the anomalous status of the major operator, National Express. In particular local termini and stopping places are not seen as priorities (as has occurred in recent years during planning processes in both West and South Yorkshire). Significant increases to rail fares mean that more attention should be paid to more attractive and efficient coach service infrastructure. 1.6 Local concessionary bus pass: It would be hard to overstate the physical and psychological benefits of the free pass for older and disabled people. Mobility, visibility and access to all kinds of services (including leisure) are highly important in themselves and will become more so as many locally based services such as libraries retrench. Having older people more mobile also benefits their families and carers. 1.6.1 Public transport to services reduces the costs of outreach. Transport access (for all ages and abilities) is a major factor in determining viability of many public and charitable initiatives (including those designed to “nudge” into behaviour change). The same applies to leisure activities of all sorts from concerts to bingo; this sector will also be affected by reduced attendance. 1.6.2 Older people often feel fragile and unconfident so reintroduction of a fare system (even at a low flat rate) would be a significant deterrent not just financially but for practical reasons like fiddling for change, puzzlement about smart cards etc. Often it is those just above the cut off levels who suffer most and this would particularly affect older people. (cf. fuel poverty: where those most at risk of hypothermia are not necessarily older people in poor areas but those in larger properties which they cannot afford to heat.) 1.6.3 Members of marginal groups not entitled to concessionary fares are often resentful of those who get them. Older people can be their own worst enemies as preoccupation with their own safety and security (including getting on the bus) can lead them to appear to ignore the needs of others. I have also heard complaints that groups of older people can for this reason be intimidating. If service reductions and fare increases are presented in a way that blames retention of the free concessionary scheme for older people, there is a real risk of growingly overt hostility to older people. 1.7 Free national concessionary scheme: Widely welcomed by users, this pass has less obvious health and wellbeing benefits although it has probably led to greater use of bus services by a more middle class population segment. At first the introduction of the national scheme also produced occasional hostility, mainly non verbal, perhaps partly because of its original availability at 60 rather than 65. Economic impact on at least some local authorities remains a public worry, as perhaps does concern about overcrowding of certain services by OAP tourists—which led to restrictions. I outline a possible revision at 2.5.

2.0 Comments Deriving from Personal Experience 2.1 As a seasoned user of all types of public transport, I am clear about the attractions (and green benefits), where the service is adequate and reliable. I also observe that in urban areas outside London, better off people tend not to use buses or coaches—so the introduction of means tested fares to stop the rich swanning around on bus passes would not make a lot of difference to revenue and would encourage those who can drive back to their cars. 2.2 For me personally the bus pass is a huge liberator. I am clear that I often go out when I might not otherwise; our car use has dropped where there is an adequate alternative (it does not have to be ideal); and I am able to attend ticketed events where the additional cost of a return bus fare at current levels might push the cost over an acceptable limit. A free bus pass at the introduction of pension age, supported from general taxation (which I of course pay), seems to make all sorts of sense. 2.3 At first sight the concessionary scheme may appear as an economic drain but it should be made clear that subsidy contributes to keeping off peak services (and jobs) in existence, to a degree which fluctuating fare income may not. SYPTA support seems to be an important factor in helping improve train services between Sheffield and Leeds where off peak travel on shorter distance inter county trains is free to older residents of South Yorkshire (but not West Yorkshire)—thus helping to make off peak rail travel available to all users on the line, where otherwise it might not be economic. The overall significance of the subsidy to public transport is implicit in Stagecoach’s Brian Soutar’s comments (or threats?) on 8 December 2010 about perhaps running Granny Buses if the concession calculations are mishandled. 2.4 Uncertainty around fare levels, whether between different companies or the correct zones, deters older people. It also leads to delay at bus stops (wrong change, argument about fares, etc). When visiting cities abroad, I generally purchase a period travel pass which obviates the uncertainty and prefer this even if I am unlikely to achieve its full value. This is one welcome feature of the national concession scheme for buses, particularly in London. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Transport Committee: Evidence

2.5 If the national scheme had to be modified for economic reasons, my suggestion would be that people over 65 should have their local zone (Travel Authority area) free plus one other neighbouring zone (so as not to disadvantage border residents—eg for hospital attendance as well as general travel). A national pensioner’s bus pass would be available only on payment of an annual fee—analogous to the Senior Railcard but without further payment for tickets. National availability should provide economy of scale thus minimising administrative costs while enabling the fee to be set at a level which contributes to bus operation but could be seen as reasonable by pensioners. Such payment seems quite reasonable for those who want / are able to travel beyond their local area. Arguments for health and well being benefits are less cogent for the national pass given what everyone is having to suffer in terms of deficit related cuts. 2.6 Passenger Focus: I was vaguely aware of the rail function, but not of the bus function until checking in relation to this request for evidence. January 2011

Written evidence from P Spick (BUS 20) Call for Evidence—Relevance 1.0 Undertake an independent, frontline sustainable transport development role as Chair of the Estuary Commerce Park Travel Plan Group, representing 13 tenants employing 6,000 staff. Principally employed as Travel Plan Manager for one of these businesses—independently promoting sustainable transport initiatives and practice for 7,000 employees across the UK. This affords unique insights across the differing spectrum of policy, practice and implementation of the UK bus industry. 1.1 Promotional practice is at times hindered by legislation and regulation that, as I will highlight, often leads to an increased cost to the travelling public, a reduced quality of service, deters patronage through instability and restricts the implementation of cheaper ticketing options for the public. 1.2 Both user and non-user perceptions of the bus industry greatly hinder efforts to reduce our reliance on single occupancy vehicle usage, contributing negatively towards a number of key transport targets for Local Authorities to deliver upon to name but few of the issues of sustainability Government are required to act in a positive, joined up manner. 1.3 Public transport is of the upmost importance for it joins all aspects of society together as one in their motional requirement. Good public transport can only enhance the rating of our current society which the sitting Government wishes to address.

Passenger Focus “How passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services and the role of Passenger Focus in this area” 2.0 Passenger Focus is barely referenced by Local Authority / Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) supporting and promotional staff, yet their relevance is of upmost importance. In the same vein, no single public transport users at the 14 UK sites I primarily cover have ever referenced Passenger Focus in 4.5 years in the role. 2.1 Employee experiences and insights have duly been conveyed directly to bus operators / Local Authority and ITA’s, by-passing Passenger Focus, in-turn lessening their ability to inﬂuence aspects of bus service provision. Frontline Travel Plan and other independent practitioners require a mechanism with Passenger Focus to input and share customer service and best practice delivery options, eg through ACT Travelwise network.

Small / Independent / Community Transport Operators 3.0 Such operators undoubtedly face a multitude of increased pressure from rising fuel expenditure, associated Health & Safety requirements, driver training and improved vehicle efficiencies to name but few of the obstacles to negotiate in the continued aim of providing often critical community supportive services to the public / or part-subsidised critical accessibility services. 3.1 The proposed 20% cut in Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) is likely to have a detrimental impact upon the range, quality and variety of service providers and subsequent vehicles able to operate within this field. It will also impact detrimentally on the motional requirements of an aging population and takes away from the table on which the “Big Society” is based. Local Authority funding restrictions are also set to impact on subsidised services to the excessive detriment of societal requirements from 2011. 3.2 The financial squeeze on smaller / independent operators is set to be magnified in certain urban and metropolitan areas, owing to the necessity of the nationwide operators to further streamline. Partnership working (as witnessed in Merseyside between Arriva and Stagecoach on reducing timetabling clashes) and the growing prevalence of Bus Quality Partnerships (referencing Greater Manchester), can but sweep aside smaller operators, taking away their ability to run on high-revenue routes. Removing access to a slice of the profitable bus services that remain, impacts on the quality of vehicles in operation for other routes, placing smaller cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w29

operators on a rapid downward spiral trajectory. Untargeted BSOG reductions are set to harm overall accessibility levels and the ability of the population to move at relative “free will”, and switch to more sustainable means of transportation. 3.3 A cut to BSOG may well see an influx of smaller operators struggling to survive, scheduling services on major routes. Might it be better to direct such operators towards merger and maximising vehicle efficiencies, with Government providing the conditions and parameters for a favourable BSOG rate in-tow to achieve this scaled efficiency? 3.4 At the same time, across UK, conditions exist to provide the framework for the major operators to tender for established routes, or “equal” divisions / segments of cities / metropolitan areas, thereby maximising efficient operation without competition. The travelling public need not be forced into making up the entire 20% fuel subsidy reduction, primarily through noticeably cheaper ticketing possibilities (see 4.4 & 5.3). 3.5 A realignment of legislation may be desirable, but only feasible if smaller operators “forced” from major routes receive a suitable BSOG to maintain critical, supported services. Losing a vast base of smaller operators is not desirable. Any merger / combination, partnership working, sharing / maximising asset efficiency, or branding with community transport operators, the charity transport sector, school buses and services may well see a stronger, more locally focussed, efficient and deliverable smaller operator base. Knowsley Community Transport is an example of such developing practice. 3.6 Such a community transport base might go on to provide a viable opportunity to shape the resources required for aspects of the NHS Ambulance Patient Transfer Service, obtaining additional economies of scale, as required by our changing demographic profile. In the same breath dare we mention the impact of “choice” upon the NHS’ transport impact and future requirements? 3.7 Maintaining societal cohesion, accessibility, critical access for our aging population and younger generation priced away from driving, requires examination of the possibility for maintaining vital rural community lifelines via establishing a favourable BSOG rate for rural services.

Nationwide Operators (“The Big 5”) 4.0 Bigger does not necessarily translate as stronger and more able to handle a 20% cut in BSOG. As proclaimed by one major operator, profits from the big operator’s respective bus sectors in 2009 roughly amounted to £450 million. The 20% BSOG cut amounts to around £430 million at 2009 levels. Nationwide operators require profit to reinvest in more modern, attractive, comfortable fleets. The Government requires this of them. More importantly the paying passengers require this satisfaction and mechanism to work, without overly pricing individuals away from bus travel, for example, towards taxi services. How any legislative table can be cleared, together with the shackles of the outdated pre-requisite of “enforced competition” would be overly welcomed by the travelling public to prevent over and above inflation price rises in the coming years. 4.1 A rapid change is being forced upon the major operators, yet as history records, no changes to the legislative operating table are as nearly as quickly implemented, which is set to disadvantage major operators and the travelling public. What will the time lag be between penalising passengers with higher fares and introducing free-functioning legislation based on past changes of 1984, and 13-years of relative foundation stone laying to 2010? 4.2 The benefits of Quality Bus Partnerships are there for the passenger, operator and legislator. They were already present ahead of the announced 20% reduction to BSOG, but “slack in the system” has been allowed to prevail for some time. This era has drawn to a close. Will operators be allowed to function without competition, to enable absolute maximisation of their resources, efficiencies and more to be able to deliver uncluttered, recognisable, stable services, at a current or possibly lower fare than what is set to be introduced when BSOG is reduced? How can a 20% cut be implemented without accompanying changes to operative legislation to mitigate the impact on the travelling, paying public? 4.3 Nationwide operators are of a scale not witnessed ahead of the 1984 watershed, yet they run in competition to one another, struggling to attain market share from each other in many metropolitan areas, towns and cities, resulting in frequent over capacity, and “slack-in-the-system”, which is set to be stripped out by the BSOG reductions? 4.4 Where a “relative division” occurs, for example, the vast majority of bus services operated in Northern Manchester is by First Group (with South Manchester being overwhelmingly dominated by branded Stagecoach services and subsidiary brands..), greater efficiencies are possible. This is reflected in First Group being able to offer annual ticketing deals, saving 21% in comparison to a normal monthly ticket. Quite an attraction / stimulant for growing passenger numbers, and worthy of investigating just what impact zero-competition can have upon ticket prices without impacting upon the frequency, standard or delivery of services? 4.5 The division of service operators based on obvious geographical boundaries / partitions (north / south— east / west) is possible across the UK, even where particular divisions may have more obvious, profitable bus routes / sub-urban areas. A tendering process to facilitate such a change of direction would be required. In lean times, perhaps the only competition should be between tender submissions in envelopes and not between half empty buses trawling for passengers that are only able to run thanks to the part state subsidy set to be reduced. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Transport Committee: Evidence

Competition and Pricing 5.0 Unfortunately competition is not viewed favourably. This is not based on pre-1984 perspectives (13 at the time…), but through a variety of observations that, as a front line public transport promoter, and more importantly user, remain a hindrance and barrier to attracting passengers to core bus services operated by the nationwide providers. 5.1 I reference purchasing one particular operators monthly pass, who provide services along a route from a home destination out beyond the core urban area (and where another operator ceases to run) to an edge of city worksite. Yet upon wishing to travel in the opposite direction from that home location for evening or weekend pursuits, all too frequently, a rival operator comes along and doubt is placed in the passengers mind? Do you chance that your operator will turn up on time? Do you make friends and family wait at the bus stop for longer to accommodate your pre-paid travel? I appreciate smart-ticketing will rule out such doubts—but will ticketing be as cheap as a single operator, providing services without competition through a tendering process, as certain operators are prepared to offer in monthly or annualised ticketing? See 4.4 & 5.3. 5.2 In 2009 I was fortunate to witness the introduction of competition to bus services in a medium sized market town (pop. 95.000, surrounding County pop. 556.000). Prior to Spring 2009, one nationwide operator handled all services into the town, with discount ticketing options available for monthly, half-year and annual passes. However, the knock-on effects of 2008’s fuel spike came home to roost, resulting in more than noticeable increases to ticket prices (except for individuals insulated through half-year or annual passes until they expired). 5.3 Such rises, and the charge to the nationwide operator by the Local Authority / County Council that service levels were poor considering the scale of operation and resources at their disposal, resulted in the controlling authority seeking to “open-up” established services to competition. The result of this introduced competition was not at all favourable to bus passengers based on the experiences of colleagues I represent: A—The nationwide operator decided it was no longer viable to operate evening services. B—This left passengers with monthly, half-year and annual passes high and dry! C—The introduced operator was initially decreed to honour such valid passes from the nationwide operator by the Local Authority / County Council. D—The introduced operator found they too could not viably run evening services, partially due to the level of external passes they were having to honour. E—A 50p surcharge was introduced for external pass holders travelling on the introduced operators evening services—pushing up the price of travel by £2.50 / week (an outstanding increase in annual travel expense of £115 for one colleague). F—The introduced smaller operators spare resources and driver reserves were not of a sufﬁcient standard to cover emergency situations / breakdowns / driver sickness, with the depot located an unacceptable distance away from where services operated, resulting in the frequent absence of crucial evening services, deterring continued patronage or attracting growth to services—resulting in an additional parking facility lease and expense to business. G—With 550 employees, a site operational from 7am–11pm, 380 staff on ﬂexible shift or annualised hours contracts, current bus service arrangements are but unhelpful, increasing the cost of travel and preventing the introduction of a ticketing arrangement that would save 6% on the monthly cost of travel in the area (at current rates with competition in services—possibly lower if that competition were not present)?

Summary and Close — Passenger Focus require greater promotion / visibility to the travelling public. — Small / Independent / Community operators need to merge, pool resources, and look to diversify— but away from developing Quality Partnership routes operated by the big 5 nationwide operators. — A more favourable BSOG is required to assist smaller operators et al who merge in such a way as to provide critical accessibility and community services as part of the big society umbrella of ideas. — Nationwide operators (big 5) require tendering process to bid for area’s / segments in a logical geographical order—to then run without competition (thus reducing costs, in turn reducing unnecessary expense to passengers). — Legislation required to match the scale and pace of change within the bus industry owing to BSOG and Local Authority funding cuts — Cheaper ticketing options are available through just the one operator providing services. Evidence that the arrival of competition in 2009 was wholly detrimental to service standards, reliability and price. To close, apologies for the lack of statistical and ﬁnancial punch to accompany this evidence submission. Travel Planners do, as a whole, suffer from a lack of the heavy internal facts and ﬁgures, which may well be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w31

used to help interpret some of the representations from passengers we deal with at ﬁrst hand. Naturally, frontline sustainable travel promoters do not have to live in fear of the Competition Commission! January 2011

Written evidence from Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company (DBCIC) (BUS 21) Introduction DBCIC is a social enterprise company founded in 2007 by the Yorkshire Dales Society and the Yorkshire Dales Public Transport Users Group to replace the Sunday bus service between Ilkley and Skipton withdrawn in 2006. It has since taken on management of much of the Sunday and Bank Holiday DalesBus network of bus services within and into the Yorkshire Dales National Park, trebling passenger numbers, attracting revenue grants from other stakeholders in both public and private sectors and halving the subsidy per passenger journey previously paid by North Yorkshire County Council. Additionally some seasonal weekday journeys have been operated in 2009 and 2010. In 2010–11 DBCIC services have already carried over 23,000 passengers and the required support per passenger has been further reduced. A brieﬁng note on DBCIC is appended to this evidence including an annex with ﬁnancial and performance statistics updated to include the latest information from 2010–11. Unfortunately, DBCIC is currently facing the loss of its revenue funding from North Yorkshire County Council and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and there is further uncertainty about the ability of some other funders to support DalesBus in 2011–12. The Company welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the Transport Committee’s Inquiry into “Bus Services after the Spending Review”. Responses to the four issues raised by the Committee are detailed below. If required the Company will be pleased to supplement this evidence orally.

1. Impact of the Reduction in BSOG As this will not come into effect until April 2012, DBCIC can only predict the impact based upon experience. It is likely to affect rural operations to a greater extent than urban operations as fuel costs are a greater proportion of total operating costs for a rural bus service due to the longer distances travelled and faster journey speeds. However fuel will remain a relatively small proportion (< 25%) of total bus operating costs which are dominated by labour costs, vehicle depreciation and maintenance and insurance premiums. DBCIC costs are predominantly the costs of contracts placed after securing services through competitive tender together with marketing expenditure. Accordingly the impact should be containable provided operators do not use the changes in BSOG as an excuse to raise tender prices disproportionately. Of more concern is the likelihood of further increases in oil prices, as many smaller rural bus operators have to purchase diesel at local pump prices and are unable to negotiate large discounts with suppliers which the large groups receive.

2. Impact of Local Authority Grant Support Cuts As indicated in the introduction, this is a major concern for DBCIC as at the time of writing North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is intending to withdraw support for all Sunday and evening bus services and is also implementing cuts to weekday networks. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) had already signalled its intention to cease funding DalesBus after 2010 and Metro (WYITA) is facing budget pressures but still hopes to maintain a similar level of support in 2011. DBCIC has had considerable success in working to involve other stakeholders in funding its activities and had hopes of extending the funding base, for example by securing contributions from the health sector to reflect the healthy living benefits of DalesBus services and from other Dales business and community organisations on the basis of the proven benefits to the Dales economy and environment of the services. However, with the severity of cuts affecting the public sector and the consequential impacts on many Dales businesses who supply public organisations, not to mention the direct increase in unemployment we have to take a pessimistic view of the prospects for significant additional funding to replace the NYCC and YDNPA grants at this stage. The proposed LA grant support reductions therefore threaten to have a severe impact on sustainable access to and around the Yorkshire Dales National Park, Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the surrounding area. Bus services are likely to disappear on Sundays and Bank Holidays from much of this area, which has few rail links, creating significant adverse economic, social and environmental impacts. Directors of DBCIC have met with local MPs at the House of Commons to gain their support for a bid to the new Local Sustainable Transport Fund as a pilot “Big Society” project but it is feared that this funding will not be available in time to save the Summer 2011 DalesBus season which would normally commence at Easter (one of the busiest weekends of the year for tourism in the Dales). Funding for the core network of services which DBCIC manages on a year-round basis also ceases at the end of the financial year in March, thereby placing these popular services at severe risk in the short-term. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Transport Committee: Evidence

Experience has shown that withdrawal of services results in loss of regular passengers, often to cars. Even if services are subsequently reinstated a substantial marketing push is required to build up new patronage let alone increase it from previous levels. This would be particularly disappointing as DBCIC’s marketing has been notably successful in attracting new business. In recognition of the Company’s innovative approach to service development and marketing we received SIS (Stimulating Innovation for Success) funding from Nottingham Business School in 2009 to assist with marketing the DalesBus network; this contributed to 56% growth in passenger numbers in 2009. It is often not recognised (particularly in political circles it has to be said!) that cutting subsidised services will also have an adverse impact on commercial and indeed other supported services in the area. This is because many return journeys will be made in one direction in the daytime when services may be commercial or supported on the basis that daytime services are busier and therefore of greater “value” than evening or weekend services. If the evening or weekend service is no longer available both legs of the return journey are lost. In consequence the user suffers, in many cases accentuating social exclusion for low income families in rural areas, bus operators suffer additional loss of income on their remaining commercial or supported services and, if the trips transfer to car, there are potential adverse consequences for the environment and energy conservation. DBCIC has been working to increase the utility of its services (which were initially designed for leisure and recreational use for the local Dales communities) and fears that the impact of the NYCC approach to blanket subsidy cuts will be disproportionately severe on workers in rural areas, particularly in the service sectors, many of whom have to travel on evening services and for people travelling to attend clinics and hospitals, whether as patients or visitors, who also need to travel in evening and weekend periods. Even if DBCIC is able to secure funding to maintain its existing core services at 2010 levels in the coming year, the loss of NYCC support for other services within the DalesBus network, some of which act as feeders to services managed by DBCIC, is a serious concern. Whilst DBCIC could not replace these services without additional funding an offer has been made to NYCC to manage these services. We anticipate that the support required would be 20% lower than 2010 cost levels. By the end of 2010, this offer had not been taken up by the Council, although productive discussions are in progress regarding the inclusion of DBCIC and community transport proposals within a NYCC-led bid for support from the Sustainable Local Transport Fund, when this comes into effect later in 2011. We remain concerned however that, without sufﬁcient funding to cover the period until the outcome of the bid is known, the Dales are vulnerable to discontinuation of several core services from April 2011.

3. Impact of Free Concessionary Fares DBCIC supports all measures to increase the use of public transport so the principle of free bus travel is to be welcomed. However although this is a universal benefit (ie not means tested) it is also an unequal benefit as it is of no use if there are inadequate or non-existent bus services to use it on. Furthermore it is a hindrance to improving rural bus services if it results in lower total income for operators as is the case with DalesBus. The problem emanates from the false assumption for rural bus services that free travel will generate large numbers of additional passengers and these can be accommodated within existing capacity. Infrequent weekday services such as those found within the Yorkshire Dales area in Swaledale, Wensleydale and Upper Wharfedale are still carrying essentially the same passengers but the concessionary reimbursements are considerably less than the fares previously paid. DalesBus services from West Yorkshire conurbations into the Dales have generated additional concessionary passengers but these buses were well patronised pre 2008 (or else they would not have been operating) and are now prone to overcrowding which discourages fare-paying passengers. Worse still for DBCIC, total revenue is less than pre-2008 as the CIC has resisted the temptation to increase adult fares to compensate for the lost revenue and indeed generate extra concessionary reimbursements. By comparison, some operators have increased adult fares and rover tickets by over 25% to generate additional concessionary reimbursements. The iconic Yorkshire Dalesman service from York and Leeds to Hawes every Summer Sunday carried an average of over 100 passengers every day throughout the season with standing loads on peak days but due to the high proportion of concessionary passengers carried (approximately 70%) and the low reimbursement rates for long distance services, it failed to break even let alone deliver a profit which most users would expect it to achieve. Several DalesBus services are limited to smaller vehicles by the infrastructure of the road network in the Dales, especially the arch at Bolton Abbey and narrow roads with steep gradients around Malham Tarn, Dentdale, Swaledale and Upper Nidderdale. On these roads a 30 seater vehicle is considered a “large bus” (16 to 25 seaters are the norm) and as such vehicles are often classified as coaches with seat belts, standees are not permitted. If 70% of passengers carried are concessionaries, a full load may only contain six fare-paying passengers and the total income generated may only be the equivalent of 12 fare-payers. On some routes, children carried commercially at half fare generate more income for the operator than elderly concessionaries. A further problem generated by free concessionary bus travel is the perception that rail travel (even with a Railcard) is disproportionately expensive leading to elderly passenger resistance to integrated rail-bus services for longer journeys. This is very unfortunate as both Northern Rail and the Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line are prepared to support connecting buses at Ribblehead and Dent Stations to enable the Leeds-Settle-Carlisle cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w33

trains (which are running anyway with spare capacity and receiving DfT support) to be used for the “long haul” with a short connecting bus journey into Dentdale, Swaledale and Upper Wensleydale. Such services are much faster than long distance buses and can actually be quicker than travelling by car and considerably more environmentally friendly. Free travel also has a tendency to lead to poorer service quality as concessionary passengers are less likely to complain and the usual compensation provided by operators (free travel vouchers) is of no beneﬁt to them. This corollary applies to other public services offered free at the point of use such as car parking, the NHS and public conveniences.

4. Taking Account of Passenger Views DBCIC’s business model is built on inclusivity and responding to the views and needs of the wide base of Stakeholders including users, community organisations, funders and operators. For example, the Company consults with the Yorkshire Dales Public Transport Users Group on a regular basis to ensure that its services meet the needs of their users. DBCIC directors and volunteers travel regularly on DalesBus services talking to passengers and monitoring standards of operation and we have worked with the University of Central Lancashire and Nottingham Business School on research projects which have included passenger surveys and market research. Whilst it was pleasing to see that NYCC put its proposal to cut evening and Sunday services out to consultation, it is disappointing that examination of the published reports to the Council’s Executive and Scrutiny Committee suggests that the concerns expressed by over 300 users and other stakeholders do not appear to have resulted in any modifications whatsoever to the council’s original plans. It is also unfortunate that NYCC are not even going to reply individually to objectors, including a substantial number of representative organisations such as parish and town councils and business groups. For many years it was anomalous that the generally more affluent and eloquent market segment of rail passengers had statutory representation on a wide range of issues, but that the far larger, but generally less vociferous, group of bus passengers had only a voluntary mechanism established after the 1985 Transport Act deregulated bus services outside London. DBCIC was therefore pleased when Passenger Focus remit was extended to include bus services and we have had some useful contact with its officers. We also maintain liaison with other organisations who take an interest in matters affecting bus passengers, both nationally and locally, including Bus Users UK, the Campaign for Better Transport and Travel Watch North West. It is however unclear how much influence these organisations are currently able to exert on behalf of the passenger. With the resources available to Passenger Focus it is likely that its interest in bus matters will be mainly directed to general monitoring and suggestions for improvement on an industry wide basis. It is gratifying that they have already recognised that the bus industry needs the active involvement of local highway and transport authorities and we believe that they are taking a close interest in the way in which decisions are taken to allocate contracts for supported services. January 2011

Further written evidence the Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company (DBCIC) (BUS 21a) Introduction DBCIC welcomed the original opportunity to submit evidence to the Transport Committee’s Inquiry into “Bus Services after the Spending Review” in January. Noting that in its Press Notice of 2 March 2011 the Committee has speciﬁcally requested evidence from stakeholders on a number of matters relating to how recent changes to funding for bus provision are affecting—or are likely to affect—local bus service, including consultation DBCIC has prepared this Supplementary Memorandum. We cover the following topics: 1. Background—the DalesBus Story 2. Implementation of Bus Subsidy Cuts in North Yorkshire 3. The Consultation Process and Results 4. The “Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon” White Paper, Community Transport Funding and Local Sustainable Transport in rural areas 5. The Dales Integrated Transport Alliance proposition 6. Conclusions and Proposals

1. Background—The DalesBus Story DBCIC is a social enterprise company founded in 2007 by the Yorkshire Dales Society and the Yorkshire Dales Public Transport Users Group to replace the Sunday bus service between Ilkley and Skipton withdrawn in 2006. It has since taken on management of much of the Sunday and Bank Holiday DalesBus network of bus services within and into the Yorkshire Dales National Park with striking success, introducing additional cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Transport Committee: Evidence

services, trebling passenger numbers and attracting revenue grants from other stakeholders in both public and private sectors as summarised below. Additionally some seasonal weekday journeys have been operated in 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately, DBCIC will not receive any revenue funding from North Yorkshire County Council in 2011–12 and the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has made clear that it will not be able to afford any funding beyond the current year. There is further uncertainty about the ability of some other funders to support DalesBus in 2011–12 and beyond. Paradoxically, despite the cuts in public funding DBCIC has successfully negotiated with commercial operators to provide additional services and is using its accumulated reserves to operate an even better DalesBus network in 2011–12. After that, the future is grim unless other initiatives promoted by DBCIC and its partners are successful. The tables on the following page summarise DalesBus funding and performance over the life of the company. Key features are: — Doing more with less—the service network has increased each year despite tight control over costs and reductions in funding; — “Harvesting” of stakeholder contributions so that the network does not depend solely on service subsidy from the local transport authority. The consequences of the CSR have had a major impact on DBCIC’s business plan as discussed further below: DALESBUS FUNDING PARTNERS Funding Partners 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Local Transport Authority Stakeholders 2 2 1 Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, Nidderdale Area of 3 3 1 Outstanding Natural Beauty, Natural England Parish Councils - 1 ? Transport Operators (Northern Rail) 1 1 ? Environment and Heritage Supporters Groups 3 1 ? Transport Supporters Groups 3 2 ? Number of Funding Partners 12 10 2+ Total Funding (including reserves 2011–12) £85,250 £77,800 £62,500+* reductions − −8.8% −19.7%

*2011–12 funding includes reserves accumulated by the Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company which together with commercial service extensions negotiated with public transport operators have secured an extended network of services in 2011–12. PATRONAGE COMPARISONS Period Total Change from: Passengers Previous 2008–09 Year Actual 2008–09 13,064 Actual 2009–10 20,362 +56% +56% Actual 2010–11 26,678 +32% +105% — Patronage more than doubled resulting from detailed service planning and co-ordination with other bus and train services at gateways to the Dales as well as taking account of needs expressed through user and operator stakeholders; — Well-targeted marketing and information including interchange and round trip itineraries has increased visitors use of services; — Surveys by the VisTrav network based at the University of Central Lancashire suggest that the economic beneﬁts of visitor trafﬁc using the DalesBus network are now worth over £350,000 per year; NET COST PER PASSENGER Period Net Cost per Compared to: Passenger Previous Year (%) “Inherited” (%) (£.p) “Inherited” 2007–08 6.63 (all paid by North Yorkshire County Council) Actual 2008–09 (shared by partners) 3.29 −50% −50% Actual 2009–10 (shared by partners) 3.53 +7% −47% Forecast 2010–11 (shared by partners)* 2.46 −30% −63%

— Forecast 2010–11 updated April 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w35

— Support costs per passenger dropped by almost two thirds to £2.46, still a higher ﬁgure than desirable but comparing well with other rural bus services; — Support costs are now shared between stakeholders rather than borne by a single transport authority. Importantly those stakeholders include businesses, a local community and user groups that are beneﬁciaries of the services.

2. Implementation of Bus Subsidy Cuts in North Yorkshire In September 2010, it was announced that North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) would consult on proposals to withdraw subsidy from all evening, Sunday and Bank Holiday services in the county from April 2011. The use of concessionary bus passes would then be restricted to after 0930 (in line with the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) rather than 0900 under the then current local scheme. Subsidy for the weekday 767 Harrogate to Leeds Bradford l Airport service was also withdrawn. The rationale for this action—apart from the urgent need to save money—was apparently a belief that the primary use of evening and Sunday servicers is for social and leisure purposes. This is misguided as many work trips, particularly by low paid shift workers, take place in the evenings and on Sundays. As pointed out in DBCIC’s previous evidence: “… cutting subsidised services will also have an adverse impact on commercial and indeed other supported services in the area. …..many return journeys will be made in one direction in the daytime when services may be commercial or supported on the basis that daytime services are busier and therefore of greater ‘value’ than evening or weekend services. If the evening or weekend service is no longer available both legs of the return journey are lost.” Typically in the Dales (and many other rural areas) low paid shift workers are predominantly employed in the caring or hospitality sectors. They may well find difficulty in meeting the running costs of cars but the cars they can afford are often older, less efficient, more polluting and less reliable than modern vehicles. The social costs of cutting evening and Sunday services are likely to be high. Continuing them may not be the best solution but community car schemes, lift sharing or subsidised taxis could be alternatives. There is no indication that NYCC have examined the costs of the retained daytime subsidised services apart from the 767 Airport service although DBCIC is aware of several cases where costs per passenger are high and usage appears low. DBCIC believe that: 1. NYCC should have undertaken a more rigorous analysis considering all subsidised services before determining which services to cut; 2. Alternatives should have been explored and the consultation should have allowed the consultees to express their preferences. For example options might have included cutting all services (regardless of period of operation) costing more than a benchmark determined by NYCC in the light of its available budget, or use of cars and taxis at times of low demand; 3. The assumed valuation of evening and weekend services is wrong, certainly socially, probably economically (a number of the services cut brought in useful visitor spending which is likely to be lost to the area) and possibly environmentally.

3. The Consultation Process and Results The NYCC intention to cut all evening and Sunday services was announced concurrently with a consultation survey across the county. This raised expectations, particularly in remote and fragile rural communities, that the cuts might be open to review. DBCIC has had access to the published consultation responses and papers for decision on NYCC’s web-site. Together with comments on process these are analysed below with particular reference to DalesBus services.

Procedure Although North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) claim to have consulted all directly-affected Parish Councils, they appear only to have consulted Parish Councils through which the routes proposed for cuts passed (presumably this applies to services in other areas too). Some of the omitted Parish Councils in the Dales were however alerted by the Yorkshire Dales Public Transport Users Group (YDPTUG) and have responded.

Results Objections Objections Support Category of Total Objections to to Other to general for cuts Respondent responses DalesBus cuts Speciﬁc cuts cuts policy policy Public 270 84 31% 169 63% 59 22% 3 1% Councils 61 14 23% 50 82% 34 56% 4 7% cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Transport Committee: Evidence

Objections Objections Support Category of Total Objections to to Other to general for cuts Respondent responses DalesBus cuts Specific cuts cuts policy policy Councillors/MPS 8 0 0% 4 50% 3 38% 1 13% TOTALS 339 98 29% 223 66% 96 28% 8 2% N.B. Some objectors cite several areas or services so totals are more than 100% 29% of the comments recorded specifically opposed DalesBus cuts, whilst a further 28% raise general objections to the cuts. 66% commented adversely on the proposals affecting other parts of North Yorkshire. Only 2% express even partial support for the County Council’s proposals. There are a further four responses that recognise that cuts needs to be made, but this does not necessarily imply support for the proposals. 120 (35%) of comments specifically identified problems with work journeys and 40 (12%) with health related travel as a result of the cuts.

Geographical distribution of comments Looking at the geographical distribution of speciﬁc comments, the majority are, as expected, in the most rural and most economically deprived areas—the Dales (including Richmondshire) with 98; the Coast and Moors (Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale) with 118; Selby and Goole (more urban but with low economic activity) 61; Hambleton (principally rural hinterland north of York) 15 and Harrogate (all relating to a single service to Leeds Bradford International Airport seen as necessary for economic development) 6. In other parts of the county the principal services are inter-urban and mainly commercial.

Follow up A few respondents including the Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company (D&B CIC) offered alternative proposals to achieve the necessary savings. It might have been expected that with only 2% of respondents supporting the policy, 28% objecting to the policy in general and a large number of speciﬁc criticisms by respondents there would have been some further consideration and discussion by the County Council. As far as DBCIC is concerned NYCC has made no response to its proposals.

Use of survey results According to a story in the Darlington and Stockton Times on 14 January 2011, contracts were signed on 8 October 2010, three weeks before the consultation ended on 31 October 2010 for subsidised services in the Richmond Area to commence on 1 April 2011. This perhaps explains the lack of engagement with respondents offering alternatives for consideration. It is unfortunate that having been led to believe that the consultation was an essential part of the decision process representatives of bus users ﬁnd that they have participated in what can at best be described as a costly but redundant exercise.

Oral evidence When the Assistant Director of the Integrated Passenger Transport Unit at North Yorkshire County Council was examined by your Committee he appeared to say that because different areas of the county have different characteristics and needs all would opt for the status quo or for cuts elsewhere. In his view it was not possible to produce detailed options for consultation that would enable meaningful comparisons to be made between areas—a sort of “turkeys voting for Christmas” argument. As the Council must make such comparisons itself (or should do so) in determining priorities for its subsidy budget, it is rather patronising that NYCC do not trust the representative organisations and residents that they consult to consider rationally the difﬁcult choices to be made.

4. The “Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon” White Paper, Community Transport Funding and Local Sustainable Transport in rural areas The White Paper (subtitled “Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen”) was published on 19 January 2011 supported by details of the application process for the Local Sustainable Transport Fund. The White Paper contains surprisingly little that is new on bus services, although it does reiterate commitments to smart and integrated ticketing. The Executive Summary states “… it is simply not possible for public transport, walking or cycling to represent a viable alternative to the private car….particularly in rural areas…..” and goes on to espouse development of the electric and hybrid vehicle markets which will take time to have maximum impact as the replacement of existing vehicles will take more than a decade, longer in a depressed economic climate. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is a welcome stimulus to development of new thinking but it is disappointing that it is a one-off fund expiring in 2015 rather than rolled into the Department’s rationalised annual grant streams. This would stimulate transport networks delivering better social and economic cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w37

performance for the communities served whilst also reducing carbon emissions and other environmental damage. Apparently as a palliative seeking to overcome some of the damage of the cuts in bus service funding, the Government has made available a substantial injection of funds for Community Transport in 2011–12. Whilst this is welcome it is not entirely clear why the funding should be restricted to community transport rather than available for passenger transport more generally. In some areas Community Transport is well established and the required voluntary input is available. In other parts of the country there is less enthusiasm for volunteering to provide transport services. It is often the case that scheduled bus services can be delivered more cheaply and reliably than dial a ride which has to bear extra costs of dynamic scheduling and control. There are problems for holders of the English National Concessionary Travel Pass in areas with few bus or eligible community transport services and the Government must address the severe inequalities that arise between users of this beneﬁt in different areas. In many cases the restriction on starting time may save reimbursement costs according to the reimbursement formulae used but in practice the resource costs of permitting travel before 09:30 are nil. Such anomalies need to be addressed in a review challenging whether the “no better, no worse” principle remains ﬁt for purpose, particularly as smart ticketing becomes widely available. DBCIC believes that a defeatist attitude still pervades both Government and much industry thinking about public transport and that far more needs to be done both in policy and in delivery to develop public transport networks that use the different modes in combination. Integrated solutions are about more than co-ordination of timetables and should be concerned with building partnerships and using the technologies and techniques now available for use smarter travel planning to seek out the best solutions to the complex web of problems facing rural areas. This means trains, buses, community transport, taxis, car clubs and lift sharing all working together to produce the best combination of services with the resources collectively available. For example a worker starting a late shift might travel to work on the daytime bus service but return late at night in a shared taxi. Successful solutions can be seen in Switzerland, or slightly closer to home in the taxi-buses of the Netherlands and Germany.

5. The Dales Integrated Transport Alliance Proposition The Dales Integrated Transport Alliance (DITA) is a grouping established by DBCIC and the Little Red Bus Company (a social enterprise company providing community transport and contracted local bus services established by Harrogate Community transport with an affiliated network across North Yorkshire), local bus and train operators, community and business associations and local authorities. DITA currently has over 50 supporters and plans to become a Co-operative consortium to develop and manage a community-based sustainable integrated passenger transport network for the Dales area. An application has been made for Sustainable Local Transport funding for development and pump priming but in the longer term from 2015 there is a binding target that the network should require no more support in real terms than in 2011–12. DITA believes that in fact greater economies should be possible by drawing into the network vehicles used for education, local authority and health services in both public and private sectors. The DITA proposition can be summarised as: — Pooling of resources from the few providers of commercial bus services in the area, public bodies and beneficiaries of transport services. — Development of a core network of mainline bus services, with demand responsive feeder services, replacing the current mix of tendered bus services and separately procured transport services. The network will include scheduled local buses, demand responsive minibuses, shared taxis, car clubs, cycle hire, combined passenger and (in due course) parcel/light goods carriage etc. Co-ordinated service scheduling, procurement and management will enhance service provision whilst reducing costs. Subsidised services will be procured through the transport authorities. — Establishment of key transport hubs and gateways that are currently, or can be, served by good quality, relatively fast bus services or rail services to and from key market town/service centres. Potential hubs include Settle, Grassington, Pateley Bridge, Ripon, Leyburn, Hawes and Reeth. Gateways at Skipton, Ilkley, Harrogate and Northallerton and stations on the Leeds-Settle-Carlisle and Leeds-Lancaster/Morecambe railways are important. — Walking and Cycling development, particularly for recreational use as the distances between settlements, road network and climate of the Dales are not conducive to significant expansion of use of the “active modes” by residents. Commercial opportunities exist for businesses such as cycle hire. — Building Local Sustainable Transport Partnerships based on the hubs comprising representatives from local communities, local businesses (especially those with tourism interests), parish councils, GP practices, social services, local schools and regular bus users. These would help ensure that solutions meet local needs, giving local communities a powerful voice and real ownership of their transport provision. Each local transport partnership would also undertake local marketing activity. This approach would utilise unique local third-sector capabilities, including: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Transport Committee: Evidence

— The Little Red Bus’ computerised scheduling system and call-centre facilities in Harrogate, to be built on to provide a comprehensive brokerage service including the provision of demand- responsive transport (whether Community Buses, taxis or other car based services), lift sharing and community car club bookings as well as providing personalised journey planning advice. — Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company’s expertise in planning and marketing bus services to appeal to both local residents and visitors to the area.

6. Conclusions and Proposals Based on the less than satisfactory experience with the withdrawal of subsidies from all evening and Sunday bus services in North Yorkshire, DBCIC suggests the following: 1. Transparent criteria for the support of “socially necessary” bus services should be drawn up and published by all local transport authorities. Some authorities already have these. 2. The Department for Transport should investigate existing practices for support of subsidised bus services and publish its ﬁndings in a good practice guide. 3. Where consultation is undertaken it should genuinely be used to inform decision making and avoid raising expectations in an already fragile market. On more general points relating to public transport and sustainability: 4. Community transport and other shared modes including taxis, car clubs and lift giving are complements to, not direct substitutes for, bus services. Integrated networks should be promoted. 5. The principles of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund are good and should be rolled into the rationalised funding streams of the Department for Transport. 6. An independent review of the types of service on which English National Concessionary Travel passes can be used and of the basis of reimbursement under the scheme to remove inequalities between different types of area should be commissioned by the Government. The DITA proposition is a new approach to community based development and management of local passenger transport services. DBCIC hope that it will receive Sustainable Local Transport Fund grant to enable its opportunities and practicality to be tested as a potential model for wider application. June 2011

Written evidence from Dengie Hundred Bus User Group (BUS 22) 1. Introduction 1.1 This submission is made, as Chair, on behalf of the Dengie Hundred Bus Users Group [DHBUG] a community group which was set up in 2010. 1.2 The Group was originally set up to combat the withdrawal of the 31X through the upper part of Althorne, a local village. However that exercise coincided with the consultation/review of concessionary fares and that led to more members and a wider review. It soon became apparent that the problems being encountered in Althorne, are also being experienced across the whole of the Dengie and in all probability will be representative of problems in other rural areas. It is for that reason that we feel it is appropriate to make this submission.

Content 1.3 There is a summary of our ﬁndings / experiences under each of the areas of interest. Our evidence is largely empirical with the focus on meaningful involvement in transport management at local community level. Key features have been highlighted.

Background 1.4 The purpose of the Group is to campaign for continued and improved bus services and travel facilities in the Dengie Hundred area as part of an overall public transport system that: — provides services that satisﬁes residents needs; — is coordinated, integrated, and affordable; — reduces car usage, road congestion; and — as a consequence, provides greener travel with a decrease in the carbon footprint. 1.5 The Dengie Peninsula is part of the Maldon District in—“Central Essex”. The Peninsula covers an area of about 140 square miles. It is surrounded by water; to the north by the River Blackwater; to the east by the North Sea; and to the south by the River Crouch. There are no bridges across the estuaries, the lowest crossing points are Maldon [Blackwater] and Battlesbridge [Crouch]. The three main centres of population are Burnham cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w39

on Crouch, Southminster, and Mayland. The Peninsula has two of the least densely occupied electoral wards in Essex—Tillingham and St Lawrence.

Travel patterns 1.6 Transportation is a particular issue for residents in the Peninsula as the surrounding waterways make for a significant reliance on East/ West links. The only railway line serving the District runs between Southminster and Wickford, stopping at Burnham on Crouch, Fambridge and Woodham Ferrers en route. At Wickford there are connections to Southend and Shenfield to London Liverpool Street. The importance of this branch line is likely to increase with the introduction of Crossrail—running from Shenfield to Heathrow. There is a telling argument for “Park and Ride” principle for train passengers eg free parking at stations for season ticket holders. A “Quirk” review of station assets? 1.7 For the District as a whole it is reported that 93% of the 25,000 households have at least one car and 15% of these have two or more [3,348 households]. When a car is used for work the remainder of the household will often be dependent on other means of transport. 69% of economically active residents use a car to travel to work, either as drivers or passengers. 9% use public transport [7% train; 2% bus]. 13% cycle or walk. About half the workforce travel out of the District by train or bus and 78% by car. These figures illustrate the dependence in the area on private transport but also show the link to the local economy [car servicing]. 1.8 With migration into the District and developments in the Thames Gateway the probability is that the number of commuters will increase. Extra traffic, and increased congestion is anticipated with developments at Bradwell [on east coast]—nuclear power plant and wind farm.

2. Impact of the Reduction in Bus Service Operators Grant Including on Community Transport 2.1 We are in a “Guess and Fear” stage. 2.2 To date, for a lay group such as ourselves, the information on the “cuts” is being released in general terms only. Attempts to get assessments from both local councils and service operators have been essentially “dead batted”. Everyone it seems is waiting for details. 2.3 The broadly held assumption is that we are entering into a less [possibly non] subsidised era. In some quarters there is “belief” that overall bus subsidies could be reduced by up to 50%. The expectation is that BSOG will be reduced and the most quoted ﬁgure is seen to be by 20%, there will also be the prospect of reductions in the reimbursement for Concessionary Fare Passengers. If true, all assessments are that there will be a reduction in services. With any level of service reduction the impact is likely to be serious at this time when both customers and contractors need it to rise in order to maintain let alone improve services. 2.4 Our view is that there is an urgent need for voluntary and community sector groups, working in partnership with local contractors, to provide more rational, integrated, and relevant facilities. However, without access to hard facts it is impossible to even start putting together a meaningful business plan.

3. Concessionary Fares 3.1 This has been a live issue since the Group was formed and as a consequence opinions have been canvassed. The prevailing concern, and our original, campaign goal was for the continuation of the “early start time” [ie 9 AM rather than the strategy guide of 9.30]. The local case for this adjustment is based on the infrequency of service and to avoid unfairness where people further along the route could use the bus whilst others were “departure time excluded”. 3.2 Feedback on the direct question at a public meeting in answer to the question—“would you be prepared to pay a reduced fare [as distinct to free passage]?” brought a strong response “Yes—provided it was a good service”. The general ﬁnding is that the potential to travel “countrywide” is not jealously guarded. The discussions almost always centre on the convenience of a service rather than the cost. 3.3 For people currently using buses to travel to work there is concern that fares will increase or services will be lost as the number of pensioners increase. This is not only because national concessionary funding does not increase in line with the network coverage, but also from strong suggestions that the payments to contractors for concessionary fares are to be reduced and rural services will be the ﬁrst to suffer. Needless to say if there is no service, the pass is meaningless, already the case in some localities in this area.

Fares versus public funding 3.4 To avoid the “no service” situation, customer expectations of fares may well need to change. So that affordable fares can be offered, the emphasis will need to be on encouraging more paying customers [“greater passenger contribution”] and that will require more convenient services ie ﬁt for purpose. 3.5 Travel vouchers could be a useful approach to allow users to choose the transport option that best meets their needs. In some cases this could mean the traveller who is eligible for concessionary travel uses the bus when they’re able to do so free of charge. Then, in recognition that the bus services can be limited in rural cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Transport Committee: Evidence

areas, voucher provision would allow an affordable level of support for them to use on the more responsive transport eg taxi and community transport trips. 3.6 Another option would be to reduce the number of scheduled services and replace them with “demand responsive transport” services where “top up” fares can be charged to concessionary pass holders. This could mean that elderly people can still beneﬁt from reduced cost transport which could be seen to be better than the alternative of having no transport at all! 3.7 A further advantage of such an approach is that fare and subsidy levels can be used to manage the budget whereas if an authority only supports conventional bus services it will be forced, when facing a budget shortfall, to cut some services altogether.

4. How Passenger Views are Taken Into Account in Planning 4.1 In making this submission a key purpose is to draw attention to the barriers to community involvement that follow from the [over?] commitment to “Performance Management”. With its matrix of “scores, weighted indices, and ranking” all too often treated as a single entity and manipulated according to a particular policy. 4.2 During our inquiries it has frequently been observed that we “do not understand”; often that will be true but we have yet to be convinced that the ofﬁcial/councillor making the observation does either, particularly on the issue of other approaches ie alternatives to the total reliance on “Performance Management”!

Sharing Experiences: “Organisational Gridlock” 4.3 Our collective experience is that the existing “Partnership Arrangements” have all sorts of boundaries and these create both visible and invisible barriers to the efficient passing on of “hard” information [facts, numbers, data] and the “soft” information [expectations, judgements, feelings and opinions]. The free flow of such communication is essential if the local community is to be involved and interact in a positive way with the rapidly changing environments [financial and transportation]. 4.4 For localism to be effective there has to be greater flexibility, much improved communication together with a clear commitment to meet the changing conditions, people’s needs and expectations—including the capacity to create understanding of any limitations. 4.5 Partnership has to be meaningful and that will need progress from “consultation” [this is what we are going to do what do you think?] and pass “participation” to real “involvement” [ie how can / should we deal with.. .?]

Tackling the problems 4.6 From our review of various Government and other Reports dealing with Rural Services we have identified the following core ambitions: — Improving and integrating transport services to provide: — services that satisfy residents’ needs; — are coordinated, integrated, and affordable; — reduced car usage, road congestion; and — as a consequence, provide greener travel with a decrease in the carbon footprint. — Creating more flexible, demand responsive transport. — Providing targeted / specialist transport. — Improving the location and delivery of services. — Providing better local transport information. — Encouraging passenger involvement [feedback and suggestions]. 4.7 Accepting that the CSR is driven by the need to reduce public expenditure it will inevitably mean that funding will decline and reinforce the need for efficiency in the design/delivery of services. It should also mean that services/budgets are reviewed to ensure they all provide the best match against social needs. In turn that requires that we move from “post graduate mathematics” to meaningful communication; paying less attention to what we spend, rather putting the emphasis on how we spend it. 4.8 Our, admittedly limited, research leads us to believe that the CSR and the “Big Society” proposals provide that opportunity to think laterally—to focus on local transport needs and tailor facilities to match those needs in the context of both the economy and the environment.

Access to Transport 4.9 Access to transport can be a major barrier to social inclusion and deprived neighbourhoods. Our enquiries have shown that poor transport links can isolate people from jobs, education, training and essential health services. It can also increase residents’ isolation by making it harder for them to visit family and friends or take part in other social activities. There are a number of our members who cannot drive due to ﬁnancial cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w41

constraints, disability or age. For the 16% of households who do not own a car, the lack of mobility causes particular hardship. This is because there is a continuing decline in the availability of rural services [including closure of shops, pubs, post ofﬁces and now Banks], requiring people to travel greater distances eg to collect post that could not be delivered. 4.10 People on low incomes, whose only option is to run a car, often then struggle to meet the cost of running it. These costs are generally higher in rural areas because of the distances people have to travel and because ﬁlling stations tend to charge higher prices 4.11 It is estimated that low income households in the least densely populated areas spend an average of 30% more on motoring per week than those in the more densely populated areas.

Passengers’ Views/Involvement 4.12 From this Group’s perspective this is the most pressing need for change after a review/ revision of the “Performance Management” data/techniques. 4.13 We believe it is essential that future planning centres on locality, with the core focus on customer and community needs. Beyond that there needs to be a meaningful involvement. Not only around current needs/ provision but also recognising that passenger convenience is an essential feature if we are to encourage wider use of public transport.

Making the case for investment 4.14 Our case for investment is built on: — Access to services; — Building an inclusive society. For example, transport to employment and/or training helps not only to get to work but also opportunities to train for employment. At the same time it offers companies the chance to increase their competitiveness with improved labour market catchments and a better trained workforce. 4.15 Although rural residents travel more and pay proportionately more for transport, there is a greater proportion of the transport industry workforce in urban areas. Investment in local depots can address that situation and cut “dead mileage”. The community transport sector also acts as a signiﬁcant player in the market with voluntary roles as drivers, passenger assistants, and admin staff investing “in kind” ie time. 4.16 It is seen as essential in planning public transport that educational authorities think about transport beyond their statutory deliverables. Local partnerships will need to include education planning and transport in their deliberations. This also covers the need to ensure fair and equitable access to extended school provision—breakfast and after school clubs events. This planning is likely to be particularly important with the withdrawal of Educational Maintenance Allowance.

Passenger Focus 4.17 The website is a useful source of information but more hyperlinks [eg to Government sites] would be useful. 4.18 Important that the Reports provide the general guidance as well [eg on Bus Service Changes]. In our case the question was why the changes were being made, and the reply was due to congestion and time keeping. With two performance indicators [LTP2 and LTP5] there should have been an explanation on where the congestion was occurring, the time of the day and whether that could be addressed to avoid the re-routing if accountability is to be meaningful. A classic case for arbitration or appeal. No guidance was available.

Annex A THE ALTHORNE EXPERIENCE A.1 Background explained by Ursula Benjaﬁeld “For the past 20 years or so I have been a Parish Transport Representative for my local village, Althorne, in Essex. The role is unpaid and involves working in partnership with Essex County Council Passenger Transport Department and also liaising with local bus operators, in the case of First with Alan Pilbeam, MD of First Eastern Counties. The effect of my input is often fairly minor, but in 2007 as a result of discussions over a long period, First agreed to divert the 31X Burnham on Crouch to Chelmsford bus through our village. This diversion took only an extra four minutes but the effect on the residents was enormous. Althorne is a small village of about 1,100 residents, including more than twice the national average of elderly, and this new bus service transformed our lives. Suddenly people could access their doctors’ surgeries and hospitals in Burnham, Southminster, Maldon and Chelmsford, get to work, to the bank, libraries, shops, swimming pool, visit their families and friends, etc, all under their own steam. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Transport Committee: Evidence

Sadly, in December 2009, the service was withdrawn from five of our six bus stops and many people have been cut off; the bus now effectively bypasses the village, stopping once at the northern edge of Althorne. The geography of the village—on a steep hill—has meant that very many of the former users of the 31X service are not able to walk up to 1½ miles to the only bus stop. We have a patchwork of other bus services, but nothing to match what we had with the 31X. First’s reason for withdrawing the bus was to meet punctuality targets—we were told that insufficient people were using the bus. This is a small village and we see and know what people are really doing. We believe First’s figures were wrong—their survey was undertaken during August which is atypical.”

A.2 The Secret Art of Bus Travel There are 13 different bus services which go through Althorne but only one (the 31X) which could be said to be really useful, unless your needs just happen to coincide with the odd service. Of the 12 services, six only run during school days, ie term-time M–F. The 67, 510, 524, 593 are school buses which can be used by the general public if there are spaces. The 200/220 are school buses which are used during the school day as shopping buses between their morning and afternoon school runs. The Fords 5 & 6 run fortnightly, one on Thursday to SWF and one on Friday to Chelmsford, and you need to phone Fords to ﬁnd out which week you are in. The D2 runs one bus from Southminster Station to Latchingdon which passes through Althorne in the late afternoon, but different time M-F and Sat. The D3 runs from Burnham to Maldon through Althorne, M-F only, but during the school holidays too. It runs children to school, as well as people to work The D5 is fairly complicated: Sundays—no buses at all unless you can get a lift to Latchingdon—then two hourly to Maldon and Chelmsford.

Annex B FROM ALTHORNE ISSUES, TO THOSE FOR THE PENINSULA Dengie Bus Routes: Copied from ECC Bus Map

B.1 This Map is seen to show a diversity of service routes but also suggests a more integrated service plan could be designed / developed. Follow on enquiries on this possibility tended to conﬁrm our doubts on the management system currently in use. B.2 A response from the Bus Company explained: “Essex County Council (ECC), may decide to support a service through tender subsidy; subject to the local authority’s transport strategy and parameters set for supported services. My understanding from discussions last year, is that Althorne has a population between 1,000 to 1,999. I believe ECC’s parameters for supported services, based on the funding at the time, is at a level of four return journeys per day for six days of the week.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w43

B.3 In turn we looked at the Essex Road Transport Strategy 2006–11 Table E.3 which sets out the Minimum Service Levels for Deep Rural Areas which are based on settlement size. We question the validity of this approach partly on the issue of population size but also on the “separation of settlements”. Our analysis suggests that a more valid measure would be population “on the route” ie the cumulative total of the populations for all settlements on a specific bus route. Similarly we feel a better statistical base would be on households / adults. B.4 Given the need to have local verifiable data our conclusion is that the better indicators are the number of properties having a liability for council tax linked with the electoral roll. MDC provided the data. There could be a further indicator from analysis of “work places” ie through Business Rates and possibly the number of households qualifying for Council Tax Benefit / Single occupant reduction as a measure of deprivation. B.5 Whilst it has not been possible to assemble local evidence on income and expenditure, the impression is that earnings for those working locally are less than those commuting to work. However soundings suggest that research for Joseph Rowntree Foundation [A minimum income standard for rural areas] has a relevance to the local transport costs for rural communities. Footnote: Work in partnership with representatives from other bodies The Group: — has two committee members who are Representatives on the Parish Passenger Transport Group; — has affiliated to Bus Users UK; — has direct access to the Director of Viking Community Transport; — has close support from Burnham Town Council and Althorne Parish Council; and — has access to officers at the RCCE. Burnham Town Council Office is an information point where people can pick up bus and train timetables and apply for concessionary bus passes and senior rail cards. The Group will seek actively involved in consultation when the Essex County Council Dengie Connections bus contract comes up for renewal in 2012. January 2011

Written evidence from U Benjaﬁeld (BUS 23) 1. Introduction 1.1 Qualiﬁcation to comment 1.1.1 As Parish Passenger Transport Representative for Althorne in Essex, a small village of 1,100 people, I would like to comment on how my community is likely to be affected by the Comprehensive Spending Review. 1.1.2 Parish Passenger Transport Representatives are volunteers, either parish councillors or nominated to represent parish councils, who work with Essex County Council’s Passenger Transport Department to receive ECC information and provide feedback from the community. I have had this role for more than 21 years. 1.1.3 I am a founder member of the Dengie Hundred Bus Users’ Group. 1.1.4 I am also a member of the Essex and South Suffolk Community Rail Partnership and Althorne Station adopter.

1.2 Background 1.2.1 My comments will be in the context of a rural background which, as Members of the Select Committee from rural constituencies will know, is relevant to many other small rural communities. 1.2.2 Althorne has twice the national average of over 60s. Many residents have never driven or are no longer confident to drive, many still drive although they would prefer not to due to infirmity, etc. 1.2.3 Only 20% of the village has access to a regular hourly bus service. 1.2.4 The village appears superficially to be well supplied with buses—about 13 services. However, most are school buses which can also be used by adults, shopping buses which run only in term time, or commuter buses which only serve peak time trains at Althorne Station which is about a mile from the edge of the village. 1.2.5 Three of our buses are part of a county council contract; one of these in particular is very poorly used, probably because it does not go where bus users need to go, and is too infrequent and too complicated to understand. ECC also provides a twice weekly shopper bus to replace the hourly commercial service which was withdrawn from 80% of the village in December 2009. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Transport Committee: Evidence

1.2.6 Until December 2009, the whole of Althorne was very well served by the hourly First Bus 31X service which still runs between Burnham on Crouch and Chelmsford via Maldon but has been withdrawn from ﬁve of the six bus stops in the village and now serves only the one stop on the northernmost tip of the village and is easily accessible to only 20% of the population.

1.2.7 Since the 31X was withdrawn, two families have moved from the village because they had no transport, three members of staff at the local residential care home have had to ﬁnd other jobs because they could not get to work, and visitors to the care home have found the journey long, complicated or impossible.

1.2.8 80% of the village does not have regular access to a bus which would get them to work, to the doctor’s surgery, hospitals, clinics, dentists, opticians, libraries, shops, swimming pool, adult education, or to visit friends and family.

1.2.9 There are no evening or Sunday buses and the timing of the bus which now serves the major part of the village does not allow for residents to go out on Saturday afternoons.

2. Impact of the Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant and Reduction in Local Authority Grant Support 2.1 Although the reduction in the BSOG has been less than was expected, I understand that at times such as these when margins are very tight, any reduction in support for bus operators may well lead to commercial services being withdrawn.

2.2 The knock-on effect of withdrawing commercial services will be to place an even greater burden on local authorities to provide contract services at a time when their ﬁnances are equally stretched.

2.3 It is difﬁcult to see how bus passengers, especially those in rural areas where journeys are longer, will not suffer a huge reduction in their services with the consequent deleterious effects: 2.3.1 Inability to access employment (Althorne is located in the Dengie Pensinsula which is already subject to higher rates of unemployment than the rest of the Maldon District). 2.3.2 Social isolation, with the consequent deterioration in health and well-being. 2.3.3 Difﬁcult or no access to health services.

3. Concessionary Bus Travel

3.1 Free concessionary bus travel since 2007 has had a hugely beneﬁcial effect which includes committed car owners being tempted out of their cars and on to the bus. 3.1.1 In our area, initially the greatest effect was to get people to use the Chelmsford park and ride service because concessionary pass holders could then drive to Chelmsford and park free of charge. 3.1.2 People who were previously proud car owners discovered that buses could be clean, reliable and enjoyable. The result was a great reduction in trafﬁc in Chelmsford town centre which, coupled with the advantage of a bus lane into town, had a great effect on all buses in the town. 3.1.3 The result was that people were then tempted on to other bus services and concessionary pass holders started taking their grandchildren with them on the bus, thus encouraging good bus-using habits in a new generation.

3.2 One of the beneﬁcial effects of free concessionary bus travel has been the resultant independence and consequent physical and mental well-being.

3.3 I am very concerned that there will not be sufﬁcient funding for bus operators to continue to run services which are heavily used by concessionary pass holders. 3.3.1 Originally, fare paying bus passengers could support passengers travelling free off peak because every extra passenger (at around 60p in the £) was a bonus. 3.3.2 Now there are so many concessionary pass passengers that if the level of reimbursement falls too far, services will become unproﬁtable and will be withdrawn, causing problems for paying passengers too. 3.3.3 One solution would be to ask concessionary pass holders to pay a small fare. A show of hands at our local bus users’ group indicated that concessionary pass holders would rather make a contribution than lose a bus service. In this way, government could still support concessionary pass holders but bus users could also make a small commitment themselves. 3.3.4 It is important to remember that whilst the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 has brought free bus travel for many people, there are still many more on low incomes who either have no bus at all where they live or who are reliant on Community Transport where, certainly in our area, they pay less than a taxi fare, but a considerable amount more than a bus fare. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w45

4. How Passengers’ Views are Taken into Account in Planning Bus Services / The Role of Passenger Focus 4.1 Passengers’ views carry very little weight 4.1.1 There is no requirement to consult with passengers regarding commercial bus services. When our bus service was withdrawn, I was notiﬁed—as a courtesy—by the operator, but by then the decision had been made and there was less than a week before the change was registered with VOSA. 4.1.2 Essex County Council do consult with us on contracted services but their minimum service levels often do not allow for a very satisfactory service. The absence of evening and Sunday services leads to social isolation or to heavy reliance on cars. (Once someone has bought a car because they need to travel in the evening or on Sunday, they will use it for all their journeys because the investment and basic costs of tax, insurance, etc. need to be justiﬁed.)

4.2 The role of Passenger Focus 4.2.1 My only contact with Passenger Focus regarding bus services was last year when I reported the withdrawal of our bus service and received a reply stating that the necessary legislation was not yet in place for them to take action on our behalf. 4.2.2 I notice from the Passenger Focus website that a board paper dated 17 November 2010 under “Progress report” mentions a meeting with Essex Parish Passenger Representatives, of which I was not aware. I wonder how many other parishes were excluded?

5. Possible Solution 5.1 Funding, possibly from Central Government’s new Local Sustainable Transport Fund, could support a new hourly commercial bus service which would slot in between the existing 31X First service but run only between Burnham on Crouch and Maldon. This would provide: — an enhanced service for more than 15,000 people in Southminster and Burnham; — some slack in the system to take in villages such as Althorne/North Fambridge, etc; — an additional short hop service in the towns and villages (at the moment all buses run in Burnham at the same time); — a service to entice people out of their cars (½-hourly service is more attractive); — a connection onwards to Chelmsford to enable hospital access; and — the possibility of involving Viking Community Transport and/or local taxi ﬁrms to “feed” the 31X and the new 31 service. 5.2 The result would be: — support for economic growth (money in the bus industry and opportunities for access to employment); — reduced carbon impact/delivering cleaner environments (fewer cars); — improved safety (fewer very elderly drivers—and others—who don’t want to be driving); — increased levels of physical activity (walking to the bus stop instead of climbing straight into a car); — better public transport for all; — changed patterns of behaviour and more sustainable travel, especially for short journeys (including short hops in Althorne village and elsewhere); — local partnerships (maybe a partnership between Essex County Council and First, including Maldon District Council, Burnham on Crouch Town Council, parish councils, Dengie Hundred Bus Users’ Group, etc; — voluntary sector involvement—contributing to the Big Society; — reduced congestion; and — elimination of contracted bus services running empty. 5.3 There is no reason why this solution should not be applied in other areas of the country too.

6. Summary 6.1 I cannot envisage any outcome from the cuts in the bus operators’ support and local authority funding other than bus services being reduced or disappearing completely. 6.2 As we already know, a poor bus service will be poorly used. There is currently a higher than average level of car ownership in our area and I can only see this increasing, with all the concomitant congestion on poor country roads. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Transport Committee: Evidence

6.4 The answer is to be brave and to seek an innovative solution as suggested in Paragraph 5 above which could: — encourage a continued modal shift from cars to buses; — improve bus services for both fare-paying passengers and concessionary pass holders; — boost access to employment; — encourage independence; and — reduce social isolation. 6.5 A comparatively small investment via a source such as the Local Sustainable Transport Fund could lead to savings in many other areas, including job seekers’ allowances and health care. January 2011

Written evidence from Harrogate Friends of the Earth (BUS 24) 1. Context North Yorkshire is the largest county in England and one of the most rural and sparsely populated areas, covering 3,340 sq miles, 40% of which is designated as National Park. Almost 33% of residents live away from the main centres of population, many in the Dales and Moors regions which are both National Parks. The County’s population is 599,000. The Office for National Statistics reports that the cost of living in rural areas is £2,600 pa more per household than the cost in urban areas. Of this differential nearly £1,000 pa is for higher transport costs. Fuel for vehicles costs more in rural areas, bus fares per mile are higher and distances to vital services are much greater. By 2015 at least 30% of the population of North Yorks will be over retirement age. Many older people cannot afford to run a car and are reliant on public transport. Oil price rises will increase dependence on public transport. Rural areas also suffer from higher unemployment and lower wages. Fewer people claim benefits to which they are entitled. At least 25% of farmers in the area are living below the poverty line. The rural economy is heavily reliant on agriculture and tourism. Hotel and restaurant workers, shop workers and those in food manufacturing earn low wages and rely on public transport to get to and from work. A good Transport infrastructure is vital to the economy of the region and to the health and well-being of its residents. For many workers on low wages public transport is their only option. The Beeching Axe fell very heavily on North Yorks rail network, so buses are the only form of public transport in a large part of the region. NY has the highest CO2 emissions (38%) from transport of any rural county. (The national average is 21%). A good and improving public transport system is needed to reduce overall traffic volumes. Nationally, 99% of the population has access to primary schools, work, shops and services within 15 minutes. In North Yorkshire the figure is 82–93%. Nationally, 77–89% of the population has access to GPs, Hospital, and secondary schools within 45 minutes. In North Yorkshire the figure is 62–70%. It should be the entitlement of every resident to be enabled to travel for employment, education, services, shopping, surgeries, hospitals and social events.

2. Effects of Bus Cuts Proposed by North Yorks CC (i) NYCC’s proposed bus cuts will cause disproportionate damage to access for people, including wage earners, dependent on public and community transport. (ii) Proposed cuts to services have been administered by a simplistic focus on evening and weekend buses, rather than on an evidential basis which reﬂects demand and level of subsidy per journey. There are daytime services—untouched by these proposed cuts—which are being subsidised at a rate of £93 per passenger (* see attached table). (iii) Cuts to services on Sundays and Bank Holidays will affect tourism, a key source of employment and revenue. Tourists are more likely to bring cars into National Parks and AONBs with consequent increases in CO2 emissions and congestion. (iv) NYCC describes the service between Whitby and Sleights as underused; yet trhee evening buses carried at least eight people per service and only one carried only one passenger. The service is the only means for Sleights locals to access work opportunities in Whitby, working in restaurants, bars and other tourist-focused businesses and for carers to reach relatives. Passengers are willing to pay more (even an extra £3–5 per journey) for the bus. But they cannot afford, on low wage rates, to pay the £10+ per taxi journey. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w47

(v) NYCC officers do not seem able to grasp that many employees do not work 9–5 from Mon-Fri. In the Selby area many people are employed in the power stations and work shifts. They need buses early and late in the day and at weekends. (vi) NYCC has chosen to take a blunt axe rather than pruning shears to services. They are disregarding the needs of workers, carers, families etc who rely on return journeys at weekends and evenings. (vii) NYCC is proposing to front-load the cuts of £600,000 into Year 1 rather than spread them evenly over four years. (viii) NYCC appears to be consolidating their own Integrated Passenger Transport Unit and its core staff by withdrawing contracts from Community providers (notably Little Red Bus) even though the County cannot replicate what LRB provides and what residents value so highly. There is a huge gulf in understanding between NYCC and its poorer residents as to the meaning of Integrated Transport Services. The county seems to be choosing to compete unfairly with community providers, withdrawing funds that should really belong with local communities. (ix) Community transport has been built up with conspicuous success to meet the needs of rural residents. It takes children to schools, patients to GPs and clinics, the elderly to day services and people to work, all in the same pattern of journeys. The existence of Little Red Bus is now being put at serious risk by NYCC, apparently as part of a deliberate policy. During schooltime, shoppers, tourists, those living in isolation, carers etc can call on the CT service. Community services should be enhanced not destroyed. (x) In NYCC’s IPTU discussions with District Councils and PCT, Community Transport providers were not included in the discussions. (xi) There is little evidence that NYCC is thinking through the consequences of its day to day decisions on bus subsidies or is open to persuasion that it might be pursuing unreasonable policies. (xi) NYCC justifies its every decision to cut bus services as being imposed by central government. It seems to be neglecting its duty to manage the bus cuts with maximum professional skill to minimise impact on the disadvantaged. There has been no comparison of subsidies provided to Mon-Fri services during hours of 9–5, even though NYCC’s own data shows that some enjoy much higher subsidies than for evening and weekend services. (xii) Consultation with the public proved resoundingly hostile to the bus cuts and there have been waves of alarm (letters to press and councillors) about the threat to community transport and subsidised public transport, but this level of resistance has been misrepresented by officers as compliance and support. (xiii) Strong arguments have been registered by local groups, local councillors, parish councils and other interest groups, all seeking a more rational, evidentially based approach to cutting services. These have been dismissed with only a token response.

3. NYCC Local Transport Plan 3 (2011–16) It is our contention that the tactics on bus cuts are seriously flawed largely because the underlying strategy, expressed in the LTP3, is steering us in the wrong direction. (a) The failure of the County Council to fulfil its responsibilities to those communities and individuals who depend on public and community transport, and who need it to be better integrated, is compounded by its woefully inadequate LTP3 (2011–16). This lacks serious analysis of the increasing need for integrated systems, of the scope to reduce traffic volumes, and of NYCC’s obligation to cut CO2 emissions. It is a missed opportunity to re-balance the vision for future transport in North Yorkshire in favour of the disadvantaged. It fails to address the biggest environmental issue for us all—the impact of climate change (b) LTP3 is a charter for car owners. It understates the wider needs of its elderly, young, work-seeking and disadvantaged communities. We (FoE Harrogate) have presented a coherent counter to LTP3 both on paper and in committee. This has been ignored with contempt by officers. (c) LTP lacks internal consistency and rigour. It states, inter alia, that: — there is 9% unemployment in rural areas, but it is not clear how much transport issues impact on this (Why can we not find out how much?); — everything that NYCC does will contribute towards sustainable communities (increased isolation by removing community transport will not); — NYCC will seek to influence access to services (little evidence of this); — NYCC will encourage integration of different modes of transport (little evidence that NYCC really grasps what integration means at user level); cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Transport Committee: Evidence

— public transport and CT will be better integrated to give a seamless service (This cannot be achieved unless Community Transport providers are treated as valued partners rather than competitors to be ostracised); and — the role of taxis is often undervalued (but this option is beyond the means of those who are having their buses cut back). (d) LTP3 lacks specific strategies and targets to achieve and measure progress. (e) North Yorkshire’s public and community transport provision will be significantly worse than the level of financial cuts necessitates, largely as a result of defensive and unresponsive leadership within the County Council. Their refusal to acknowledge the outcomes of consultation and public opposition has been wholly unreasonable and unreasoned. (f) NYCC consultation process with council tax payers on the LTP3 showed the five highest priorities from respondents as: — support for the local economy; — improve access; — improve public transport; — encourage alternatives to car use; and — improve access to remote areas. The response from NYCC to this has been tokenistic. (1) The LTP overlooks the huge potential to encourage tourists to leave their cars and use public transport. Bus and rail services lack co-ordination, connectivity, joint ticketing and publicity (2) There is no co-ordination between transport services for education, social services, and non-urgent patient transport within the PCT area. This leads to a huge amount of duplication, unnecessary extra costs of providing transport and increased road congestion (3) NYCC spends £4 million on taxis for pupils attending special schools and £18 million on transporting pupils to mainstream schools. Many of the journeys are for less than the statutory two miles (primary) and three miles (secondary) pupils. A small cut in this transport budget would more than recoup the savings that NYCC will achieve with the bus cuts (£600,000). Any balance could help improve bus services and community transport elsewhere. (NYCC Social Services spend £3.8 million on taxis and N Yorkshsire and York Health Trust spends £4 million on non-urgent patient transport) Better use of bus services and CT would bring huge savings to these budgets which could then be invested in better transport provision for all. This in turn would help reduce levels of unemployment, increase access for tourists, who spend money in the local economy and protect the needs of the disadvantaged. It could vastly improve access for residents. There should also be a reduction in CO2 emissions. An Integrated Transport Service cannot be achieved whilst each local department is defending its own funding and traditional ways of working.

4. How are Passenger’s Views Taken into Account? NYCC needs to commission more effective customer research. Whilst Passenger Focus may give some feedback from customers about bus services, research is needed at bus stops and bus stations asking travellers for their views on local transport. Questionnaires should be available on board all services and on line throughout the year. www.transportdirect.co.uk should be clearly mentioned on all information about transport as being a useful tool to plan journeys countrywide. Workplaces should establish how staff travel to work and should be required to provide information on public transport. Likewise the tourist industry needs to clearly indicate how places of interest and accommodation are accessible by public transport (as in National Trust Handbook) and how services interconnect.

5. What are the Financial Implications of “Free” Off-peak Travel? Our own researches indicate that people with free passes are generally very willing to pay—perhaps £1 locally or £3 per day towards the cost of their journeys on the buses. They recognise that a free bus pass without bus services that meet their needs is worthless. Some bus operators issue a ticket but it doesn’t state a destination, as the passenger is not asked to give a destination. Therefore, there is a lack of information about length of journeys, or which areas are most frequently travelled. Also, in areas popular with tourists, who have come from other areas outwith N Yorks, it is the local taxpayers who pick up the cost of the journey rather than the tourists own local council. In N Yorks, which has high tourist numbers, this means that N Yorks cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w49

council tax payers have an unfair burden to pay for. Yet local bus users travelling outside peak times, but paying full fare, often cannot have a seat, due to high numbers of free bus pass users.

Conclusions Even after the current round of cuts, NYCC has a large budget at its disposal for transport services. To achieve best value it needs to act upon a clear set of principles which genuinely represent the whole of its community and which secure access for the young, the old, the isolated, the low paid and the disadvantaged. It has received a huge amount of constructive comment about how it can improve its transport services despite the need for budget cuts. There is little evidence that NYCC is prepared to listen or to adopt a different mindset towards its transport policies and administration. By 2010, the county had grown one of the best (possibly unique) community transport systems in the UK- the LRB.The major, and immediate, decision is whether NYCC will build on that success or allow it to melt away. The aim should be to improve public and community transport so that people will view it with conﬁdence and use it more. With better information available through an Oyster-card type system and better IT scheduling, as developed by LRB, it could turn retreat into a huge success. North Yorkshire could still develop Public and Community Transport services second to none in the UK and save money.

Information Sources ONS report on cost of living in rural areas, quoted from article in National Press 28 December 2010. NYCC LTP3 produced in November 2010. Costs of school transport services and non urgent patient transport and transport for social services obtained under FOI act. TABLE OF WEEKDAY BUS SERVICES RECEIVING SUBSIDIES, SHOWING NUMBERS OF PASSENGERS AND COST OF SUBSIDY PER PASSENEGR PER JOURNEY IN £’S JOURNEYS ARE ALL IN NORTH YORKSHIRE AREA TOTAL COST OF SUBSIDIES IS £1,374,700 PA Contracts Comprising Approx Pax/ Services Description Annual Cost Yr: Cost per Pax 1.374,700 521,193 2.64 72,73.74 Skipton—Grassington—Buckden—Ilkley 364,698 111,456 3.27 Combination North Craven North Craven Taxibus Mon-Fri 21,823 5,215 4.18 Taxibus 580 Skipton—Gargrave—Settle—Giggleswick 25,518 23,924 1.07 (Mon—Fri) 581 Feizor—Austwick C E Primary/Ingleton- 108,027 20,482 5.27 Settle-Horton In Ribblesdale 210 Skipton Malham 9,701 1,945 4.99 B1 Horton In Ribblesdale—Settle—Slaidburn 69,300 13,629 5.08 136 138 139 Ripon Roweller 74,198 22,594 3.28 138 Ripon—Laverton—Ripon 9,880 36 Reeth—Leyburn (Friday Only) 4,684 475 9.86 156,157 Wensleydale Services (Mon-Sat) 208,053 121,767 1.71 156, 157 Northallerton—Hawes (Sundays) 22,106 8,836 2.50 X59 Hawes—Darlington (Mon—Fri) 49,100 9,039 5.43 159 Richmond—Ripon (Mon—Sat) 187,009 113,380 1.65 Post Bus Northallerton—Hawes Wensleydale Post 6,594 9,004 0.73 Bus (Mon—Fri) 30, 113, 520R, Richmond/Hawes/Garsdale Area 129,709 20,415 6.35 521R Combination 158 Woodale—Middleham—Leyburn (Fri 4,946 560 8.83 Only) 144 Masham—Bedale 21,848 73 Richmond—Bedale Northallerton (Mon— 4,269 3,446 1.24 Fri) 73 Richmond—Bedale Northallerton (Mon- 30,451 4,915 6.20 Fri) 24 Harrogate—Pateley Bridge (Winter 7,910 2,327 3.40 Sundays) 66A Skipton—Grassington (Sundays) 14,886 27,784 0.54 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Transport Committee: Evidence

Contracts Comprising Approx Pax/ Services Description Annual Cost Yr: Cost per Pax

386,838 147,671 2.62

X59 Skipton—Harrogate (Mon—Sat) 92,871 54,450 1.71 142, 143, 779H, Ripon—York—Boroughbridge 213,117 32,498 6.56 778H 131, 132, 134 Ripon Town Service 41,883 60,307 0.69 23, 623H Harrogate—Ripley, Markington—Bishop 38,967 416 93.67 Thornton—Ripley—Harrogate

January 2011

Written evidence from Leven Valley Buses (BUS 25)

Your inquiry is premature as with one exception the local authorities in Cleveland have not indicated exactly where cuts will apply in local bus services. 1. The one exception is looking to cut 50% from its’ support of subsidised services. This will impact evening and Sunday services and in our experience will mean that the transport disadvantaged in the community will have fewer opportunities to use their Bus Passes. 2. The reimbursement of Bus Pass has been altered to inevitably cause a reduction in service provision. Leven Valley provides “niche” hourly services penetrating estates that the larger buses of the major groups cannot enter. This advantage to transport disadvantaged will be threatened further as we cannot run full buses of pass holders and expect the drivers to accept 49% of their wages and the fuel suppliers to accept 49% of the cost of the fuel. Lunatics are running the pass scheme. 3. The local authorities due to the new “big society” arrangements will not need to necessarily commit any financial resources to transport poor sections of the community. There are many pressures upon them that may have higher priorities. 4. All Leven Valley commercial routes have resulted from requests from local authorities or local people for us to provide transport links. Being small we have always been close to our customers and kept them informed of our problems and involved them in seeking solutions. It is ineveitable that some cuts may need to be made in the light of the profligacy and poor judgement of the previous administration. My worry is that they are being made precipitately and, being front loaded, will result in the ending of several jobs at Leven Valley as efforts will need to be made to accommodate cuts that are perceived to be needed to assuage the effects that the unchecked greed of financiers and the profligate ways of politicians have generated. 5. My plea is for a more measured withdrawal of the transport benefits that were so wantonly given as vote catchers to we “grays”. The way things appear to be going will devastate many travel opportunities for large numbers of Pass Holders who will realise how hollow was the promise to maintain their free pass at the same time as the “Promisees” were planning this undermining of the very networks needed to use the passes.

These comments are made with little hope of positive results. Buses, those who use them and those who provide them do not feel in any way important to the values of Westminster. January 2011

Written evidence from N and H Rowland (BUS 26)

We are writing to express our horror at the proposed cuts to bus services throughout the Whitby area.

We cannot believe that NYCC is still contemplating so many cuts when it is so apparent from the feeling at Meetings held in the area that residents are so concerned about the devastating effect this will have on their lives, and ultimately, on the town.

This is predominantly a rural area where many residents rely totally on public transport.

Whilst we appreciate that cuts need to be made in the current climate, we implore you to reconsider the fate of local routes around Whitby, Ruswarp, Sleights (the 95) and links to Scarborough and Middlesbrough. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w51

We Submit the Following Points For Consideration: 1. Hospital and Hospice Visiting Services at Whitby Hospital are being reduced and transferred to Middlesbrough and Scarborough. How will friends and family be able to visit patients in other towns? Evening and weekend visits would be impossible.

2. Hospital Appointments As appointments scheduled for the afternoon may be lengthy, it is likely that patients may not be ready in time to catch a bus back home and be stranded at a hospital.

3. Commuting to work The majority of jobs in these towns are in the tourism industry, covering evenings, weekends and Bank Holidays. These are when bus services are proposing to be axed. As was stated at the Whitby Meeting by one such worker, taxi fares are prohibitive for anyone on minimum wages.

4. Bus Drivers Bus drivers will have their hours cut resulting in loss of earnings.

5. Young people Reduced services would impact greatly on social interaction of young people in our area. They would be unable to go to events outside their own village/town. This would extend to sporting events, extra curricular activities at schools and colleges. Our young people would be penalised for living outside a town or city where activities may be within walking distance.

6. Evening Classes Attendance at Evening Classes and Leisure Centre activities would not be possible without access to a private car. As a Nation, we are being encouraged to keep ﬁt and exercise but this is limited to car owners. This is yet another example of how people in our area would be discriminated against.

7. Art and Culture Whitby and Scarborough have received funding for their theatres. Whitby has recently got facilities for showing ﬁlms. Performances are usually in the evening, at weekends and on Bank Holidays. These new facilities would become redundant and some residents would be unable to join local amateur groups. Whitby has a musical tradition and there are many groups which meet regularly, in the evening, to promote the creative arts.

8. Sports Training sessions for our local teams could be impossible to attend unless a private car is available as sessions take place on weekday evenings. Spectators at evening games and those scheduled for Sundays and Bank Holidays may be excluded.

9. Voluntary Work This would be at variance with Government Policy inviting everyone to volunteer their time. As many opportunities for volunteering are linked with Tourism, it is expected that volunteers would be able to come into town at week-ends and on Bank Holidays which are the main times when they would be required. Moreover, if young people want to be involved, it would have to be outside school/college hours. Often voluntary work is an integral part of a Course for young people and many would be at a disadvantage if they did not have access to private transport.

10. Social Isolation The proposed cuts to buses in a rural area such as this would result in social isolation for may people, in particular, the Elderly, the Disabled and those friends and family who care for them and visit them.

11. Visitors Visitors to Whitby may be staying in an outlying village, eg Sleights or Ruswarp. They rely on being able to use public transport to go into Whitby in an evening for meals and entertainment. B&B and Hotel owners in these villages would lose trade if bus services were to be axed in the evening and on Sundays and Bank Holidays, peak times for visitors. Day trippers from other towns would not be able to come to the seaside and Whitby residents would not be able to shop and use the facilities available only in larger towns. This would impact seriously on a fragile tourist industry. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Transport Committee: Evidence

12. Green Policy Several bus stops around town have a sign which claims that “this bus can take 35 cars off the road.” We fail to understand how the County Council’s proposed decimation of the regional bus services can be reconciled with Government Policy to combat climate change. Surely this is an absolute variance to measures which need to be taken to reduce the carbon footprint by taking private cars off the road. Moreover, this would add to worse congestion problems, especially in Whitby where the Park and Ride Scheme has been placed on hold. Scarborough, Whitby and Filey claim that this is “a great place to live, work and play” but clearly, NOT after 7.00 pm, on a Sunday, or Bank Holiday. January 2011

Written evidence from Confederation of Passenger Transport (UK) (BUS 29) 1. Introduction 1.1 The Confederation of Passenger Transport (UK) (CPT) represents the operators of bus, coach and light rail systems throughout the United Kingdom. Our members include major integrated groups such as Stagecoach and National Express, and a large number of small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, nearly all the UK’s public-sector-owned bus companies are members of the Confederation. 1.2 This memorandum of evidence concentrates on England outside London. This is because the Mayor of London, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government can use their devolved powers to moderate the effects of the Comprehensive Spending Review on bus networks. 1.3 The factors that the Committee has identiﬁed in its terms of reference are certainly relevant, but they are by no means the only ones that are likely to have an effect on the industry over the term of the CSR (up to 2015). This submission evaluates costs and revenue on an industry-wide level. The relative importance of each factor will vary between operators and the decisions that they take will be made in the light of all the challenges that present themselves. Several of our members are making submissions to the Committee on their own particular circumstances and the actions that they are taking. 1.4 We anticipate that the reduced availability of public funds, coupled with an increase in authorities’ freedom to decide how to spend their money, and a diverse set of market factors, will lead to a much greater variation in the quality and quantity of bus services across the country. Operators’ reactions will not be uniform. As well as differing views on the best way to build long term value in their businesses, there are wide variations in the asset bases and ﬁnancial reserves of bus operators. Some are better equipped to “ride out a storm” than others.

2. Bus Industry Costs Figure 1 TYPICAL BUS INDUSTRY COSTS

Other Costs 11% Bus Depreciation 6% Parts 5% Insurance and Driver Costs Claims 45% 3%

Fuel 15%

Other staff 15% cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w53

Source: Data supplied by CPT members 2.1 Fuel Costs are expected to increase in the next year for three reasons: — underlying price increases in the market; — increased duty from 1 January 2011; and — introducing new buses that are cleaner and more accessible than the ones they replace, but use more fuel. 2.2 In addition, the 20% cut in the rate of Bus Service Operators’ Grant, announced as part of the CSR and taking effect in April 2012, will add approximately 2% to operators’ overall costs. 2.3 Bus Depreciation Costs are expected to increase within the CSR period for two key reasons: — Current models of bus offer a better passenger experience and a better environmental performance than the previous generation of vehicles, but they are more expensive. — The “end date” for replacing step-entrance single deck buses falls on 1 January 2015. It will be illegal to operate a single deck bus on a local service after that date if it does not meet the relevant accessibility speciﬁcation (which includes the ability to carry a passenger travelling in a wheelchair). The end date for double deckers falls outside the CSR period, on 1 January 2017. 2.4 Historically wage and salary costs have tended to rise at a rate of around 1% per annum in real terms. It is uncertain how costs will move over the next few years, but there is very limited scope for further efﬁciency gains. The industry is, and will continue to be, highly labour intensive so any additional costs imposed by new employment rights or tax changes will hit it relatively hard.

3. Bus Industry Revenue Figure 2 WHOLE BUS INDUSTRY REVENUE

Concessionary Reimbursement 25%

Fares 58% Local Authority / PTE tenders 17%

Source: DfT Statistics22 3.1 Of the three key sources of industry revenue, the amount spent by local authorities and PTEs securing non-commercial services is most likely to come under pressure as a result of the CSR and the Local Government Finance Settlement. This expenditure is, by its nature, unevenly spread across the Country and across individual networks. Tenders secure services where commercial demand is weak. Generally speaking, this tends to be in rural and suburban areas, and in busier places at less busy times of day. In some locations (such as Southend on Sea) authorities spend very little on tendered services so there is hardly any scope for reductions. In others the proportion of services that are run under tender is much higher. Somerset Council claims that 70% of services in its area are subsidised, and they have recently announced their intention to cut their budget by 50%. The make-up of individual operators’ revenue does not necessarily follow the national 22 We have treated Bus Service Operators Grant as an offset of costs, rather than as revenue cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Transport Committee: Evidence

picture. Some operators—particularly from the SME sector—have found a niche as suppliers of tendered services to local authorities and PTEs. Others are almost entirely focussed on commercial services. 3.2 There is no intrinsic reason why the industry’s income from giving free travel to older and disabled people should decrease, but the CSR and Local Government Finance Settlement have coincided with the publication of new, controversial, guidance by DfT that suggests that previous norms for reimbursement were too generous to operators. Whether or not this is the case (and the research, and its interpretation by DfT are contentious) operators are typically facing a reduction of 20–40% in the payments they receive for carrying pass holders. Changes to concessionary reimbursement have an impact on virtually all local bus operators, including those working exclusively under contract to councils and PTEs, because reimbursement is typically paid in addition to the amounts due under contracts, and will have been factored into bids. 3.3 Revenue from fares has generally been holding up well through difﬁcult times, but operators believe that our paying customers will not stand fare increases of the magnitude needed to make up for the cuts in income from the public purse. 3.4 HM Revenue and Customs has taken the unhelpful step of adopting a very rigid approach on the tax treatment bus season tickets offered to employees through green travel plans. The rules allow for employees to be provided with subsidised tickets, without giving rise to a tax liability, when their employer subsidises a bus service that serves their workplace. Some popular schemes had grown up where operators gave people the freedom of whole networks of bus services, including the one(s) subsidised by their employer, but this has been ruled inadmissible. HMRC insists that the ticket can only cover work-related journeys. As a result, a number of employers have lost interest in these plans, to the detriment of operators’ income and public transport use in general.

4. Engaging Passengers Although they vary in their approach, operators involved in commercial services recognise the value of keeping in touch with passengers and seeking their views when change is in prospect. This does not mean that it is always logical for operators to supply exactly the services that passengers want. Difﬁcult commercial judgements need to be taken. December 2010

Written evidence from the RMT (BUS 34) 1. Introduction As a trade union representing thousands of bus workers, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) is deeply concerned at the social, economic and environmental impact of the cuts to bus funding. As part of our ongoing campaign on this issue the Bus Minister is speaking at a seminar open to all parliamentarians hosted by the RMT Parliamentary Group in February which will also be attended by many bus workers together with representatives of user groups and local authorities. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Transport Committee Inquiry into Bus Services after the Spending Review which we hope will assist the Committee and will be happy to give oral evidence if required.

2. Executive Summary — Two-thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus whilst 25% of households in the UK do not have access to a car.i Despite the vital role of buses in the day to day lives of millions of people, buses are facing massive cuts in both national and local funding which RMT has been advised by members will lead to reduced services and higher prices, loss of concessionary fares and significant redundancies. — RMT is working with Campaign for Better Transport on producing a report on the impact of the cuts and although it is not yet complete, initial conclusions confirm the cuts will disproportionately hit the most vulnerable in our society. RMT has also contacted our Branches with bus members and can share a case study of the impact of the cuts from Derbyshire Council (see page 5 of this submission). The cuts will have significant adverse consequences for a number of groups, namely — Young people. Without affordable public transport some of the poorest and most socially excluded children will not be able to access projects and services designed for them. Older people are most dependent on bus services. A Mori poll of over 65’s for age concern has shown the concessionary bus pass is more popular than the winter fuel payment and post offices. Only the state pension and the NHS were considered more precious. People who are already isolated face additional hardship when bus services are withdrawn. — Disabled people will also be badly hit by the cuts. They are more likely to mention transport a local concern than non disabled people. 60% of disabled people have no car in the household and they use buses around 20% more frequently than non disabled people. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w55

— People on low incomes and jobseekers will be hit hard. The poorest half of households in the bottom income bracket do not own a car, compared to a national average of 25% (and only 10% of the top income bracket).ii If job seekers are expected to travel by bus to find job opportunities (as exhorted to by Iain Duncan Smith) there must be affordable bus services for them to use. Cuts to bus services and fare hikes will hamper the ability of people to gain employment. — RMT believes that bus fares which have already risen disproportionately, compared to car costs will increase further penalising the poorer section of society. — It is unacceptable that bus companies should raise fares and make cuts whist paying significant dividends to shareholders. For the big five companies this amounts to almost two thirds the value of the Bus Service Operator Grant over the last ten years. Chief Executives are also continuing to enjoy excessive salaries, with one recently being awarded a 35% increase.

3. The Impact of Combined Cuts on Bus Services and the Economy 3.1 Local transport funding to local authorities is being cut by an average of 28% and many ring fences are being removed from funding sources that are supposed to be for local transport, like the previous rural bus subsidy grant.iii This will combine with a 20% drop in the Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) from 2012,iv and a cut of £54 million to the budget for reimbursing operators for the journeys taken by statutory concessionary bus pass holders.

3.2 Prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review, a joint-letter was sent from a variety of passenger groups, environmental groups, trade unions (including the RMT) and bus companies to the Government and to all MPs, which highlighted the dangers of scrapping the (BSOG). This letter highlighted the “damaging and wide- ranging consequences for local communities, public transport services, low-income groups, the UK economy and the environment” if the BSOG were scrapped. RMT believes that although the BSOG has not been removed in its entirety the combined overall reduction will cause massive damage to the industry.

3.3 RMT believes the cuts will have a disproportionately large impact on the unemployed. In fact, according to the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond: “Social mobility and, in particular, moving people off welfare and into work, often depends on transport infrastructure. If people on isolated and deprived estates cannot get a bus or a train to the nearest city or town, they may be stranded without work and without hope”.v

3.4 The Department for Transports’ own equality impact assessment into the affect of the reduction on the elderly and disabled raises some serious concerns. These include: — Recognition of the fact that there is an indication or evidence that the elderly and disabled have different needs, experiences, issues or priorities in relation to the particular policy. — That there is potential for, or evidence that, this policy may adversely affect equality of opportunity for all and may harm good relations between the different groups, in particular the elderly and disabled. — That there is potential for, or evidence that, any part of the proposed policy could discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the elderly and disabled. — And that there is evidence or an indication that there may be a reduced uptake of the service by the elderly or disabled.

3.5 RMT is concerned there will be particularly severe cut in commercial buses services, especially in rural areas and on less used evening and weekend services. The problems faced by rural services in managing the reduction will be compounded by the fact that the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant will no longer be ring-fenced.

3.6 An increase in the costs of bus operations will also have a negative effect on employment in the industry, directly and through servicing, manufacturing and supply services. It will be most damaging to independent and small operators, where large monopoly operators will be in a better position to absorb the reduction. These smaller operators are also more likely to operate in rural areas and in community transport.

3.7 Moreover transport authorities and local councils, whose budgets have already been cut, will be unable to make up the funding shortfall. Local-authority-subsidised services would become increasingly unproﬁtable. It would also push up the costs of running a signiﬁcant number of school services.

3.8 There will also be economic consequences. A previous study for the Government by the Commission for Integrated Transport found that every £1 invested in BSOG provided between £3 and £5 of wider beneﬁts. These wider beneﬁts will be substantially reduced as a direct consequence of the reduction in the Bus Services Operators’ Grant.

3.9 Research undertaken by the Confederation of Passenger Transport in 2010 examined the revenue generated for suppliers and retail spend by bus passengers. This showed that per year £3,630 to £4,445 is spent by the average bus user on shopping trips taken by bus. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Transport Committee: Evidence

4. The Impact of Combined Cuts on Fares and Environmental Implications 4.1 In response to a Parliamentary Question on 25 November 2010, the Bus Minister stated that he had spoken to the “Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, who represents the bus industry, following the Chancellor’s announcement on 20 October. They were hopeful that, in general, the 20% reduction in the Bus Service Operators Grant could be absorbed without fares having to rise”. 4.2 This directly contradicts the comments of a number of bus operators who have made clear the negative impact which this reduction will have on their ability to provide a service. Peter Schipp, the chief executive of East Yorkshire Motor Services who operate 320 buses in Hull, Scarborough and the East Riding of Yorkshire said: “We made a profit of £436,000 last year and if this goes through we would lose £2.25 million a year in grant from April ...our first port of call would be to increase fares, I suppose people would rather pay more to keep their services. We would also have to think about taking some services out, especially early in the morning. Also if you push fares up, people don't use buses and more services become unprofitable, so it is a vicious circle.”vi 4.3 Additionally Mark Howarth, managing director Western Greyhound, which operates 117 buses in Cornwall, argues that he faces a 40% cut in the grant he receives for providing the concessionary bus travel for elderly and disabled persons. “We will have to put up fares and cut services. It would not just be rural routes which carry the odd granny, it would be interurban routes which take people to school.” 4.4 He also warned that councils, who facing spending cuts of their own, will not have the money to plug the gap and subsidise services themselves. Passengers on Western Greyhound could see fares rise by as much as 50%, Mr Howarth warned, because of the cuts in subsidy to the companies. This would see a one way trip from Truro to Falmouth going up from £3 to £4.50. 4.5 The following parliamentary answer on 19 March 2009 shows that this will make a bad situation worse in respect of the relative cost of buses to motoring. Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage change in real terms of the cost of travelling by (a) private car, (b) bus, (c) train and (d) aeroplane since (i) 1979 and (ii) 1997. Paul Clark [holding answer 13 March 2009]: Between 1979 and 2008 the real cost of motoring declined by 17% bus and coach fares increased by 55% and rail fares increased by 49% in real terms. The costs of travelling by air are not available from the retail prices index. However, the cost of the average UK one-way air fare, including taxes and charges, covering domestic and international flights fell by 49% between 1997 and 2006, the latest date for which figures are available. 4.6 Rises in the cost of bus travel and cuts in bus networks would increase car use, worsen congestion, damage the environment and lead to higher costs for businesses. 4.7 Fare rises would weaken the contribution to delivering on the Government’s CO2 reduction targets through modal shift from the car. “Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future” report published in 2009 by the Department for Transport showed that greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport are still rising, amounting to 21% of all UK domestic emissions. Buses can make a major contribution to delivering on the Government’s CO2 reduction targets through modal shift from the car as the figures below from the 2006 Eddington Climate Change study bear out. — The CO2 per car passenger kilometre is 130g CO2, per bus/coach passenger kilometre it is 69g CO2. — In a city a journey by bus can result in half the CO2 emissions per passenger compared to the car. This differential would become much greater with model shift. — If car drivers switched from car to bus or coach for just one journey in 25 it would mean one billion less car journeys on our roads and a reduction of 2 Million Tonnes of CO2.

5. Impact on Bus Company Profits 5.1 The impact of the bus cuts on the poor and vulnerable in society has been demonstrated together with the adverse effects on local economies and the environment. The impact on these cuts however will be far greater because following privatisation in the 1980’s (since which time services have declined and fares risen) the overwhelming majority of bus companies continue to put the need to pay a dividend to shareholders before saving services or keeping fares affordable. In short bus companies will not run services unless they paid to do so or it is profitable to do so. 5.2 In a 2007 RMT survey of 5000 bus workers an astonishing 69% of bus workers felt that the company they worked for was more interested in making profits than providing a service to passengers. Only 14% felt their company was more interested in passengers than profits. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w57

5.3 Research by the RMT below shows that in the last decade the big ﬁve transport operators who own and operate most of our bus services have reported combined bus and rail dividends in excess of £2 billion which is almost two thirds of the value in BSOG they have received in that time.vii It is RMT’s ﬁrm contention that the bus industry must begin taking steps back to public ownership. DIVIDENDS PAID BY BIG FIVE TRANSPORT OPERATORS, NOT DISAGGREGATED SO ARE PAID ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS MADE IN RAIL/BUS/LIGHT RAIL AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATION National Arriva First Group Express Go-Ahead Stagecoach Year Dividends dividends Dividends Dividends Dividends 2000 £33.4m £36.6m £26.3m £6.5m £54m 2001 £33.8m £38.8m £28.6m £7.6m £49.3m 2002 £34.6m £43.1m £32.4m £8.6m £34.1m 2003 £35.3m £45.5m £35.1m £12.7m £34.3m 2004 £35.6m £47.3m £36.4m £19.3m £38.4m 2005 £39.1m £48.2m £41.6m £21.5m £37.2m 2006 £39.6m £52m £49.7m £25.3m £36.6m 2007 £41.9m £57.1m £54m £28.9m £41.5m 2008 £47.8m £69.5m £59.6m £31.4m £30m 2009 £50.3m £84.6m £15.2m £34.8m £41.8m 2010 Not yet £93.1m Not yet Not yet £76.7m available available available Total £391.4m £663.8m £398.3m £211.1m £473.8m

5.4 It would also be interesting to note whether the cuts will have an impact on the salaries of the chief executives of the big ﬁve companies, shown below: Company Highest Paid Director Arriva Group David Martin £743,635 (31 Dec 2009) First Group Moir Lockhead £643,000 (31 Mar 2010) Go-Ahead Group (65% of Govia) Keith Ludeman £916,000 (27 Jun 2009) £1,240,000 (July 2010, 35% increase on 2009) National Express Group Ray O’Toole £644,000 (31 December 2009) Interim 6 months ended 30 June 2008 Stagecoach Group Brian Souter £762,000 (30 April 2010) Interim 6 months ended 31 October 2008

6. Case Study—Derby County Council 6.1 RMT has been provided with the following information. In a paper presented to the Derby County Council Cabinet meeting on 1st October (attached to this submission) the Strategic Director of Environmental Services warns “It is apparent however that rising costs in the bus industry and the increasing difficult financial climate necessitate a more thorough review of the supported bus network. Some significant savings have been achieved by the review of bus services undertaken as part of the regular tendering process and by improvements in the procurement processes. The current financial position, however, cannot be sustained and further action is needed to respond to financial pressures in both the short and long term. It is inevitable that some passengers would be inconvenienced by the proposed changes and, in some cases, particular journeys would no longer be possible. However, the proposed changes are designed to keep the overall impact on travellers to a minimum. The experience gained from recent tender rounds suggests that there may be considerable scope to achieve savings while ensuring the provision of a good albeit somewhat reduced, level of service.” 6.2 The paper then proposes the following areas for consultation on bus services, (to be completed by (31 January).

Non-entitled Home to School Transport

“Around 1,700 non-entitled school children pay a fare, typically 50 pence for a single journey, to travel to school on bus services funded by the County Council. Students using these services either live less than three miles from secondary school (two miles for primary school children) or have chosen to attend a school outside their normal area. The fare income in many cases only covers 10%–30% of the cost of the contracts, and the network requires a total subsidy of just under £1 million paid for out of the local bus revenue support budget. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Transport Committee: Evidence

The fares charged on these services are substantially below normal commercial or other County Council rates. This highlights a lack of consistency with other fare-paying students who are charged considerably more if they use local buses with a b_line discount or catch Council contracted buses to attend faith schools. Raising fares to more consistent levels, and/or setting maximum subsidy levels at, say, 50%, would improve income and reduce expenditure. There would, however, need to be consideration given to the impact on families.” b_line “The b-line scheme currently provides a 50% travel subsidy on buses and trains for young people between the ages of 14 and 19 who are in full time education. A possible option would be to reduce the level of travel concession on offer, while retaining other aspects of the scheme including discounts, library card and PASS (the national Proof of Age Standard Scheme). Such a proposal would mean students over the age of 14 paying a greater proportion of any bus or train fare when using the b_line card. This could result in signiﬁcant savings on the coast of the subsidy which is currently around £1.3 million per year.”

Gold Card “Free off-peak travel available on buses across England is funded by Central Government and administered by the County Council on behalf of the District and Borough Councils. On top of this national travel entitlement, the County Council funds half fare travel on local trains in and around Derbyshire, at a cost of around £220,000 a year. A further concession costing the Authority £240,000 a year gives Gold Card holders free travel on Community Transport Dial-a-Bus services. Clearly any decision to amend either or both of these concessions could make further savings to public transport budgets.”

Conclusion The combined impact of the cuts in bus funding will have a detrimental impact on the social, environmental and economic benefits that bus travel can bring. If there were similar cuts to rail services and travel concessions on the national rail network there would be a national media outcry yet even though far more people use buses there has been little media attention to the onslaught buses are about to experience. Perhaps the lack of media attention can be explained by what is also the worst aspect of the cuts—namely that they will disproportionately hit the most vulnerable and powerless in society. As many users are utterly dependant on buses for work, education and leisure the cuts could literally ruin lives and have a hugely detrimental impact on whole communities. That the cuts are taking place whilst the big bus companies are making significant profits on the back of national and local government subsidy only re-enforces the RMT’s belief that the industry should be returned to public ownership. January 2011

References i DfT, Public Transport Statistics Bulletin GB: 2009 Edition (PDF)] ii While the data used is from 2003, it is the ﬁrst listed research report used to support the 21st Century Welfare White Paper. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/21st-century-welfare, cited in Equality, Work and Welfare, Campaign for better Transport, 2010, http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/ﬁles/Transport_social_ equality_welfare_work.pdf iii DfT, Transport Spending Review, 2010 http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId= 202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416118&SubjectId=36 iv Ibid v http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surrey-news/surrey-columnists/2010/08/24/philip-hammond-mp-transport=-is- at-theheart-of-the-country-growth-86289–27135014/ vi Daily Telegraph 22 November 2010 vii Since 2000 according to Parliamentary answers BSOG has averaged about £350 million a year. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w59

Written evidence from EYMS Group Ltd (BUS 35) Introduction and Background EYMS Group Limited is one of the largest independent bus operators in the UK, and one of only two former subsidiaries of the National Bus Company which remains independent after the NBC privatisation programme of the mid 1980s. EYMS Group employs about 940 people, has an annual turnover of over £39 million, owns 410 buses and coaches and runs over 11 million miles on local bus routes each year, carrying about 25 million passengers on those services. The Group’s subsidiaries are East Yorkshire Motor Services Limited based in Hull, Finglands Coachways Limited based in Manchester and Whittle Coach & Bus Limited based in Kidderminster. For simplicity statistics quoted in this submission refer only to East Yorkshire Motor Services which is by far the largest subsidiary, earning around £30 million of the total turnover referred to above and running over 9 million bus miles per annum with 325 vehicles. The East Yorkshire subsidiary operates in Hull, East Riding and North Yorkshire on a wide variety of routes, ranging from intense urban in Hull to sparse rural in East Riding, in which local authority area EYMS is by far the largest bus service provider. The importance of the bus industry nationally cannot be overstated. As recently remarked by the Minister, Norman Baker, buses are vital to the economy, and the backbone of public transport. This is undoubtedly true especially in many rural areas, but also in many of the more deprived urban areas, often providing the only means of access to jobs, health facilities, schools and shops. Almost three times the number of trips per person are made on buses each year than on the surface rail and underground networks combined. In Hull, Council surveys suggest that almost half of those who come into Hull to shop do so by bus. Yet successive governments, whilst paying lip service to the essential nature of road public transport, have consistently failed to do much to support it—indeed EYMS can ﬁnd little, if anything, over the last few years in the way of government legislation, EU legislation and actions by bodies such as the DSA and the DVLA which have done anything other than increase costs, bureaucracy and administration for the bus industry, and more often a combination of all three. The bus industry has suffered a welter of legislation which is referred to in a later section of this submission, but all of which has made bus operation more difﬁcult and more expensive. There has been much talk of a “war on motorists” but we would submit that in practice almost the opposite could be true since motoring costs in general have risen by only a small amount, whilst the labour-intensive bus industry costs have risen much more substantially. Only this week the government has announced its wish for local authorities to reduce car parking charges which will effectively encourage more car use, negating the previous policy of suggesting increased car parking charges to encourage public transport use. So yet again the bus passenger, for many of whom the bus is a vital lifeline, is treated very much as a second class citizen.

The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, including on community transport The original intention of the bus service operator grant (originally called fuel duty rebate) was to facilitate the continued operation of local bus services in many areas where they would otherwise be lost because they would be uneconomical to operate commercially, especially in rural areas margins are usually small and where often rail transport is not available as an option. In this BSOG has largely succeeded and has been a very simple grant to administer. In the case of East Yorkshire there are few if any communities which had a bus service in the sixties which do not still have some level of service now. The freezing of the grant since 2008 has already substantially increased the cost of fuel for bus companies over and above the underlying cost of the product itself, and the planned 20% cut in BSOG from April 2012 will worsen this further, bringing an estimated loss of £600,000 per annum in the payment of BSOG to East Yorkshire Motor Services. Looking at this another way the total tax yield (fuel duty less BSOG) from local bus fuel used by East Yorkshire will increase from £1,073,038 in January 2011 to £2,152,178 in April 2014 after the annual duty rises announced in October 2010 and the 20% reduction in BSOG are taken into account. This is an increase of 101%, and assumes inﬂation over the period averages 2%. Bearing in mind that until the 1990s all fuel duty was rebated this has created an entirely new tax take of in excess of 10p per passenger trip. For East Yorkshire fuel price per litre net of BSOG will have risen by no less than 152% between 2004 and 2012, assuming that there are no increases beyond today’s price in the underlying cost of fuel, which is almost certainly unlikely, and no further increases in duty although we understand there are more planned. All other things being equal, in the same period the overall net cost of road fuel will have risen from 9.29% to 18.16% of total operating costs cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Transport Committee: Evidence

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. It is already know that in North Yorkshire the Council is planning to cut almost all of the evening and Sunday bus services it currently supports under contract. Hull City Council is likely to cut out or reduce the non-statutory (schools) local bus services it currently supports. No details have yet been given by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council but as this is largely a sparse and large rural area a significant number of bus routes are currently wholly or partly supported by the local authority and indications are that many of these will be withdrawn or curtailed. Together with the effects of the concessionary reimbursement cuts this is likely to deprive many of the East Riding rural communities of any bus service and will cause severe hardship amongst the residents of those communities who will be denied access to employment etc. These service reductions are unlikely to be replaced by Community Transport operators since it is known than most in the East Riding are already having financial difficulties and finding volunteer drivers less willing to offer their services. It has today been learned that for our Whittles subsidiary based in Worcestershire the County Council now plans to cut the majority of the contracts currently operated by our company (along with many others in the county) and if implemented this would cut by approximately half the current size of the bus fleet and this would probably make the remaining operation unsustainable.

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 We believe that the national travel concessionary scheme has been fundamentally flawed from inception in 2008 and the current plans to change the reimbursement formula will make matters significantly worse. We believe that the scheme is both morally and legally inequitable given its underlying basis that operators should be “no better and no worse off” as a result of its operation. At East Yorkshire approximately 40% of passengers now travel free under the scheme and for some operators, especially smaller ones in rural areas, the figure is much higher. In Bridlington, served by East Yorkshire, 70% of passengers travel free on the town route network and we have seen figures as high as 90% for entire operator networks in other areas. This underlying principle therefore means that in the case of East Yorkshire, roundly 40% of our business has profit levels frozen at what they were before the scheme started, even if unacceptably low, and any necessary increase in income, not least to cover the costs of legislative changes and achieving reasonable business margins, thus has to be borne by the 60% of remaining fare paying passengers, which seems grossly unfair and inequitable. The proportions are clearly even less helpful for some other operators. Furthermore operators are now restricted in what they can do to market services to passengers through one of the normal methods, which is fares promotions, since any fares reduction, even for a short promotional period, affects the adult fares on which the concessionary reimbursement is based in almost every TCA area. Thus reimbursement is reduced even though no more concessionary passengers will be carried since the fares promotion is of no relevance to them and there will be no incentive for more of them to travel and bring an increase in the reimbursement. The DfT draft reimbursement guidance would, at our best estimate, have reduced concessionary fare reimbursements to East Yorkshire Motor Services by £2.25 million a year for a company which in 2009 made a net profit after tax of only £435,000. The forecast net profit for 2010 is likely to be very similar. The revised guidance which has now been issued to local authorities is estimated to reduce this loss of reimbursement to around £1 million for East Yorkshire Motor Services but this is still a huge sum and comes on top of inevitable cuts in contracted services by local authorities whose funding reductions will, we know, result in many local bus service contracts being withdrawn. We are aware that for some operators, especially those who have successfully increased passenger numbers in recent years, the revised DfT reimbursement guidance will actually make matters even worse which again appears to be hugely unfair for those good operators who have, through marketing and other initiatives, managed to increase the size of their business to the undoubted benefit of the local communities they serve. We believe that the revised guidance is still seriously flawed and based on far from perfect research, and coupled with local authority contract cuts and next year’s reduction in BSOG will result in significant bus service cuts especially in rural areas, and above-average fares’ increases for paying passengers on those services which remain. Another effect will be to stifle investment in new buses and make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for some operators to achieve the final deadline of 1 January 2017, by which time all buses used on local services, not just new ones, have to be DDA compliant. There is therefore little or no opportunity for operators to improve their finances by cutting back new bus purchases. The inevitable effect of this combination of financial factors will damage bus operators’ balance sheets and this in turn will make it much more difficult to get finance from banks, etc. for the purchase of new buses, especially given the banks much more cautious lending regimes which are now in place. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w61

How passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area We believe that the work of Passenger Focus since its remit was extended to cover this local bus service and has been generally positive and helpful. Passenger Focus appears to be taking a realistic view and whilst acting as a “critical friend” of the bus industry and rightly challenging operators where they fail to provide good service, has been generally supportive of the industry in its efforts to increase further the quality of service offered and its efforts to increase passenger numbers against its major competitor, the private car. Locally a great deal of effort is put into obtaining passenger views and it is widely known that East Yorkshire Motor Services welcomes both positive and negative comments from passengers and prospective passengers and carefully takes all comments and suggestions into account. Being locally based and managed, East Yorkshire Motor Services is at the very heart of the communities it serves and its Chairman and other Senior Managers participate actively in the Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce, the East Riding Transport Partnership, the Ryedale Transport and Access Partnership and the Hull Quality Bus Partnership. In addition, bus forums are regularly held to which the public have access and can directly question company senior executives and the company directly supports the City of Hull Environment Forum which, based on behalf of the Hull and East Riding authorities, undertakes regular bus passenger surgeries through the area using a specially converted bus sponsored by the company.

The Impact of Regulatory Burden as Public Funding is Reduced As briefly mentioned above the bus industry has suffered hugely under a veritable flood of regulatory burden in the last few years. Just some examples of the most significant are: Industry-specific: Concessionary fares. EU Training Directive costs. EU Drivers’ hours applicable to routes over 50km. Digital tachograph regulations for routes over 50km. DDA requirements incl vehicle construction. End of life vehicle directive. EU emissions requirements (more expensive engines and more fuel for less emissions). HSE level crossing risk assessments. Trade plate tougher enforcement. Above RPI increases in fees from VOSA, DVLA, DSA. Tougher DVLA minimum test vehicle requirements (ABS etc). To come—EU passenger rights directive (less than feared but still likely to cost in respect of passenger information for the disabled etc). Non-industry-specific but expensive rules: Minimum pay regulations. Age discrimination rules. Control of asbestos at work regulations. DDA employment rules. Employment Acts (maternity pay, time off with pay rules etc). National Insurance increases. Noise at work regulations. Working time directive. In particular the EU directive on vehicle emissions has resulted in more expensive engines requiring more fuel to produce reduced emissions, and still to come is Euro 6, we understand in 2012, which we are reliably informed will mean even more expensive engines requiring yet more fuel and possible reduced passenger capacity since the engines are likely to be bigger. To illustrate the point fuel consumption at East Yorkshire has worsened from an average of 8.71mpg in 1994 to 7.35mpg in 2012—an increase of 18.9%. This is also partly due to increased traffic congestion and more traffic management measures which have not helped bus speeds but the overall effect of worse fuel consumption has to be considered alongside the huge increases in the price of fuel itself as described above. The burden of maintaining a defined benefit pension scheme, put in place at privatisation to mirror the previous NBC scheme and to provide the best employment package for staff in the private sector environment, has also been considerable due to constant legislative changes which have also been almost universally more burdensome and costly. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Transport Committee: Evidence

Summary The Chairman of EYMS Group, who was a member of the management buy-out team in 1997 and has been the sole shareholder since 1997, has been with EYMS for 30 years and in the bus industry for almost 49 years, states that in his opinion the bus industry is now facing by far its biggest challenges and threats, certainly since the mid 1970s when severe cuts to the local bus service network had to be made by the nationalised National Bus Company. The combined adverse effect of local authority funding cuts, BSOG reductions, concessionary fare reimbursement cuts and further legislative changes still to come, is certain to have the most serious consequences for bus passengers and the overall effect would do nothing for the government’s policies on climate change, congestion reduction or social inclusion. January 2011

Written evidence from the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) (BUS 36) Summary — The introduction of a concessionary bus travel scheme in England is widely regarded by older people as a positive benefit, not only to them as individual users, but also to society as a whole. It is therefore important that the overall value that the scheme provides is properly recognised. — There has been a certain amount of confusion as to the funding arrangements of the current scheme which has raised issues regarding the costs and benefits accruing to both local authorities and bus operating companies. These need to be clarified. — Whilst it is relatively early to provide extensive examples as to the impact that the Comprehensive Spending Review will have on bus services in England, it is possible to suggest that over the coming period there will be increases in fares, reductions in network coverage and a removal of those additional provisions that fall outside of the minimum statutory requirement covered by the Concessionary Bus Travel Act (2007). Of particular concern is the continuation of those community transport schemes that are vital in many rural areas where existing services are already limited. — Further research and investigation should be carried out later in the year to produce a more accurate picture of how the Comprehensive Spending Review and other factors are impacting on free off- peak travel services for older and disabled people.

1. Introduction 1.1 The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) is Britain’s largest pensioner organisation representing around 1.5 million older people, active in over 1,000 afﬁliated groups. The NPC is run by and for pensioners and campaigns for improvements to their income, health and welfare. 1.2 Since the introduction of the Concessionary Bus Travel Act (2007), in April 2008, England has enjoyed a locally administered bus pass that, whilst not providing a nationwide service, can be used for through journeys across the country. 1.3 The provision of free bus travel remains extremely popular with older people; allowing them not only to be socially included, but also to make a valuable contribution to their local communities. Any reduction in either the availability or entitlement to services will therefore have serious and detrimental effects on these users and society as a whole.

2. Funding of Concessionary Travel 2.1 Since 2000, money was allocated to local government to fund the introduction of a half-price bus fare scheme. This money continues to be an ongoing payment and is not ring-fenced. Likewise, in 2002 additional money was made available to give men aged 60–64 the same concession as women of that age. In 2006, an additional £350 million was made available for the free, local-only bus travel and the Concessionary Bus Travel Act (2007) produced a further £212 million. 2.2 However, despite this funding, some local authorities have argued that the grants they receive are not sufﬁcient to meet the cost of free bus travel, including that which arises as a result of tourists visiting the area. As a result, various stories have appeared in the media that claim services will have to be cut, or council tax is rising in order for pensioners to get free bus travel. This is both misleading and unfair. 2.3 The fact that there are four separate ongoing grants, none of which are ring-fenced, and that the formula for making the grants is complicated and not readily available to the public, means it is virtually impossible to guarantee whether or not the money is being used properly. Such confusion can then allow local authorities to claim they are under-funded and cut services. The implications of the cuts to funding as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review therefore only serve to make this situation worse. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w63

2.4 In addition, under the 2007 Act, bus operators are supposed to be no better or worse off financially as a result of providing concessionary travel. However, experience has shown that by the way in which they calculate their fares, the different ways they issue their tickets and the way they have been able to alter routes to manipulate the market under the deregulated structure, the bus companies have been able to make considerable profits out of pensioner travel, alter services and make these changes without local authorities having any influence. This is something central and local government must address as it seriously undermines the credibility and viability of the scheme. 2.5 In the past, the excessively large number of Transport Concession Authorities (291) which have had to deal with a relatively small number of big and powerful bus companies simply weakened a local authority’s ability to have any say over the cost of reimbursement for concessionary travel. In view of this, the government’s intention in the future to simplify the arrangements on a county council basis is therefore to be welcomed.

3. The Value of Concessionary Travel 3.1 In the present financial situation it is easy to suggest that older people should no longer have free bus travel, or that it should be means-tested as a way of saving money. However, this is a rather short-sighted and counterproductive argument that needs to be challenged. In its present form, the bus pass provides for free Off Peak bus travel (ie out of work hours) for leisure and pleasure, but in doing so offers clear benefits to society as a whole, as well as to individual users. 3.2 Concessionary travel enables older people to continue to lead independent lives and participate in the communities in which they live and the scheme should be part of society’s commitment to involve older people. Justification for free travel should also acknowledge that we do not see older people as the problem. In fact, if older people were properly included in our society they would be part of the solution. For example, a vast amount of charity work and volunteer organisations have a high proportion of retired people taking part. Work done by volunteers saves the economy considerable sums of money; estimated to be well over £50 billion a year. 3.3 Furthermore, it is recognised that the social inclusion of older people and the chance to stay independent and active also brings reductions in the demand for health and care services—with a corresponding decrease in the cost of these services. By contrast, restricting access to concessionary travel would undoubtedly lead to increases in social isolation, loneliness, depression and higher demand for health and social care. 3.4 As well as benefiting the individual, it has also been shown that extra services that have been provided on some bus routes to cater for the increased pensioner demand, also improves services for all, with some bus companies enjoying an increase in non concessionary travel since the introduction of the concessionary scheme. 3.5 Encouraging older people out of their cars also has certain environmental benefits, as well as helping older people to spend their disposable income in local economies. Given the present economic situation, such things must be encouraged rather than curtailed.

4. Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 4.1 On a practical note, it should be acknowledged that it is still relatively premature to provided specific examples where reductions or cuts to concessionary services have already been made as a result of the changes in the CSR. However, we can at this stage point to the factors that will have a detrimental effect, such as: — Major cuts in local authority spending. — Cut in the BSOG of 20%. — Economic slump, including unemployment, resulting in reduced bus patronage. 4.2 Research conducted by the NPC has already highlighted some potential long-term indicators of the effects we face: — National Express West Midlands has reported a loss of 7,000,000 passenger journeys in the last year. — As a result, fares will inevitably rise, which in turn will do little to increase passenger numbers or expand the bus network. — Bus services have been removed from some estates to concentrate on main corridors, resulting in a loss of network coverage and practical hardship for some individuals and communities. — Times between services are being extended, thus reducing overall numbers of buses, and increasing the waiting time of passengers, particularly when cancellations occur. — Existing provisions that fall outside the statutory minimum, such as free bus travel before 9.30 am, have reverted to the less generous legal requirement. 4.3 There are also specific concerns regarding the impact that cuts would have on community transport schemes, which are often seen as an alternative to bus travel, particularly in rural areas. The availability of schemes such as dial-a-ride and taxi-card is already being restricted and, as they fall outside the statutory requirements of the 2007 Act, are likely to be among the first casualties of reductions in local authority funding. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Transport Committee: Evidence

However, these services remain of vital importance to individuals with restricted mobility or in areas where traditional bus services are either limited or non-existent. Removing this essential lifeline will therefore have a devastating impact on these users.

4.4 Bus companies may also begin to review their access standards to socially necessary services, by raising the minimum patronage threshold and/or lengthening the maximum walk distance to a bus service. Either or both of these would generate savings for the company, but at the expense of network coverage and access to some of our most vulnerable older citizens.

5. Conclusion 5.1 There remains a view that the provision of the concessionary bus travel scheme is a benefit solely to the individual, rather than as something which can also benefit local communities. It is important that reducing the funding to such a scheme is not therefore seen as a painless option. There are currently an estimated 8m bus pass holders; and a significant proportion have either limited access to alternative transport or mobility problems. Cuts to services will therefore be felt widely across the country.

5.2 There is a urgent need for a greater understanding of the complexity of the ﬁnance associated with the concessionary travel scheme and for the Department for Transport to simplify the ﬁnancial arrangements to achieve a greater transparency, auditing and control over how the grants for concessionary travel are being used.

5.3 In the meantime, the NPC has already conducted some initial research into the changes taking place to existing bus service provision, and plan to carry out further research later in 2011. The Select Committee may also wish to re-visit this inquiry once more experience and data is available. January 2011

Written evidence from the Go Ahead Group plc (BUS 39)

0.0 Introduction 0.1 The Go Ahead Group plc (Go Ahead) is a leading UK based public transportation group. We employ approximately 22,500 people and run bus and rail services principally in the UK. Our rail services are franchises operated on behalf of the Government and our current portfolio comprises London Midland, Southern and Southeastern.

0.2 We have a bus ﬂeet of 3,850 vehicles. 1,825 of these operate on behalf of Transport for London in the London tendered market and are therefore outside the scope of this investigation. The remaining 2,000 serve a number of communities based on the following areas: Plymouth, Brighton, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Southampton, Bournemouth & Poole, Oxford, Surrey, East & West Sussex, Norfolk, Tyne & Wear, Northumberland and County Durham. The businesses in these areas employ around 6,500 people and deliver comprehensive networks mainly in urban areas but also in some cases serving semi urban and rural communities.

0.3 Go Ahead welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and present evidence to the Transport Select Committee.

0.4 The inquiry is looking into the funding of bus services in England (outside London) in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). After a contextual section the remainder of this memorandum addresses the subject areas set out in the call for evidence.

1.0 Context 1.1 Table 1 identiﬁes the level of turnover of the local bus industry (outside London) and its key components.

Table 1

LOCAL BUS REVENUE IN ENGLAND (2009–10) Category £bn Proportion (%) Passenger receipts 1.8 52 Local bus services support 0.54 16 Concessionary travel 0.78 23 reimbursement Bus Service Operators’ Grant 0.31 9 (BSOG) Total 3.43 100 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w65

Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 1.2 Individually and together the elements of turnover that are derived from public funding sources are extremely important. The table shows that taken together public funding makes up almost half (48%) of local bus turnover in England outside London and concessionary reimbursement on its own nearly 25%. 1.3 It is important to make the comment generally and with regard to assessing the impact of any cuts in public funding that of the public support flowing into the local bus industry, only BSOG is genuine subsidy. Of the other two components: — Local bus service support—is payment principally by local transport authorities to bus companies for publicly specified and procured services. The vast majority of those payments are made to bus companies after a competitive tendering process — Concessionary travel reimbursement—is, in effect, compensation to operators for revenue foregone arising from the legal requirement to carry elderly and disabled customers free under the terms of the National Concessionary Travel Scheme (NCTS) 1.4 In addition we would argue that BSOG is a subsidy to customers rather than bus companies as it helps to mitigate the cost of fuel which in turn means that fares can be kept lower than they would be in the absence of the BSOG payment. 1.5 Go Ahead’s deregulated bus companies are broadly comparable with the industry proportions set out in Table 1. As would be expected those companies with networks in urban areas tend to be less reliant on public support and have a higher proportion of passenger receipts with the opposite applying to those companies with a greater proportion of their networks in semi urban or rural areas. 1.6 Go Ahead has, and continues to monitor closely the likely impact on public funding into the bus industry arising from public spending cuts contained in the CSR. We believe we have strong resilient businesses in a generally strong resilient industry. However work undertaken by independent consultants for the Department for Transport (DfT) in the summer of 201023 showed that Go Ahead is not making excessive profits with returns on capital in line with costs of capital. This means we always have to be mindful of the impacts of potential cuts in income to maintain the balance between giving an effective service to customers and reasonable returns to shareholders.

2.0 The Impact of the Reduction in BSOG 2.1 As noted, BSOG effectively acts as an income stream to bus operators which is specifically used to mitigate fuel costs. Most operators express their fuel costs in net terms ie the net fuel cost is the gross cost of fuel less the BSOG sum which is a partial rebate on fuel duty paid. This is summarised below: — Gross fuel cost 100% — BSOG reduction 47% — Net fuel cost 53% 2.2 Regardless of the CSR a pertinent point to make is that the percentage reduction in fuel costs that BSOG gives to an operator has been progressively reducing as the base rate of BSOG has been frozen compared to fuel duty increases. It is acknowledged that this has generally been compensated by enhanced rates for bio fuels and incentives for fuel efficiency. Furthermore the bus industry has always lobbied hard that it is unfairly treated compared with rail and the airline industry which pay no duty on their fuel consumption. The comparison with air is particularly striking given the comparative beneficial carbon credentials of bus compared with air travel. Figures released in 2008 revealed this was a hidden subsidy of £10bn to the airline industry in the UK.24 2.3 Turning to the specific impact of the CSR, the Government announced BSOG would remain unchanged in the 2011–12 settlement year and then would be cut by 20% in each of the following three years. For Go- Ahead companies the impact translates to an increase in overall costs of between 1 and 2%. We would not expect this would lead to any service withdrawals but may require a small fares increase to make up the difference in addition to the normal annual inflationary percentage to cover for other cost increases. It is possible that if the other incentives that have so far remained in place for BSOG are maintained, such as the 8% increase above the base for the fitment of working smartcard readers on buses and the 2% increase above the base for automatic vehicle location systems together with volume increases as the economy improves, this could mean that the BSOG cut can be absorbed without any need to increase fares above the normal inflationary rate. 2.4 Indeed one of the positives of the BSOG announcement arising from the CSR is that there is at last some certainty in this funding stream which has not been the case since the previous Government asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to look at its effectiveness in 2000. Since then the grant has been in a constant state of review and uncertainty. We now have a commitment from the Government to maintain the funding—albeit at a reduced rate between 2012–13 and 2014–15—for the next four years. 23 Source: LEK for Department for Transport. Review of Bus Profitability in England Final Report—Updated 27 July 2010. 24 Source: House of Commons Transport Questions, 8 June 2008. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Transport Committee: Evidence

2.5 The only slight uncertainty that remains is how BSOG is paid to the operators with some local transport authorities lobbying for devolution. We would argue strongly against this: the way BSOG is administered at the moment is simple and cost effective for operators and the Government but more importantly it guarantees the money stays in the local bus sector. The general move to a reduction in ring fencing of funding from central to local Government means that it is unlikely that any local transport authority would be able to provide such a guarantee if BSOG were to be devolved.

3.0 The Impact of the Reduction in Local Authority Grant Support and Other Changes to the Funding of Local Authority Bus Schemes and Services by the DfT 3.1 The formula grant paid to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is being cut by 28% with the majority expected to come in 2011–12. This constitutes the biggest section of funding for local transport revenue grant and the impact on local authority bus service support for non commercial services (usually evening and weekend services and those to isolated communities) is expected to be significant especially as local bus support is not a statutory obligation. Certainly a number of local authorities in our operating areas (eg County Durham, West Sussex, Norfolk) have already publicly stated their intention to significantly reduce their spending on local bus service support. In the case of West Sussex County Council the intention is to save £2 million out of a £4.7 million annual budget. 3.2 The reality is that the impact of this as it translates from a stated high level intention to services on the ground is difficult to judge because local transport authorities are still assessing how to deliver these changes. There are some patterns emerging however: — Some of our networks are either 100% commercial or nearly 100% commercial (ie none of the service provision is dependent on local authority funding). This has been achieved by investment in reliability, punctuality, high quality buses, better marketing and improved frequencies. Although, as expected, these are principally in urban areas, the result of the investment in these networks is that we can provide services commercially even at supposedly less remunerative times of the week such as Sundays and in the evenings. Our networks in Oxford and Brighton fall into this category and as a result they will not feel any impact from reductions in this funding stream. — n semi urban and rural areas there is a category of service where the impact of potential cuts can be mitigated by active dialogue between the local authority and the operator. In some areas there are reports of rather misguided and poorly researched blanket reactions such as “withdrawal of support for Sunday services” or “withdrawal of support for evening services”.25 Even if specified by local authorities, good operators will know the strongest and weakest journeys they operate and may be able to suggest savings which minimise the impact on customers. Withdrawal of a few journeys at critical times of the day for the cost of the operation can turn a subsidised service into a commercial one. Conversely taking a blanket approach such as withdrawing all Sunday services could catch popular individual journeys or worse still undermine existing commercial services by giving people a narrower range of times to travel. In Surrey, where the County Council instituted a review of local bus support in advance of the CSR, some network changes have already been made. Constructive discussions between the County Council and Go Ahead subsidiary Metrobus resulted in the implementation of a new network which saved significant sums of public money with a minimal impact on customers. This was mainly achieved by converting subsidised journeys to commercial by not serving some very lightly used stops. — There is a further category of services for which it will be difficult to justify continuing local authority subsidy in a tighter funding environment and it is clear they are so marginal in terms of use that there is no prospect of operators being able to do anything to step in and take more risk themselves. West Sussex County Council mentioned services which currently require £12 subsidy per passenger journey. In such instances the justification for running a conventional bus service in any funding environment has to be questioned and the answer in terms of providing for the residual demand probably lies in community based solutions. The 2008 Transport Act has helped in this respect by, for example, allowing Section 22 community bus services to be staffed by paid drivers rather than unpaid volunteers. 3.3 Turning to other sources of local authority bus funding, since the mid 1990s when Transport Policy and Programme funding bids were replaced by Local Transport Plans followed by initiatives such as Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Kickstart funding there has been a good flow of funds, principally delivered by local authorities as a pump priming exercise into initiatives such as park and ride sites, bus priority measures, better information, bus stations and other waiting facilities. 3.4 These have been particularly effective at delivering local authority mode shift objectives but have also given a boost to general bus provision especially when accompanied by bus operator investment in vehicles, frequencies, customer service training and better marketing. As an organisation that provides both bus and rail services Go Ahead is comforted by the extent to which most of the major rail enhancement projects have 25 For example Hertfordshire County Council, 50% cut in evening and Sunday services. North Yorkshire County Council, withdrawal of support for evening and Sunday services in Selby. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w67

remained relatively unscathed from the CSR cuts. But we are concerned that smaller local transport projects such as those mentioned also have a big role to play in terms of delivering economic growth and environmental objectives and hope there will still be funding available for local authorities and bus operators to work together in continuing to deliver such schemes. In this respect we await the guidance on the new Local Sustainable Transport Fund with considerable interest as we hope this will partially compensate for the one third reduction in block funding for small transport improvement schemes.

4.0 Implementation and Financial Implications of Free Off Peak Travel for Elderly and Disabled People on Local Buses 4.1 The Transport Select Committee (TSC) looked into the subject of concessionary fares as recently as 2007–08 and concluded that “the current no better no worse off mechanism for reimbursing operators is unsatisfactory. It is arcane, time consuming and a recipe for disputes. It does nothing to promote good partnership working between travel concession authorities and bus operators….. A new, more transparent mechanism is required that compensates operators and avoids the waste and rancour generated by the current system.”26 4.2 Since the TSC’s conclusions the national free scheme has been implemented (April 2008) and much of the difficulties that the TSC identified have continued. Go Ahead is pleased to be part of a Government initiative that gives a significant proportion of the population better mobility and access but we must be reimbursed properly for it. The recent DfT guidance27 to Travel Concession Authorities (TCAs) for 2011–12 schemes has again created a degree of uncertainty after a period of relative calm. By their own estimates28 the new guidance, if implemented by TCAs, will result in up to £100 million being taken out of the industry. 4.3 We believe there is a mistaken view that operators have in the past been overcompensated29 and the guidance is intended to correct this but the DfT’s own review of bus industry profitability shows that Go Ahead’s return on capital is in line with its costs30 therefore not supporting the overcompensation view. 4.4 We are grateful that the DfT has moved on its initial consultation guidance issued in September 2010 and amended some of the most damaging aspects of their proposals but there are still areas of the revised guidance which give us cause for concern. We still await details of how TCAs will interpret this guidance. The statutory requirement is for TCAs to notify operators of scheme details 28 days in advance of the start date of April 1 which means that publication can be as late as March 1 2011. 4.5 Our preliminary modelling (based on a number of assumptions as the relevant TCAs have not yet published their schemes in full) indicates the overall impact on Go Ahead bus businesses could be a reduction of around 10% of concessionary funding which we believe is manageable without major service reductions. However, inevitably as the reimbursement rate declines there will be scrutiny of those services particularly reliant on concessionary boardings as revenue will be impacted and may not cover costs. The universal nature of concessionary funding may also mean our companies taking action plans which result in the loss of more marginal services at the fringes of the operating day, some thinning of frequencies and in a few cases withdrawal of complete services which are on the edge of profitability. 4.6 Our experience on the Isle of Wight where the reimbursement rate dropped from 76% to 32% by 2009/ 10 may be illuminating. Typically to maintain profitability half hourly services were reduced to hourly. High frequency services were reduced from every seven to eight minutes to every 10 minutes and some of the newer buses were taken off the island in an effort to keep down costs. All in all the impact has been manageable but a success story of significant patronage growth and investment in the bus network in 2006–07 was turned into a situation of stagnation by 2009–10. This is one of the more extreme examples and we would hope to avoid such a situation elsewhere through careful negotiation with TCAs, but it is an illustration of what can happen if reimbursement rates reduce to untenable levels.

5.0 Taking Into Account Passenger Views and the Role of Passenger Focus 5.1 Go Ahead companies do not employ a set template but we follow a number of models where we strive to seek the views of customers when changes are proposed. Our Oxford Bus Company has constituted a Stakeholder Board which discusses a whole range of issues as well as service changes and virtually all of our companies have embraced social media such as Facebook and Twitter to seek feedback. In our Go North East operation the Managing Director has live web chats once a week with customers and a comprehensive market research programme is undertaken involving self completion questionnaires before any changes are embarked on. 5.2 We welcome the involvement of user groups such as Passenger Focus and Bus Users UK and have worked with the latter organisation over a number of years in holding their popular Bus Surgeries in town centres. Since Passenger Focus has been asked to involve itself in bus services in 2009 we have worked closely 26 House of Commons Transport Committee, Ticketing and Concessionary Travel on Public Transport. Fifth Report of Session 2007–08. 27 Guidance for Travel Concession Authorities on the England National Travel Concessionary Scheme, 21 December 2010. 28 As above: Impact Assessment. 29 for example Secretary of State for Transport interview with Local Transport Today Issue 558 November 2010. 30 Source: LEK for Department for Transport. Review of Bus Proﬁtability in England Final Report—Updated 27 July 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Transport Committee: Evidence

with them and support their evidence based approach to identifying problems and issues through the use of extensive market research. We understand their next round of surveying is suspended due to reviews associated with the CSR but hope this can resume as it provides an excellent year on year comparison of customer attitudes. 5.3 The difficulty with customer engagement comes when cutbacks need to be made of the nature likely as a result of the CSR. If an operator is expanding routes or services, inevitably there will be more engagement than if an operator seeks views on service reductions. It is not always possible to give customers exactly what they want and difficult commercial decisions sometimes need to be made. The other dimension is that time can constrain the level of engagement. By law operators are required to give eight weeks notice to the Traffic Commissioner of any changes to service registrations. Planning a change in advance of this to devise the right timetables and staff rosters can take an additional three to four weeks at least. The sort of timescales local authorities work to—for example not being required to publish concessionary scheme details until a month before the scheme starts—means that we may need to take swift action if funding is being reduced. The statutory notification periods mean that sometimes it is just not commercially viable to undertake a detailed time consuming consultation exercise. 5.4 We always like to engage with customers, particularly for our commercial networks where we usually have more control but this is not always possible when the timing of changes is controlled by third parties. December 2010

Written evidence from the Association of Local Bus Company Managers (ALBUM) (BUS 40) Introduction 1. This evidence is submitted by the Association of Local Bus Company Managers (ALBUM) to the Transport Committee’s inquiry into the funding of bus services in England (outside of London) in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. ALBUM has 150 members, representing over 50 companies in the independent, state-owned and municipal sectors, who between them operate some 6,600 buses, which is about one bus in twelve nationally. This makes ALBUM members collectively Britain’s third largest bus operator and puts it in the same league as the big ﬁve multi-national plc groups. 2. UK bus service provision is largely organised on commercial lines, with services supplied by private and a small number of public sector businesses. But, even on “commercial” services, which make up some 80% of the network, income is raised partly from public funds, for example reimbursement for free “concessionary” travel. Services which are deemed socially necessary, but are not commercially viable, are supported through local authorities. This reliance on social funding renders the bus industry susceptible to public spending cuts, in particular where these are based on arbitrary percentage reductions, rather than being objective-based. A key impact of the CSR on bus services will be that brought about by the reduction in central government support for local authorities, which transfers responsibility for the details of where spending cuts will fall from the government to councils. 3. ALBUM’s evidence relates to the four broad areas named in the Committee’s invitation.

The Impact of the Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, Including On Community Transport 4. Nationally, the 20% cut in the rate of Bus Service Operators’ Grant from April 2012 will increase operators’ total costs by some 2%. Statistics produced by the EYMS Group show that, after allowing for BSOG and taking into account the 20% cut, fuel cost per litre will have risen by 152% between 2004 and 2012, based on a conservative estimate of no underlying price rise beyond its current level. Cost of fuel as proportion of total operating costs, which in 2004 was 9.29%, was expected to more than double to 18.16% by 2012. 5. If BSOG is to be replaced by a Per Passenger Incentive, this will have a disproportionately adverse impact on less busy bus services, including those in rural areas, on routes to and from market towns and at quieter times such as evenings and Sundays. It is essential that a methodology be devised to ensure that such socially necessary services are able to continue. Buses are fundamental to very many people for access to jobs, health facilities, education and shops, as they reach places trains do not access, especially in non-metropolitan areas; yet trains pay only a fraction of the amount of fuel duty that buses pay (and airlines pay none at all). 6. The uncertainty of reducing and restructuring BSOG impacts negatively on new vehicle investment. This reduces the quality of travel for passengers; the ability of operators to compete effectively against the car; and the cleanliness of the environment as the introduction of new, cleaner-engined vehicles is retarded. It will also make it more difficult for operators to meet the Disability Discrimination Act deadlines for new buses, which will result in further service cuts, as non-compliant buses will have to be withdrawn, but operators will be unable to afford to replace them. Poor balance sheets will also make it much more difficult for operators to get finance for new buses. Jobs in the bus manufacturing industry will in turn be put at risk and the economic strength of the UK bus manufacturing industry will be compromised. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w69

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 7. The extent of local authority financial support for bus services has historically been strongly influenced by local policies, with each authority responsible for determining which non-commercial services it would procure as socially necessary and considered to be affordable. Whilst policies varied across the country, in each transport authority area a general consistency emerged, which was typically subject to evolution rather than revolution. 8. The CSR will upset this status quo, by imposing draconian cuts in central government support to local authorities and forcing them drastically to re-assess what services to procure. Initial indications are that such decisions may sometimes be made in an arbitrary way, in order to achieve rapid and substantial financial savings, for example by cutting the support for most Sunday or evening services (eg in North Yorkshire). Reducing off-peak services will also curtail the ability of passengers to use buses at busy times, many “return” journeys at a quiet time of day being the return portion of an earlier outward trip; cutting evening bus journeys will thus add to peak traffic congestion. The strongest impact is expected to be felt in localities where a high proportion of services is tendered, eg in rural counties such as Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Somerset. The policies of authorities that explicitly fund a high quantity and standard of services will be severely at risk. This is not the “localism”, which the Government says it supports, but a thinly veiled central diktat. Operators that have invested heavily in tendered services, many of which are SMEs, will find their livelihoods most severely under pressure. 9. The effect of raising fares would deter people from using buses, an unwanted outcome that Norman Baker has regularly referred to compared, for example, to motoring costs. The Government has decided to stop the “war on the motorist” [a fatuous and meaningless concept] and will no longer suggest councils increase parking charges as a way of encouraging bus use. Yet it is embarking on a war on a “war on the bus passenger” in a way that is entirely contrary to its supposed friendliness towards the environment.

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 10. A similarly arbitrary and substantial cut is forecast in the level of reimbursement to be paid to bus operators for carrying free concessionary passengers. The Government appears to have been more than willing to accept selectively the conclusions of a piece of disputed research, based on incomplete data, as it enables rates of reimbursement to be cut. Although the DfT claims the average reduction in support to be 8–10%, authorities are typically facing falls of between 20% and 40% in the payments they receive for carrying concessionary pass holders. A sample of eight “shire” counties have experienced falls of between 31% and 51% in their concessionary fare reimbursement settlements from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Operators consider the Government to have reneged on its “social contract” with them that they should be left “no better and no worse off”. The change renders it impossible for operators to earn a reasonable level of profit from concessionary travel, which will not meet its share of the costs of the service; or from fare-paying passengers because of the drastically reduced services. 11. Many ALBUM members supply bus services in areas with high proportions of older people, often in locations that attract holiday visits by such people. This combination puts a heavy strain on resources, with perhaps 20% of passengers travelling without any reimbursement and with buses retained in fleets just to meet seasonal peak demand. The level of reimbursement is critical to the financial prosperity of the local bus businesses, and affects their ability to invest in new vehicles. 12. The DfT’s Reimbursement Analysis Tool model fails to take account of the issues associated with large proportions of all year-round users travelling free in combination with a significant further seasonal influx of eligible people. It is often not just a matter of filling otherwise empty capacity, but a need for more vehicle resource is created, which may trigger increased Operator’s Licence Financial Standing capital and place increasing pressure on overheads (such as workshops), in turn requiring further capital expenditure. Such factors, especially the Financial Standing requirement and the capital costs of additional vehicles and maintenance facilities weigh particularly heavily on SMEs. 13. The impact of reducing concessionary fare reimbursement needs to be assessed in combination with that of the general cut in council support for bus services. The combined effect will be particularly severe in rural areas with rising bus patronage, populations and proportions of residents over 60, where the sparse provision of services (shops, health care, etc) necessitates lengthy journeys.

How Passengers’ Views are Taken into Account in Planning Bus Services, and the Role of Passenger Focus in This Area. 14. Bus operation is a commercial enterprise, albeit one that receives supplementary income from public sources. Passengers’ views are largely identiﬁed by the use they make of the services, quality, reliability and value-for money being rewarded by high/increasing use. Operators invite passengers’ views on services and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Transport Committee: Evidence

monitor correspondence/complaints. A further, very direct market research opportunity is provided by regular feedback from drivers. 15. Passenger Focus has recently been given responsibility for monitoring the quality of bus as well as rail services, which will enable it to report on trends in bus passenger satisfaction. Bus operators do not however expect this to take over from their own role. Local market knowledge and decision-making will continue to be all-important and there is a degree of scepticism regarding the broad, national base of Passenger Focus, although its input is generally welcomed and the importance of its new role is recognised. 16. Some local authorities and, in particular, the PTEs play a role in ascertaining passenger attitudes to local bus services, as well as in their marketing, for example though the publication of maps and timetables. This role may be set to diminish as authorities rein in expenditure on such items; an “economy” that may prove false, if it results in reductions in the availability of bus service information.

Conclusion 17. Buses provide essential services which are critical to getting millions of people to work, schools, shops, health facilities, etc. Their value is well appreciated by Norman Baker, Under Secretary of State for Transport, who has recently made the following supportive statements: “Buses are vital to the economy” “Buses and coaches are the backbone of public transport, carrying two thirds of all passengers” The bus industry… “… has a major part to play in tackling congestion and reducing pollution” “… has an excellent record of job creation and one of the country’s biggest employers” “… is at the forefront of cutting the carbon footprint” “We want to see more people on buses”. 18. Reductions in the support for buses as a result of poorly thought out cuts in funding, whether stemming directly from Government policies such as the curtailment of BSOG, or from cuts in the funding of local authorities, must not be allowed to prejudice their ability to continue the good work. The arbitrary impact of the CSR county by county appears to mean that rural shire counties will be hit worst(ie many with Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs), with a combination of cuts in concessionary reimbursement, local authority budgets and BSOG. An example is Derbyshire, which is cutting 50% of its funding for socially necessary bus services, with concessions to be cut by 31% and the 20% cut in BSOG meaning that the remaining 50% of the tendered services and the commercial services will be very severely affected. 19. The EYMS Group has calculated that the tax (fuel duty minus BSOG) from fuel used on local buses by East Yorkshire will more than double from £1.07 million in January 2011 to £2.15 million in April 2014 as a result of the annual rises in duty announced in October 2010 and the 20% reduction in BSOG, assuming 2% annual average inflation over the period. Since until the 1990s all fuel duty was rebated this has created an entirely new tax on local bus travel of over10p per passenger trip—a highly regressive imposition. 20. The financial consequences of failure to provide adequate resources for bus services will be far greater increases in spending under other heads, to combat additional traffic congestion and meet the health service costs of increased road casualties; and an inability to meet the country’s commitment to improving the environment. January 2011

Written evidence from Milton Keynes Bus Users Group (BUS 42) In reviewing the impact of the reduction in the funding for Bus Services, it is hoped that the Select Committee would consider broader issues when looking at the proposals. For the majority of bus users, particularly outside of the major cities, most people have only one choice for their local transport needs. Those with cars have two choices. Therefore any effect on local transport will be harder on those who cannot afford the alternative transport. As bus companies are driven by a proﬁt motive, this biases the better services to more populated cities, and means that smaller towns, cities and rural areas are at a disadvantage. This creates the problem of social exclusion, as lack of bus services has a detrimental effect on personal interaction with local communities. This then impinges on the health economy, as depression and lack of mobility can cause other medical problems. The bus companies have over the past few years been able to dictate their own rules, and are very adept in providing data to justify their actions. This has occurred for a number of reasons: (a) The Current Transport Act has lead to “Operational” based bus services rather than “passenger focused services”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w71

(b) Most problems with public transport tend to be local issues and /or transport contractor specific. This leads to a non consistent picture of the actual local transport problems across the country. (c) Continuous changing of routes, timetables and removal of services from many areas that the bus companies operate leaves whole areas of population without reliable, punctual or consistent services. In the case of Milton Keynes, the main bus contractor, Arriva, without consultation with the public has changed routes and/or times four times in the last nine months. This situation has gone on for some time and resulted in a massive level of complaints and public meetings to try and get some semblance of a better service. The list of problems include missing buses, reliability, driver attitudes, and lack of services for whole districts within the city. The current 56 days statuary notice required before changes are made is too short for both the public and local authorities to discuss issues. The problems in Milton Keynes have been debated in Parliament, but despite every effort by the public and local council to get a better service, there has been more need of subsidised routes to provide even a basic service. Reduction of the Bus Operators grant or Local Authority grant support will have a considerable effect on the local economy. Already the MK Chamber of Commerce has reported that their members have had to restrict employment opportunities to those who depend on public transport to get to work. So reduction in the grants will have the effect of increasing benefit costs if taken across the country. (d) As there are no operating contracts between Councils and Bus operators, they cannot be held to account by the local council. This lack of measurables means that the local council does not have any monitoring powers. So the passenger struggles on trying to get action. The Milton Keynes local contractor has been inundated with passenger complaints, as has MK Council. (e) Local councils are held to account by the local public, and have to produce Transport Strategy documents to meet government requirements, but have no real control of the most important element—the provision of local transport. The Implementation of the free off peak travel for elderly and the disabled passengers has had a very positive effect on those able to take advantage. Many elderly and disabled people have found that their wellbeing has improved considerably. However the flaw in the system has been the processing of the funds from central government through local authorities to the bus companies. Firstly because the money allocated was not ring fenced and has been processed through Environmental Services. Secondly because of the way the money is requested by the local transport contractors is not fully verified by regular audits. Certainly in the Milton Keynes area we have witnessed over a period of time seemingly improper charging of pensioner journeys. But the success of the free travel concession can be measured in the way it has helped many older and disabled people to be more mobile and not feel isolated. The data used to determine what bus services are profitable is in question, because of the shifting sands of what services are available. Locally we have seen the effect of missed buses, unreliability of vehicles and timing issues on the figures being used as justification that a particular route is not profitable, and lacks clientele. It is very easy to manipulate the data to advantage if you are the bus company. The local councils have no power to challenge that data. The result is loss of routes without any ability of those affected passengers to challenge the changes. The attitude of bus drivers is very variable around the country, and in Milton Keynes, there is a lot of frustration with their employers, and this often results in abusive shouting at passengers, or passengers being treated to buses careering round corners and throwing passengers off their seats. We have an example a few days ago, where a passenger asked to alight at a bus stop to be told it wasn’t a designated bus stop. The passenger pointed out that there was a bus stop, shelter and timetable being displayed, and if that wasn’t a designated stop, what was? The driver wouldn’t answer the question, and the passenger had to walk back a considerable distance with heavy bags. This type of story is repeated over and over again, but because drivers do not have to display their driver number anymore, it is hard to prove incidents and also for any response to be taken by the bus contractor. Although the ticket issued should have the driver number on it, in reality if it often intelligible. We also have many reports of buses starting off before frail passengers have sat down, resulting in heavy falls. This seems to be a national issue, as we have heard of other areas suffering similar incidents. In summary, there would be no need to reduce the operators grant or local authority grant if better value for money was achieved. There is certainly a need to get more people into buses, thus reducing the carbon footprint, and providing less traffic problems in the city centres. The local public transport problems in Milton Keynes have resulted in the setting up of an independent Milton Keynes Bus Users group (MKBUG). The aim of the group is to improve the services being offered by the local transport contractors. It is entirely self financing, and is in the process of setting up a monitoring group to provide accurate data on the services being provided. In due course this will be shared with the Council and Bus operator, and will be used to hopefully improve the bus services offered. However, since establishing the group, we have managed to monitor the fleet, and some of the buses being used are over 30 years old. This impinges on reliability, and has implications on safety. Data is already coming in from bus users, and we will be submitting accurate data on time keeping to the Traffic commissioners for appropriate action in due course. What is already apparent is bad man management by the main contractor, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Transport Committee: Evidence

which has resulted in a blame culture. In may ways passengers seem to be getting in the way of the working day of the contractor. Community Transport in Milton Keynes, would not be able to provide an alternative bus scheme for the elderly or disabled, as it is heavily oversubscribed at the present time. So the prospects of local transport travel for many older and disabled passengers is now in jeopardy, and we would ask that consideration is given to the poorer members of society, so they can remain mobile in the future. We would respectfully suggest an enquiry into the way bus contractors operate would be an important way forward. This would ensure best value for money and we would hope a national standard for bus services could be set up, which would be the minimum to be expected by passengers from the bus contractors and local councils. January 2011

Written evidence from Firstgroup (BUS 43) This document has been produced in response to the invitation issued by the Transport Committee on 11 November 2010 to submit written evidence to an inquiry into the funding of bus services in England (outside of London) in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. As requested by the Committee it focuses on: — the impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operator’s Grant, including on community transport; — 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; — 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; and — how passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services, and the role of Passenger Focus in this area.

Summary At this stage it is very difficult to predict the exact effect of the various cuts in funding on local bus services. It is, however, not difficult to predict that these will have a deleterious effect on the provision of local bus services, and that each local market will be adversely, but differently, affected. It is only when the detailed implementation of the changes to concessionary fares reimbursement, and the impact of local authority public transport budget cuts, are confirmed, that the nature of any response that a private sector operator will be obliged to make, in order to ensure that service operation remains viable, will be identified. The comments that are offered below apply in respect of FirstGroup’s expectations of the likely impact upon its own operations, and the consequences of these on third parties. Other commercial providers of bus services will also be affected, as will community transport operators, but FirstGroup has not offered any comments on the likely impact on these bodies. In submission of oral evidence, FirstGroup will provide actual examples of the impact of these various policy changes and the detail of the measures will no doubt be developed further by the time of such evidence, enabling a more quantified impact to be presented to the Committee.

Reduction in Bus Service Operator Grant (BSOG) It is fair to say that, given the various reviews of funding streams allocated by central government to the bus industry over the last 10 years, the various consultation exercises that have been conducted on BSOG revision, and the work of the Bus Subsidy Advisory Group in recent years, it was not unexpected that there would be some reduction in BSOG in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). BSOG was originally introduced in 1969 as a method of ameliorating the effects on rural communities of the large increases in fares that bus operators had been forced to implement, in order to allow them to cope with dramatic fuel price increases. When originally introduced, BSOG was a total reimbursement of the duty that operators paid on fuel used for operation of local bus services. Since the 1990s the proportion of duty rebated has declined (it is currently approximately 75%) and the direct link to duty has been cut, meanwhile the duty levied has continued to increase. Thus the benefit to the passenger has been eroded over time, and a further erosion of 20% will, despite operators’ best endeavours to manage this loss of income within improved operating efficiencies, lead to price rises for passengers and service cuts. Improvements in vehicle technology, including the introduction of low floor easy access buses and engines that produce reduced atmospheric emissions, have led to increased vehicle weights and reduced fuel efficiency of engines. These have created a trend of increased fuel use for the same level of service provision, thereby cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w73

increasing the proportion of operators’ costs that the fuel bill represents. In the face of operators’ endeavours to reduce expenditure on fuel, this has had the opposite effect and the reduction of BSOG will further exacerbate this, leading to an estimated 2% increase in operating costs on a like for like basis. In order to maintain the same level of proﬁtability, a prerequisite for external investment in the industry which creates the opportunity for operators to renew and improve assets, this will require a corresponding 2% above inﬂation fares increase just to stand still, or a reduction in the service mileage operated at the margin.

Reduction in Local Authority Grant Funding and Other Funding from DfT It is much harder to predict the effects of such funding changes, with the funding for local transport being contained within the overall block grant allocations made by central to local government rather than ring fenced for that specific purpose. The announcement of the impact of the CSR on individual local authorities indicated that almost without exception they would individually see reductions in their overall level of annual funding of up to 8.9% in 2011–12. The CSR indicated that there would be an across the board reduction in levels of local authority budgets of some 7%, year on year, for a four year period, so the expectation is that similar reductions are to take place in the three following years. It is for each local authority to decide how it is going to implement such reductions. Some may elect to apply a blanket reduction across all expenditure. Some may decide to protect spending on, for instance, the provision of socially necessary local transport services, ie subsidised contracted bus services. Others may priorities other areas of expenditure to the detriment of such local transport. These decisions are to be taken at a local level and as yet we are unaware of the likely impact on public transport expenditure. However there will most likely be an impact on local bus services in any event, as local government expenditure is cut in general. Areas likely to suffer, with consequences for public transport, include bus priority and other infrastructure improvements, road maintenance, traffic regulation enforcement, home to school transport, discretionary educational visits, and public transport information provision. As transport is a derived demand, reduced provision of other local authority services will also lead to a fall in use of local bus services. There is also a significant interaction with concessionary travel reimbursement as explored later in this submission.

Free Concessionary Travel Since April 2008 bus operators have been carrying increasing numbers of elderly and disabled passengers under the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme. Whilst operator participation in mandatory, and requires carriage of eligible passholders without charging a fare, compensation for such action is subject to a complex set of legislation, guidance and case law. There is a broad principle of concessionary travel reimbursement that requires that bus operators are, in accordance with the regulations made to accompany the Transport Act 2000 and with EU Regulation 1370/2007, “no better and no worse off” than they would otherwise be in the absence of the concessionary fares scheme. In practice, that principle, known as the Objective, is frequently not met in respect of individual operators and individual concessionary fares schemes. Local authorities responsible for the administration of concessionary travel (until April 2011, district or unitary councils in England; thereafter, county or unitary councils) are each required to engage with local bus operators in their area to reach an agreed position on concessionary reimbursement that accords with the Objective set out above. However, in many cases agreement cannot be reached, with operators believing that they will be under compensated under the provisions of the reimbursement arrangements dictated by the local authorities. Provided that the correct procedure is followed, operators are permitted to appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport against any scheme that they believe fails to meet the Objective or is otherwise unlawful, and this has led to many appeals each year against such schemes. Major revisions to the Guidance, issued by the Department for Transport to local authorities and operators, specifying how reimbursement arrangements should be calculated and implemented, has taken place prior to the publication of local authority concessionary travel arrangements to take effect from April 2011. Whilst there remains much scope (and need) for negotiation between operators and authorities between now and that date, initial indications are that the revised schemes, taking account of the new (and more prescriptive) guidance, will signiﬁcantly reduce the reimbursement which will be paid to operators from April 2011. The scale of the reduction varies by geographic area, tending to be most draconian in rural areas and in those with longer distance services charging generally higher fares. The impact has been initially estimated as reducing operator income from concessionary reimbursement by between 20% and 50% for most FirstGroup schemes, with an overall reduction across all schemes of at least 13%. Given that concessionary travel can now account for up to 50% of total patronage in many local areas, this adds a further signiﬁcant burden to those being faced by operators, as it effectively leads to a revenue reduction of 10%–25% in those areas. Once again, this needs to be recovered by operators if long-term stability and sustainability is to be maintained, and this will have to be achieved largely through increases to fares and reductions in services. The impact of the new concessionary schemes will be to leave operators considerably worse off than they are today. Irrespective of the relativity of reimbursement compared with costs and revenue at present, this can only lead to one effect: that operators will be forced to adjust fares and services in order to achieve the same cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Transport Committee: Evidence

level of proﬁtability which is required to ensure that sufﬁcient funding is available to maintain investment and improve services. So there must be a reduction in services and a fares increase, the impact of which will be to reduce social mobility, to reduce the accessibility of jobs and services, and to increase the relative reliance on the private car for transport, thus increasing congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon production.

Passengers’ Views and the Role of Passenger Focus

Bus operators do not generally reduce service provision or increase fares without having taken into account the views and requirements of passengers. Service reductions not only render individual services less attractive to passengers, but also can often have the effect of making public transport no longer viable for a particular journey. This can undermine the viability of a far wider network of services in a relatively short time.

Fares increases are always unpopular with passengers and, with public transport being a derived demand and there being alternative modes available for the essential journey, demand is elastic with respect to fares. Therefore implementing a 5% fares increase to compensate for a 5% increase in costs, occasioned by (for instance) a reduction in BSOG or in the rate of concessionary fares reimbursement, will not yield a 5% increase in revenue, since a proportion of passengers will elect to travel by bus no longer. Typically this might instead yield only a 2–3% increase in revenue, so to achieve the sought 5% revenue uplift, a 10% fares rise may be required.

As demand gradually wanes in response to such service cuts and fares increases, the vicious spiral of decline takes hold, with services ultimately becoming unsustainable and resulting in entire communities no longer being served by local buses.

It is therefore essential that operators consult with passengers before implementing such measures, as is generally the case today. Reading press cuttings will reveal many examples where operators have proposed cutting or revising services, either to address cost increases or for other reasons, but have ultimately revised their proposals in the face of adverse public reaction. There is a role for Passenger Focus in the process, but First believes that this role should be one of “neutral observer”, initially, whilst the facts of the case are conﬁrmed, followed by an advocacy role to support operators in pursuit of actions being proposed to redress the various funding cuts that are affecting the industry, once they are satisﬁed that the case for such actions is proven.

Wider Impact and Conclusion

First will be pleased to submit oral evidence to the Committee, building upon this initial submission through the presentation of actual examples of these various phenomena and an identiﬁcation of the actual impact these have had on local bus services and the wider impact on the local communities these serve.

As FirstGroup noted in its response to the recent consultation on revisions to concessionary fares reimbursement, there are signiﬁcant consequences for the wider community from these various actions and policies. These will impact particularly adversely upon rural communities; social exclusion; network growth, investment and development (sustainability); fares; climate change; environmental policy; health and wellbeing; and employment.

All these impacts are in direct conﬂict with wider government policy, therefore it would seem to be essential that efforts are made to quantify the likely effects, in order to determine that the policy imperative driving the alterations are not in fact contrary to wider governmental objectives. This was a particular failing of the Impact Assessment produced for the revised concessionary reimbursement guidance.

The problems from reductions in BSOG and concessionary reimbursement are in fact compounded by, and themselves compound, the effects of the reductions in local authority funding. First believes that it is unlikely that local authorities will be willing or able to step in to replace services cut by operators as a result of these cuts, at a time when local authority funding for provision of non-commercial services is already being cut.

There remain many people, even if they are a minority, who are reliant upon the bus as their sole means of transport. Any suggestion that local authorities may step in to replace services cancelled by operators again ignores the point that these authorities are themselves highly unlikely to be able to afford such additional expenditure. January 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w75

Written evidence from Soar Valley Bus Ltd (BUS 44) Organisation Background Soar Valley Bus was incepted as an Industrial and Provident Society under the 1965 Act in September 1979 with the object of “operating transport services for the benefit of the community and to assist the work of organisations and bodies engaged in the relief of poverty, sickness and the disabilities of age, the provision of facilities for recreation or other leisure time occupation within the meaning of Section 1 of the Recreation Charities Act 1958 and any other charitable purpose in Rushcliffe and District”. It also provides a public transport service. For a number of villages it is the only public transport available. Our organisation is governed by the rules of the Financial Services Authority to whom it submits an Annual Return. The organisation is now also registered as a charity under both the Inland Revenue and the Charity Commissioners. From its headquarters in the family home of the currently appointed Operations Manager, it has been in continuous operation for 31 years, organised by an unpaid Committee of seven volunteers and a pool of some 30 unpaid volunteer drivers, drawn from the residents of the villages of the Soar Valley in the Rushcliffe Borough area to the south of Nottinghamshire. No-one in our organisation is paid or claims expenses and any operational “profit” is placed in a vehicle replacement fund. I have been both the Operations Manager and its Treasurer since 1999. We operate ONE wheelchair accessible, low-floor, 16 seater minibus. All drivers take a stringent driving test, are CRB checked and undergo a medical before being issued a Permit to Drive by Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC). The vehicle carries both a S22 and a S19 Permit from the Department for Transport. Our vehicle has a Preventative Maintenance Inspection at six-weekly intervals and an annual MOT.

Current Services Provided and Financial Support Soar Valley Bus has always operated 14 S22 scheduled services per week within a 30 mile radius of our operating centre, its routes registered and approved by the Department for Transport. Each service is registered as “hail and ride” and is able to be accessed by any member of the public in the same manner as any other public transport operation. These services initially received funding from the NCC Community Transport Budget, but, since October 2009, have been financed from the NCC LTP Budget at a daily rate under deminimis contract. Fares are payable on these services and concessionary fares and BSOG are claimed. These services account for some 80% of our operations. In the financial year 2009–10, we received LTP payment of £15,400 and carried 12,345 passengers, representing an annual cost per passenger of £1.25. Most of our remaining services operate under S19. One weekly service is partially funded by a local Parish Council to provide a door to door service for the elderly frail infirm, the disabled and those with dementia, to allow access to shops, doctors, town facilities, a day centre and luncheon clubs. Two regular weekly services provide transport during term time between school and nursery facilities for working parents. In addition, as need arises, we transport school children on educational visits and to and from “before and after” school clubs, residents to clubs and societies and the elderly on day trips. Based upon mileage and number of passengers carried, NCC provides limited funding from the Community Transport Budget. In the financial year 2009–10, we received an NCC grant of £1,196 and carried 2,300 passengers, representing an annual cost per passenger of £0.52. The S22 Permit allows us to obtain additional, much needed, income from private hire of our vehicle, with a volunteer driver, to individuals in the evenings and at weekends.

Impact on Reduction of Bsog The cost of diesel continues to rise, while BSOG decreases. Our vehicle is now six years old. The older the vehicle, the greater the fuel consumption and carbon emissions. We have therefore been unable to claim the available increased BSOG rate. Equally, NCC have not yet decided when Smartcard ticket machines are to be fitted in community vehicles or if AVL equipment is to be implemented. Hence we cannot claim these new BSOG incentives. If a Smartcard ITSO ticket machine is eventually fitted to our vehicle, its data will need to be downloaded daily to two central sources. Our organisation has no office and no computer equipment or WiFi. It operates from my home and will require me to journey twice daily to our vehicle garage, collect the equipment and install the necessary upload devices on my personal computer in my home.

Impact on Cuts in Local Authority Community Transport Budget Until late 2009, our funding was derived totally from the Community Transport Budget with an annual grant intended to contribute towards vehicle and public liability insurance, vehicle maintenance and repair, driver training and medicals, upkeep of a garage, VOSA applications and assistance with match funding for a new vehicle. All these costs are increasing. We will still receive a small community budget grant to operate S19. The transfer of our S22 services from the NCC Community Transport Budget to the NCC LTP Budget, has had both advantages and disadvantages. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Transport Committee: Evidence

On the one hand we are assured of limited ﬁnancial support for our S22 services at a time when the NCC Community Budget continues to be cut whilst, on the other hand, our voluntary organisation is now perceived by the County Council as a business, regarded by the Department for Transport as operating in the same manner, under the same regulations, as the major transport providers. The latter are reducing services on uneconomic routes in our rural area and none operate a Sunday service to allow travel to family or social activities. NCC have axed Dial A Ride services and reduced the ﬁnance for car schemes from the Community Transport Budget, thus increasing the necessity for our services. Legislation now allows for the payment of S22 voluntary drivers. Our income would not allow for payment at minimum wage rate, either to drivers or committee members, and if we pay one, we must pay all. How could one differentiate?

Implication of Free Off-peak Travel

Over the past 11 years, having conducted a number of surveys with all sections of the community and journeying periodically on each service we provide, I have never come across one elderly, disabled or disadvantaged passenger who objected to paying the original half fare to travel. We were assured of an income from that half fare. The result of the introduction of the full fare concession is both a loss of income to the major bus providers and to community transport, a real difﬁculty for county councils to pay operators at the full loss rate from their current budgets and an inﬂux of relatively well-off passengers travelling long distances free of charge, rather than locally as was understood to be the intention of the legislation. Situated on the border of three counties, our vehicle travels some 26,000 kms annually in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire within our thirty mile rural radius. A monthly claim must be made to each county and each has either a different percentage rate of payment or a negotiated annual payment for refund of concessionary fares. What is clear is that on average, for every pound lost in fare revenue, we are being re-imbursed less than half.

Focus on Passengers

Our aim has always been to identify the transport needs of everyone within the community, in particular the under-privileged, those on low income and the elderly and then to find a way to satisfy those needs. The essence of community transport is its ability to be flexible, to be able to quickly adapt to the changing needs of the community it serves. By its very nature it also provides social care. It is particularly essential for the elderly. It promotes dignity and independence, self-respect and helps to prevent social isolation. Our drivers operate a “door to door” service on each route, if necessary, lend a listening ear, carry the shopping of the frail elderly, push wheelchairs around supermarkets and towns and generally provide a social network by introducing them to others and to community activities. It is well documented that the greater the sense of wellbeing and contentment of an individual, the less will be the need and the drain on the financial resources of the NHS and social care facilities.

Much has been done by Government and the major bus companies to provide low ﬂoor buses with wheelchair provision. However, this does not meet the needs of those who, for example, cannot walk a distance to a bus stop, those who cannot carry their shopping up the hill back to their homes, those who can’t lift their shopping trolleys or walking frames onto the bus, those who don’t feel safe when a driver moves off before they have sat down and those genuinely fearful of being out on their own.

Often too many rules and regulations inhibit the ﬂexibility to provide these essential services and nothing can function without adequate ﬁnance.

Are we a national transport provider or are we a community bus? What we are not is a business. Our organisation is operated and driven by pensioners. Often communication with both the Department For Transport and the DVLA reveal that their employees are unaware of the regulations to which we must adhere and the diversity of our operations. We are slotted into transport regulation, legislation and ﬁnancial support designed for the major transport providers. Community Buses need to be treated separately, with a secure funding system. For thirty odd years, the residents of this area have given their time and money to contribute to what is now being called the “Big Society”. If budgets are cut further, if we are subject to ever more restrictive regulation, form-ﬁlling and continue to be under-funded, volunteers will not come forward in the future.

We wish to remain an unpaid organisation beneﬁtting the community. January 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w77

Written evidence from Adapt (North East) Ltd (BUS 45)

Introduction

Adapt (North East) Limited is a user led organisation, registered charity, company limited by guarantee and a social enterprise that seeks to provide services for the people of North East England and particularly Northumberland. These services especially seek to support disabled and disadvantaged people and those isolated through difﬁculties in accessing public transport because of issues such as age, sickness mental or physical disability or poverty.

Any surplus that is made is re-invested into the company in order to pursue other activities that will beneﬁt members. The organisation is governed by a board of trustees who are appointed based upon their experience and abilities which they bring to the company. Disabled people have always been integral to the board and this is reﬂected through the organisations status as a ULO.

Adapt is an active partner within Northumberland Strategic Partnership (LSP for Northumberland) and holds a seat on the Health and Wellbeing Thematic Partnership. Adapt works in partnership with Northumberland Fire and Rescue and Northumbria Police through Road Safety Partnership and has developed training to support Road Safety.

Adapt’s primary aim is to “Improve the quality of life of both disabled and disadvantaged people”, and through consultation with both members and the wider community identiﬁed access and transport as an area requiring services. In response to this Adapt in1996 developed a community transport brokerage, which has successfully developed into a proactive community transport scheme.

Adapt have developed services and undertaken public service contracts namely home to school transport for both SEN routes and routes in geographicaly remote areas within Northumberland. Adapt through working in partnership with community partners have developed dial a ride solutions and provided access for community groups. Adapt recognise the importance of providing a quality service and have invested heavily in low ﬂoor and non low ﬂoor accessible vehicles.

Transport Delivery

Adapt delivers several home to school contracts and a small number of contracts to provide services for adult social care.

Adapt uses the down time of the vehicles to provide 14 Dial a Ride Services in rural Northumberland.

The Dial a Ride services provide access in rural areas where there is no public transport available through lack of commercial viability.

Funding

Adapt is eligible and claims BSOG at the rate of £12,000 per year.

Adapt also receives funding from Northumberland County Council passenger transport budget.

Concessionary Fare

Passengers are able to access some of the Dial a Ride services with their concessionary fare pass.

Additional problems identiﬁed by potential passengers are that eligible people are not able to access the bus due to numbers of passengers from outside the area travelling for a day out.

Current Issues

Passenger issues range from the lack of availability of public transport to access employment opportunities to the lack of accessible public transport.

Issues are fed into the public transport team through ongoing dialogue with Adapt. January 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Suffolk ACRE (Action with Communities in Rural England) (BUS 46) The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operator’s Grant, including on community transport Whilst the delay in implementation of this change is to be welcomed, the underlying reduction in BSOG is of serious long term concern. A previous role that this respondent has held was as owner/manager of a small PSV company (10 vehicles on bus contracts, 10 on private hire). Far from the case of ‘further lining fat cat’s pockets’ as often reported, BSOG provided an absolutely essential income to help make ends meet on a very thin financial margin. Without BSOG, only two options exist. On contracted work, prices submitted to Local Authorities (LAs) for tenders will rise to compensate for the loss of BSOG, as currently operators take into account this additional revenue stream when submitting competitive bids. In this case, local authorities will find their costs increasing. Secondly, on commercial services, or those supported services where the operator retains on-bus revenue and is free to set their own fares, passengers are likely to face increased charges. This is a difficult judgement call, as such a move is more likely to result in reduced patronage overall amongst paying customers—not conducive to long term viability. The cost of bus use has risen considerably above the cost of private car use over the past few decades, and this is also not conducive to long term survival of the sector. The difficulty in maintaining a viable patronage base when increasing fares has potential to lead to deregistrations, further increasing the cost burden on LAs. The effect on CT operators is very similar, except that most CT operations are dependent on LA funding. As a result, these organisations will find their alternatives are either to find increased support from LA’s, to restrict any extraneous activities they engage in, or to find themselves heading into debt and possible closure. Some community bus operators run Section 22 services, staffed entirely by volunteers and run on a commercial basis. These are generally from highly rural areas, typically providing weekly links to markets, or once a month to large towns. For these, BSOG is an important and pro-rata large element of their income and any reduction would create an immediate and severe cash flow implication. In addition, it should be borne in mind that there are strong pressures at present to renew the PSV fleet. Not only is the impact of low floor legislation very strong at present, with some vehicles becoming illegal for local bus services in four years time, but with pressure from various sources (eg Low Emission Zones) for continual upgrades to Euro 5 and beyond. Whilst these objectives are laudable, they are difficult for smaller and medium sized operators to achieve. Whereas traditionally the older vehicles in a fleet were cascaded for use on more rural services, with little or no replacement costs, recent years have seen a trend where this no longer occurs, as fleets become younger and such costs still apply—rendering such services uneconomic. Once all vehicles need to be of low floor specification, this process will intensify. Such matters only increase the need for a continuing rebate on fuel duty, which is simple to calculate, simple to apply, and bears a direct correlation to mileage incurred. Please also see the last paragraph under the next heading.

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 In Suffolk this reduction is already being seen. Plans have been progressed and tenders are now out for reduced services. Some are being cut altogether and many are seeing reductions in frequency. Attractive travel options built up over many years, and especially since the introduction of the Rural Bus Grant (RBG), are being lost in a moment. On the plus side, some operators either already have, or are in the process of, converting to commercial operations, rather than lose territory. They take the view that they then have the ability themselves to take whatever action is necessary to maintain (or initially ensure) viability, but at least they can maintain some work and market share. To some extent this probably would have occurred at some point anyway, as Suffolk CC has been building bus use in recent years, but these actions have been hastened by the knowledge of imminent contract reductions. Such actions are helpful from SCC’s point of view, as they represent reductions in contract revenue commitments. The non-statutory public transport provision in the county will experience budget reductions of over 50%. To some extent, it can be argued that this is more within the spirit of the Transport Act 1985, and places the onus for creating the shape of rural services primarily on the operators. However, it also justifies the principle of RBG, without which these possibilities would not now exist. It can thus be argued that a certain level of financial support is required overall in order to allow sustainable provision, and also that funding is now dropping substantially below that level. Within this, community transport in Suffolk is expecting funding to remain relatively constant in overall terms. However, expectations are that the CT operations will expand to fill the gaps vacated by bus routes. Although this does fit with the general development policy that SCC has been following, without funding to allow this, or conventional bus routes to feed passengers in to, genuine fears are that CT services will be totally overwhelmed and unable to cope with the volume and wide variety of travel requests. Most CT operators do not possess PSV Operator licences, and yet would be well placed to compete in this market. However, the application process is slow (often up to six months) and does not fit into the LA tendering process, which is more a matter of weeks in length. This is a shame, as CT operators could be well-positioned for running services that larger PSV companies find uneconomic, or require subsidies to assist with. However, doing so with maximum 16 seater vehicles would be impractical, as would the ability to raise funds for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w79

additional vehicles at such short notice. More and less complicated ways need to be found to enable Community Transport operators to compete on a level playing ﬁeld with PSV operators. This is not stated as a way to circumvent the legislation for PSV, simply as a way to enable easier progression to such status without having to “begin again from ground zero”. Both the Bus Service Operator’s Grant and the severe reduction in available local authority subsidies, have a severe effect on the ability of new entrants to join the market. Personally, having previously commenced operations as a bus company, twice in the past, and for over a year now having being in possession of a new Operator’s licence, I am not inclined to commence any new operations. Not only are the increasingly stringent requirements and decreasing reimbursement for BSOG making any prospect of breaking even further removed, but the opportunities for work are almost non-existent. In a rural area such as Suffolk, the opportunities for commercial services are really very tiny.

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 Fundamentally this scheme has, in my opinion, had two major flaws from the beginning. It has been under- funded, and the concept of bus operators’ being “no better and no-worse off” is inappropriate. Whilst bus operators have seen payments for revenue foregone that give insufficient compensation for the numbers travelling, local authorities have found their budgets do not match the demands for concessionary payments. Identifying a level of reimbursement that leaves an operator no better and worse off has proved difficult at scheme implementation, but as time progresses and any ability to accurately “benchmark” disappears into the past, all such attempts become further removed from reality. It is no wonder then that the enforcement of reduced reimbursement rates is perceived as theft. There is nothing new in this, I remember similar arguments back in the early nineties, under a “half fare for pensioners” scheme, when a Borough Council arbitrarily decided to alter the “generation factor”, simply to save money. However, today the opportunities for such summary changes are vastly more widespread, and affecting as they do the entire reimbursement for travel rather than a percentage of it, the effects are more far reaching and more difficult to absorb. Overall, the scheme has been successful—even highly impressive—in creating modal shift and allowing greater travel opportunities for the isolated or economically vulnerable. It has also, by doing this, helped to raise the profile and perceptions, of bus travel. However, to expect companies to provide a service for considerably less reimbursement than the going rate, and to make this a legal obligation, is not only of dubious financial sustainability but is also highly questionable ethically. Things are not helped when government representatives refer to the scheme as a subsidy to operators, when in fact it is a subsidy to the user made at a cost to the operator. A way needs to be found to balance the books, whilst also allowing the continuation of a highly popular scheme that has undeniably helped to increase patronage, at the same time (if possible) simplifying reimbursement processes and accurately reflecting revenue foregone. If it were possible to introduce a small flat fee per journey (say 20p?), the revenue going straight to the operator in addition to reimbursement, and a fee (say £5?) for issue of cards, that going to the relevant authorities, neither of this measures would be inappropriate, and if current funding were left unchanged (rather than further reduced), a significant step would have been made to resolve the funding difficulties. Whilst the increase in patronage has, by and large, proved welcome to operators, footfall does not equal profit and most find themselves forced into a situation of increased turnover through sales tactics, but reduced profitability. This is not a long term option for any business. From a CT operators’ viewpoint, the national concessionary bus pass scheme has probably overall been a good thing. Being deficit funded (in Suffolk anyway) by SCC, with revenue returning to the LA, the lower income has been an issue for SCC to be concerned about rather than the individual operator. Conversely however, it has enabled the isolated and deprived to be able to afford services they may well find much more difficult. This has resulted in increased patronage and has done much to reduce rural isolation for those unable to use conventional bus services. It has also meant, for those who use non-local bus registered services on which bus passes are not valid, that there is now a legal obligation to provide a voucher alternative that is acceptable on Dial-a-Ride, Taxi or car services. Whilst this often results in a difficult choice of vouchers or pass, and the value of vouchers offered is pitifully low by comparison, the obligation to provide an alternative, and the ability to use them on many flexible services is undoubtedly a benefit.

How Passengers’ Views are Taken into Account in Planning Bus Services, and the Role of Passenger Focus in this Area By and large I do not believe that passengers’ views are taken into account. Local Authorities are often very strident in accusing private operators of changing commercial services. However such changes are generally incremental, usually only affect a small number of journeys, and precisely because they are proﬁt-motivated, they seek to satisfy the majority of users and address perceived needs. In their defence, passengers travel patterns are observed and such data would (normally) inform the operators’ decisions. Where operators do attempt to engage with local communities, this often results in speciﬁc individuals with an axe to grind requesting unrealistic provision based on unfounded personal views. There have been notable exceptions, but such occasions do little to encourage community involvement. When the Transport Act 1985 was introduced, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Transport Committee: Evidence

much was made of comparing bus routes to “supermarkets on wheels”, yet it is deemed perfectly usual for ASDA or Sainsbury’s to make changes to their range of goods based on sales information alone and without consultations. Local Authorities however, react to budgetary pressures in a much more sudden manner. At present, for example, sudden major changes are being implemented that are operationally motivated and cost driven, and bear no real relation to what the general populace requires. A similar event happened two years ago, when a 25% cost cutting exercise was nearly implemented, but then withdrawn at very short notice, causing a number of ramiﬁcations in the process. In Suffolk, having said this, there has been a program of user interrogation over the past few years, as part of the roll out of a series of demand responsive services, running under Section 22 permits. In order to ensure these new schemes best match the need for the local area, a full program of stakeholder involvement, household surveys, and local focus groups has informed the LA’s planning. Such a process is rare in public transport! The information gained has been invaluable, but the process does take time and has been regrettably rendered impotent by the speed of recent cuts. Passenger Focus has not, to my knowledge, had any relevance in Suffolk. January 2011

Written evidence from Andrew Last of Minnerva Ltd (BUS 49)

THE IMPACT OF FREE OFF-PEAK BUS TRAVEL FOR OLDER AND DISABLED PEOPLE (CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL)

Personal Qualiﬁcations 1. I am a Transport Planning Professional and have been a transport planning consultant for most of my career since graduating in 1972. I have predominantly worked in local public transport, mostly in connection with buses. In the last ten years my work has been dominated by concessionary travel issues. The majority of this activity has been for local authorities, most regularly for the Passenger Transport Executives, but I have occasionally worked for bus and train operators. 2. I have advised the Welsh Assembly Government (and was responsible for a major study in Wales in 2003), and I was appointed in 2004 to act on behalf of Scottish Ministers to determine appeals by four Scottish bus operators (under very similar legislation to that which applies in England and Wales). I am one of a very few people to have had this rôle prior to 2006. I was an advisor to the recently concluded research study by the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS) at the University of Leeds, and authored two (and co-authored a third) of the research reports produced by ITS. 3. This Evidence has been prepared on my own account and should not be regarded as reﬂecting the views of any other individuals or organisations. However, I am grateful to colleagues active in the concessionary travel area for their comments on drafts of this Evidence.

Structure of Evidence 4. The Committee has called for evidence on the implementation and financial implications of free off-peak travel for elderly and disabled people on local bus services in England (“concessionary travel”). 5. This submission argues that: — there is a need to question the equity and effectiveness of the current statutory free travel policy; and — the contribution of free travel to reducing social exclusion will be even further reduced by the impact of cuts in local transport arising from the Spending Review. 6. As a consequence, there is an urgent requirement to obtain better information about who benefits from the current statutory concession, as a precursor to an informed debate about how to improve its cost- effectiveness, and to identify better ways of achieving its objectives. 7. The arrangements for delivery of concessionary travel are complex. A background Note (at the end of this document) describes how the statutory concession is delivered, and provides a commentary (representing the author’s views) on some of the difficulties created. However, it is understood that these will not be the Committee’s main concern.

Distribution of Beneﬁts from Free Travel 8. There is no doubt that the policy of free travel has increased the number of bus trips made by older and disabled passengers, and will have improved accessibility to facilities, and reduced social exclusion for many cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w81

people. It is thought that the universal free travel policy is amongst the most generous of its sort in Europe or elsewhere.31 9. However, very little is known about the sorts of individuals who are making these trips, why they are making them and what benefits arise as a result.32 This lack of evidence does not in itself prove anything, although it is surprising that DfT have not examined such a large amount of public expenditure to confirm that it is meeting policy objectives. However, a growing body of smartcard data is showing that the usage of the free travel concession is highly skewed. A very small proportion of passholders make a very substantial proportion of concessionary trips overall, and a surprisingly large proportion of passholders make virtually no use of the concession at all. 10. Analysis by the author of smartcard data from four districts in Lancashire, undertaken as part of the ITS research work for DfT,33 established that over a five week period, 56% of passholders made no use of the concession. In contrast, a very small percentage (2.4%) of passholders made more than 10 trips34 per week, which in total accounted for more than 25% of all trips made. Similar patterns were found in analysis of smartcard data from Nottingham for a much longer period. 11. Without further analysis and research, it is not possible to be sure about the implications of these figures. But one obvious conclusion is that although intended to be a universal benefit, half the supposed beneficiaries make no use of the concession. This implies that overall, the policy is having no impact on the majority of the targeted population.35 12. There are a number of reasons why eligible people might not use the free travel concession, even if they possess a bus pass,36 including: — being too infirm or frail to get to a bus stop or to travel independently with confidence; — real or perceived lack of sufficiently conveniently bus services to use; — continued availability and access to a car; — objection in principle to a free benefit; and — other reasons including dislike of buses, and lack of familiarity with bus use. 13. Without further research, it is impossible to judge which of these reasons account for the largest proportions of non-users. However, it is possible to surmise something about the characteristics of the frequent users, at the other end of the spectrum, which are likely to be some combination of: — living in an area with relatively frequent bus services; — sufficiently agile to be comfortable with frequent bus use; and — familiarity with the local network from being a habitual bus user, although potentially, frequent use could be a result of individuals switching from car when the latter becomes too challenging. 14. Very frequent use could also be associated with regular employment, which is available for the “younger” sections of the older age group. It may well be that these frequent users are obtaining substantial benefits from the concession. But it also seems highly likely that many of the non-users suffer from the problems of social exclusion that the free travel policy is intended to address, yet in effect will be cross-subsidising (through their tax contributions to local and central Government) those who are making frequent use of the concession. 15. It is an open question whether one group is more-or-less affluent than the other; but the very highly skewed nature of the distribution of use of the concession raises serious doubts about whether the generosity of the policy (in terms of unlimited free travel) is either equitable or effective in terms of addressing social exclusion issues.

Impact of the Spending Review 16. These concerns potentially arise with any universal benefit, although the fact that bus services are not universally available everywhere must significantly increase the danger that those who are most able to make use of it are unrepresentative of the target population as a whole. However, the consequences of the reductions in expenditure being forced on local Government could be to significantly worsen this problem. 31 There is a free national and multi-modal concession available for those aged 66 or more in Ireland. Otherwise, although free travel is often provided by individual city authorities, it is understood that this is rarely imposed as a statutory duty by central Governments outside the UK. 32 This question is considered in more detail in “The Grey Escape: How and Why are Older People Using Their Free Bus Pass”, Andrews, Parkhurst, Shaw and Susilo, UTSG, Open University Milton Keynes, January 2011. 33 Reported as Paper 4 in “Concessionary Travel: The Research Papers”, University of Leeds Institute for Transport Studies, November 2010. 34 That is, a single bus leg from boarding stop to alighting stop without change of bus or service. So a journey involving a change of buses would count as two such trips. 35 Take-up rates of the pass remain less than 100%. Pass take-up in the analysis data set was about 70% of the eligible population, implying that non-users of the concession represented almost 80% of the eligible population. 36 There is also anecdotal evidence of bus passes being acquired as a “proof of age card” (eg to obtain discounts in shops) rather than with the intention of using it for free bus travel. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Transport Committee: Evidence

17. Statutory free travel was unaffected by the Comprehensive Spending Review, which did not in itself change the money allocated to fund this statutory service. However, the November 2009 Pre-Budget Review of the previous Government had already planned cuts of £120 million from the funding available in 2012–13,37 attributed to “efficiency improvements” and reductions in reimbursement levels. Moreover, the Spending Review substantially reduced funding for local government as a whole and, by implication, therefore reduced funding streams for local bus services applied by local transport authorities (including funding for non- commercial services, information and facilities for passengers). 18. Since all funding for concessionary travel is now (for 2011–12 and beyond) bundled into Formula Grant, it is difficult for many authorities to properly identify the quantum made available to fund the statutory concession. But there is no doubt that in combination, the effect of these changes is to significantly reduce the money available to support local bus services. 19. The Impact Assessment of the recent changes in reimbursement arrangements38 indicated that substantial savings (for example, of between £56 million and £102 million in 2011–12) would result from the changes. However, it is misleading to classify these as “efficiency improvements”. A modest proportion of these savings may be true administrative efficiencies, but the majority will arise from a reduction in financial support to operators. While the inference is that operators had previously been over-reimbursed, the DfT research study did not, and could not, come to a definitive view as to the correct level of reimbursement. Thus the end result is that support for bus services will be reduced, leading to reductions in services or increases in bus fares or, more likely, a combination of the two. 20. The impact on services will be shared by all passengers, but the impact on fares will be experienced only by non-disabled passengers under 60. These direct impacts of reduced funding may, in themselves, have significant social exclusion effects. 21. In this context, the fact that Travel Concession Authorities (TCAs) have legal obligations to reimburse bus operators puts a substantial part of the budget available for bus services outside local control. TCA expenditure on reimbursement is dictated by the number of concessionary journeys made, the average fare charged by bus operators, and by the “reimbursement rules” which allow for generation and additional costs. 22. TCAs have no control over the first two of these, and in principle the reimbursement rules should be dictated by the “no better, no worse off” principle—although the uncertainties associated with putting these principles into practice provide a need for judgement in their interpretation that is potentially the source of much dispute with bus operators. The effect is that since the absolute amount of money that a TCA will need to pay to reimburse operators for the statutory concession is in effect ring-fenced, any economies required to reduce expenditure on local buses will have to come from supported services. 23. The evidence from the smartcard analysis is that the majority of older people do not use the free concession, and a very small minority use it a great deal. But there is a sizeable proportion of passholders whose use of the concession is between these two extremes. We know nothing about the characteristics of these individuals, but we can infer that they have some access to bus services, and use them to a limited degree. It is probable that the quality of the bus service available to these individuals (in terms of route density and frequency) is not as great as for those passholders who use the bus very frequently, and it follows that these bus services are likely to be more dependent upon local bus subsidy. 24. The Spending Review has led many local authorities to consider major cuts in supported bus services.39 Exactly what services are cut and who will be affected will depend upon local circumstances, but it seems inevitable that there will be a disproportionate impact on the large proportion of passholders who make some use of the concession but are not its most frequent users. Although they will still be able to travel for free, there will be far fewer buses available to use. The net effect is that accessibility for this section of the elderly and disabled population will be reduced, and problems of social exclusion for them will be increased. 25. The author’s view is that while there are good arguments for maintaining a concessionary fare for older and disabled people, it is highly likely that the current statutory free concession is inequitable and delivers minimal benefits to the majority of the older and disabled population. Moreover, because reimbursement expenditure by TCAs is in effect protected by statute, the effect of Spending Review reductions will have a disproportionate impact on supported services. 26. There is a strong danger that the consequent reductions in accessibility for the older and disabled people dependent upon these services will have a far greater impact on many more people than the benefits derived from being able to travel for free. 27. There is therefore an urgent need to review the effectiveness of the current statutory concession and consider alternatives that satisfy its objectives more cost effectively. 37 Together with £60 million associated with increasing the age of entitlement of men to match the state pension age. 38 DfT published new Guidance on reimbursement of bus operators for carrying concessionary passengers in late November 2010. These have the affect of significantly reducing the payments that Travel Concession Authorities should make to bus operators, if they follow the new Guidance closely. 39 As reported in Local Transport Today Issue 559, 26 November 2010 (“Somerset Councillors approve swingeing cuts to transport spend”; “Herts cuts tendered bus services”). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w83

28. The first priority is to obtain a better understanding of what benefits the current concession delivers, to whom, and why so many older and disabled people make so little use of it. In particular, a key question is the extent to which low use of the concession is correlated with poor bus accessibility. It would be very easy to use existing smartcard data for this purpose at minimal cost. But more substantial research is required to identify how concessionary use is related to car ownership, income and other personal characteristics, which can then lead to a better appreciation of the contribution that free off-peak bus travel makes to reducing social exclusion amongst older and disabled people. 29. The author’s hypothesis is that a full appraisal would show that the current concession provides poor value for money. Its effectiveness in public expenditure terms might be significantly improved by changes such as the reintroduction of a small standard charge per trip, or setting a cap on use. However, such conclusions would need to be informed by research on the impact on travel patterns of such changes, and their social consequences for the individuals most affected. 30. However, while a reduction in the generosity of the concession could reduce public expenditure and allow resources to be redirected to other areas which provide greater public benefits relative to the costs, it would do nothing to address the social exclusion objectives of the concession. Consequently a second priority is to seek to identify other ways in which local transport policy can do more to maximise accessibility to the older and disabled sections of the community. 31. It is conceivable that greater levels of support for the non-commercial bus network would achieve that objective more cost effectively than free concessionary travel, especially if wider benefits to the community were taken into account. But since funding for local public transport is wrapped up in formula grant, delivery of such a policy is entirely a matter of local spending priorities and not subject to central Government direction. Ironically, since in other respects spending on the free concession is effectively outside the control of local authorities, there is an added incentive to reduce supported services because this will also save expenditure on concessionary travel reimbursement. This will further damage the accessibility provided by the local bus network for concessionary passengers and other passengers alike. 32. The author is conscious that the maintenance of free concessionary travel was one of the very few areas of policy on which all three major political parties were united in the run up to the 2010 General Election. But in the author’s view this provides a much stronger testament to the perceived political power of the “grey vote” than it does about the case for the policy itself. It would be very unfortunate if the consequence of the Spending Review is to significantly worsen the accessibility of a great many older and disabled people, because of cuts in supported services, leaving free concessionary travel as a flagship policy that achieves very little for the vast majority of the people at whom it is directed. January 2011

BACKGROUND NOTE: CURRENT CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS Statutory Basis 33. The statutory basis for concessionary travel policy and delivery is provided by the 1985 and 2000 Transport Acts, and some subsequent legislation. The 1985 Act established that the key players in the delivery of concessionary travel arrangements are: — Travel Concession Authorities (TCAs)—designated local authorities40 which are responsible for local concessionary travel policy, administration of concessionary travel schemes, and issuing of passes to local residents; — bus operators, who are obliged to carry concessionary passengers and are reimbursed on the basis of the local schemes set up by each TCA; and — the Secretary of State for Transport, to whom bus operators can apply for an independent determination (“appeal”) if they believe that a TCA’s reimbursement arrangements are unfair. 34. The 1985 Act enabled TCAs to offer travel concessions to residents, if they wished, but did not create a universal concession. The 2000 Act retained the previous administrative structure, but created a universal beneﬁt in the form of a statutory right to a half-fare concession on local off-peak buses for older and disabled people. TCAs were able to offer a concession with a more generous beneﬁt (eg free travel) but all TCAs were required to establish schemes to deliver at least the minimum statutory half-fare concession. 35. The generosity of the statutory concession was subsequently increased,41 and in England became free from April 2006 (on local buses, off-peak, but within the TCA area of residents), and from April 2008 allowed free off-peak bus travel anywhere in England. 36. TCAs retain the right from the 1985 Act to enhance the statutory concession, for example by offering an earlier weekday start time, or extending the concession to wider range of residents. The exact share of TCA 40 Under the 1985 Act, Travel Concession Authorities in County areas were designated as the second tier authorities (i.e. District Councils), alongside unitary authorities and metropolitan councils. Counties take over TCA responsibilities from the second tier authorities from April 2011. 41 A free concession was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2002 and in Wales and Scotland in 2003. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Transport Committee: Evidence

expenditure associated with these discretionary concessions is not known, but for buses is probably a relatively small proportion—most expenditure is associated with delivery of the statutory concession.

Scale of Concessionary Travel Use and Expenditure 37. Payments to bus operators for providing concessionary travel represent the largest single component of local public transport spending by local government. Of £2,185 million revenue spending in England in 2007–08, a third of the total was for concessionary fares.42 This proportion is almost certain to have risen over the last couple of years and is probably higher for the UK as a whole, since reimbursement arrangements in the devolved administrations tend to be more generous than those in England. 38. Over a third of the bus passengers currently carried by bus operators are concessionary passengers.43 Payments for concessionary travel account for 18% of estimated bus operator revenue (including BSOG and net payment for tendered services). These proportions will vary between operators and types of route. In some areas, and with some types of service (such as coastal services in recreational areas) concessionary travel is the dominant market and these proportions are much higher. 39. It should be noted that there is considerable variation in the scale of expenditure of TCAs, the number of bus operators that they deal with, the nature of the services operated, and the technical resources available to the TCA to administer the scheme (in terms of expertise and data). Although the move to County administration from second tier authorities will increase the average scale of individual schemes, local circumstances will still vary considerably, and may place signiﬁcant strain on a TCA’s ability to fairly administer reimbursement arrangements.

Funding 40. The change from an entirely discretionary concession to a largely statutory concession has been reflected in increases in grant paid by central Government to local Government. Between 2008–9 and 2010–11, special grant was provided to reflect the increase in spending associated with the move to the national concession, but from 2011–12 funding for concessionary travel is entirely subsumed within Formula Grant. There is therefore no direct relationship between what a TCA needs to spend to deliver the statutory concession, and the amount of funding that it will receive to pay for it, nor is there any transparency that allows the adequacy of funding to be determined.44 This is an important consideration as the minimum standard is costly, defined in statute and the methodology for operator reimbursement is fairly tightly constrained.

Reimbursement 41. 1986 Regulations set out the principles which should be used by a TCA in calculating reimbursement to bus operators. In particular, TCAs should have the objective to reimburse operators so that both individually and in aggregate operators are ﬁnancially no better off and no worse off. European legislation (in particular Regulation 1370/2007) provides an over-arching framework governing the compensation that an operator may receive for providing a public service obligation such as requiring certain groups of passengers to be carried at a concessionary fare. 42. Reimbursement payments are typically calculated from: — the number of concessionary journeys made; — the average commercial fare charged by the operator; and — the reimbursement rules, which determine how the “no better off, no worse off” objective is interpreted. 43. Of these, both the number of concessionary journeys, and the average commercial fare charged are entirely outside the control of the TCA. The TCA is responsible for setting the reimbursement rules. But in principle, these should comply with the “no better off, no worse off” objective, and in particular should not be set to enable the TCA to match expenditure with a given amount of funding. 44. Consequently, TCAs are in the position of having to pay for a statutory service over which they have no control, and for which they will receive grant that may bear little relationship to actual expenditure. In the context of signiﬁcantly reduced grant to local government, it is inevitable that operators will be suspicious that TCAs will seek to minimise reimburse payments in order to respond to wider budgetary pressures.

DfT’s Guidance 45. It is impossible to know for sure whether any given quantum of reimbursement payment is “correct”, and genuinely satisfies the “no better off and no worse off” objective. The best that can be done is to assemble a logical framework for calculating reimbursement on a consistent basis, drawing on evidence (from the fields 42 Table 2, Local Bus Service Support—Options for Reform Consultation paper, Department for Transport, March 2008. 43 DfT Public Transport Statistics Table 105 October 2010. 44 There are indications in some data published by the Department for Communities and Local Government that appears to identify the grant that individual local authorities receive for concessionary travel, but its transparency is obscured by the floor-damping mechanism and other issues. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w85

of transport planning and transport economics) of how passengers and transport operators behave. The reimbursement rules actually applied to calculate reimbursement should implement this logical framework. 46. DfT publishes Guidance which seeks to advise TCAs on the reimbursement rules. The latest, published in late November 2010 for implementation from April 2011, represents DfT’s interpretation of the results from the large study carried out on its behalf by the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds. 47. The Guidance has two functions: — it provides advice to TCAs on how they should satisfy their objectives; and — it also provides the methodology which will be used by DfT in advising the Secretary of State on appeals. 48. This dual role provides a dilemma for TCAs which have doubts about the correctness of DfT Guidance, because of the potential vulnerability to appeals by bus operators. Variation from Guidance enhances the risk of appeal on grounds of non-compliance with DfT advice (and a presumption that the outcome will favour DfT’s views as set out in the Guidance). On the other hand, the TCA will be knowingly in breach of its statutory objectives if it can be demonstrated that Guidance is not consistent with “no better off, no worse off” principles. In the author’s opinion, there is at least one feature of the latest Guidance for which this is the case.45

Appeals 49. Since statutory free travel was introduced in England over 300 appeals have been received, on widely varying grounds. DfT have chosen to progress each appeal in isolation, using an independent adjudicator advised by DfT economists. Determinations have not been published, even in redacted form, and only the barest of summaries of outcomes have been made available to other than the interested parties in each appeal. 50. Because of this lack of information, it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the process, and criticism will have been muted because of a reluctance amongst interested parties to antagonise those responsible for advising on the outcomes of future appeals. Even so, dissatisfaction with the appeal process has led to a number of applications for judicial review, some of which remain outstanding. 51. In the author’s opinion, based on personal knowledge and some anecdotal evidence, there is ample room for improvement. In particular, lack of any emerging case-law or precedents, combined with apparent arbitrary decisions and inconsistencies in the judgements made, makes it impossible for interested parties to form a proper view of the likely outcomes of a potential appeal. This is bound to increase the scale and number of disputes between TCAs and bus operators rather than reduce it.

Summary of Implementation Issues 52. The principal problems created by these various arrangements can be summarised as follows: — the local authorities designated as Travel Concession Authorities are very largely the agents of central government implementing central government policy (statutory free off-peak bus travel). But they have very limited control over what they have to spend, and in any case there is little direct link between the expenditure incurred and the funding that they get from central Government. There is consequently at best an arbitrary degree of over- and under-funding of the concession between authorities, and at worst the possibility of underfunding overall; — of the things that determine expenditure, TCAs have most influence over the reimbursement rules. But TCAs are set the objective of leaving operators no better off and no worse off (and explicitly should not constrain reimbursement to match available budgets). Independently, they should also take account of DfT Guidance, both as a source of advice, and also in the knowledge that DfT Guidance will be used by operators to argue for higher reimbursement if possible. So in deciding on arrangements, careful judgements are required about the weight to be given to DfT Guidance as opposed to other considerations. In principle, affordability should not be a consideration, but inevitably in practice will be, to some degree; and — there is a strong incentive for operators to appeal if there is a reasonable chance that it will increase reimbursement.46 But uncertainties about interpretation of the Guidance, and the difficulty of predicting the likely outcomes from appeal processes, encourages parties to take divergent views and hence increases the likelihood of appeals. 53. For practitioners, and especially TCAs faced with deciding on reimbursement arrangements for 2011–12, existing institutional arrangements have to be accepted as fixed, despite their imperfections. There is inevitable 45 The most significant concern is that the Guidance currently recommends that the same allowance is made for generation irrespective of the fare charged, but with variation depending on the rate of change from 2005–6. So if two operators charge widely varying fares, but happened to have changed them at an identical rate, it will be assumed that the same proportion of passengers are generated, irrespective of whether in the absence of the free concession passengers would be charged 50 pence or £5. 46 DfT proposes to change Regulations to allow appeal outcomes to reduce levels of payment as well as increase them, thus reducing incentives to appeal on a purely speculative basis. However, it is not clear that current Regulations preclude this, and examples are known of Determinations which have reduced operator payments. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Transport Committee: Evidence

conﬂict between operators wanting to get paid more, and TCAs seeking both to satisfy the “no better off, no worse off” objective while managing their budgets. Explicitly or implicitly, the threat of appeal will therefore inﬂuence TCA formulation of proposed reimbursement arrangements, and the consultation/negotiation process with operators that lead to their implementation.

Need for Improvement to the Appeal Process 54. Appeals are a necessary part of the overall delivery mechanism for free travel. But the way in which appeals are operated has a key role in magnifying, or diminishing, the tensions created by the institutional structures. In the author’s view, improvement in the operation of the appeal process could significantly reduce the impact of these tensions, and hence reduce the destabilising effects of the threat of appeal. This view reflects the author’s experience as an independent adjudicator appointed on behalf of Scottish Ministers to determine appeals by Scottish operators. 55. Although grounds for appeal vary, and include challenges regarding legal and process issues, it is thought that the underlying subject of most appeals is the question of what “no better off and no worse off” reimbursement means in money terms. Despite the ITS work, many uncertainties remain about the practical interpretation of these principles, requiring judgements that are potentially subject to dispute. The appeal process should be providing a mechanism for accumulating evidence and experience about such judgements, thus reducing uncertainties and the scope for argument. But the appeal process as operated by DfT has not permitted this to happen. 56. The fact that DfT has chosen not to publish appeal determinations has shielded them from scrutiny and means there is no possibility of an informed outside review of the appeal process. However, the author is aware of strong criticisms of the process used for individual determinations, on a variety of grounds,47 some of which have led to joint letters of complaint from both the TCA and operators involved. 57. An independent review of the appeal process is therefore an urgent and high priority. It should: — explicitly seek the views of TCAs and bus operators on their experience of the effectiveness of the process as operated by DfT; — have access to the Determinations made on behalf of the Secretary of State, including associated correspondence with interested parties, to provide an informed view of the practice of appeals as conducted by DfT; — examine the role of the appeal process within the overall arrangements for delivery of concessionary travel; — consider the best way in which the technical judgements implicit in reimbursement calculations should be brought into the quasi-judicial framework provided by the current Regulations; and — seek to identify best practice from how analogous appeal processes are dealt with in other sectors. 58. Appeals provide the release mechanism through which the conflicts that are endemic in current arrangements for delivering concessionary travel can be resolved. With little likelihood of major change in these arrangements for the foreseeable future, the potential for conflict will be a continuing fact of life for TCAs and operators for some years to come. However, if the appeal process is used to accumulate and disseminate experience of how conflicts are resolved, then fewer potential disputes will turn into actual appeals, and negotiations between TCAs and operators will take place in a context of much greater certainty on both sides. This in turn should lead to more positive relationships between local authorities and bus operators, which is essential if they are to work in partnership to deliver better local bus services in the current economic climate. January 2011

Written evidence from Coastal Accessible Transport Service Ltd (CATS) (BUS 50) 1. General 1.1 In common with many rural counties, the current public bus transport network in Suffolk comprises fully viable, partially subsidised and substantially subsidised services operated by large national, medium and small localised private companies and some 20 community transport operators (civil society organisations). 1.2 Coastal Accessible Transport Service Ltd (CATS) is an Industrial & Provident Society (for community benefit) based in rural coastal Suffolk and operating 11 vehicles under Section 19 and Section 22 Permits as Community Transport. In 2009–10 we delivered over 28,000 passenger journeys covering some 186,000 miles. Passengers include those unable to access scheduled transport through disability, frailty or rurality. Services include the traditional community transport offer including Community Car Service, Dial a Ride and Wheels within Wheels. These are now supplemented with contract services for Adult Care Services, school children (including those with special needs) and increasingly the Demand Responsive Transport services for the general public which are replacing scheduled services in rural Suffolk. 47 These include: inclusion in determinations of simple errors of fact; contradictory directions to a TCA from different determinations for different operators; ambiguities in directions that have required clarification letters which have then required further clarification. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w87

1.3 CATS is dependent on volunteer drivers for the majority of its journeys but uses paid drivers for contracted services. Some drive on both a voluntary and a paid basis on different services. The voluntary Management Committee also includes our drivers and the disabled’. 1.4 CATS considers that it has represented the best of the “Big Society” since 1998

2. Summary 2.1 We recognise the current requirement for a reduction in public spending but consider a “silo” approach to reduction in public transport support payments through BSOG and local authority bus schemes and services risks the unintended consequence of increasing the overall cost to the public purse. 2.2 Although community transport claims a relatively small element of total BSOG payments, removal or reduction will have a disproportionately large impact on its operators and passengers for whom alternative transport eg cars, is not an option. We believe that evaluation of the broader cost of this impact will identify the true value of this element. 2.3 Reductions in local authority funding for transport particularly in rural areas risks increasing costs for other government departments including benefits for job seekers and residential care for the elderly whilst limiting economic development opportunities. 2.4 The current restriction of concessionary fares to traditional bus services discriminates against those for whom no such service is available. This includes rurally isolated passengers as well as the disabled, frail or elderly. 2.5 Community transport activity is significantly influenced by its passengers who are included as members and shareholders

3. Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant 3.1 Much community transport activity is supported by Suffolk County Council on a deficit funding basis giving no facility for the development of reserves. Withdrawal of BSOG payments from central government increases the call on the County Council’s already reducing transport budget. The overall effect is likely to be the closure of many small rural community transport operators. 3.2 Although the numbers of passengers on community and sponsored transport services are small compared to the total number that use public transport, reduction or total withdrawal of financial support including BSOG will mainly impact rural areas, the elderly, local employees and employers, Job Seekers Allowance claimants, students and those not in education or employment (NEETs). This threatens residents’ access to the conventional activities of life whilst increasing the overall cost to the public purse. Consider the following examples. 3.3 In her 80s, Pam values her independence. Access to shops, medical appointments, social activities and her church is only possible through community transport. She would otherwise require more expensive residential care and would lose the ability to choose how to manage her life and activities. This also applies to our many passengers who access day care or other support. 3.4 Robert, a wheelchair user, is employed by a successful tourist hotel in a coastal town which has no public transport access. Community transport enables Robert to reach his workplace from his own rural home, contributing to the Treasury through income tax and reducing his demands on Benefits budgets. Community transport also provides the feeder service to the town from the rail station eight miles distant enabling tourists and residents to reduce car use and the associated carbon emissions, increase the financial viability of local businesses, reduce unemployment and retain permanent residents in what would otherwise become second homes with their attendant disadvantages. 3.5 CATS works with some success with the local Job Centre in providing training and voluntary driving placements for JSA claimants, facilitating a return to employment although not necessarily as drivers. We understand that York University has estimated a cost of some £100,000 per person in terms of rent, free school meals, child tax credits and other benefits payments plus lost National Insurance and Income Tax. 3.6 We therefore request that the Committee considers the broader impact on the public purse implicit in the above examples against the relatively small cost of BSOG payments to community transport.

4. Reduction of Funding to Local Authorities 4.1 Commercial network operators are already streamlining both routes and frequency to maintain viable levels of patronage. Proposed withdrawal of County Council subsidies for scheduled services puts more provision at risk and increases demand for community transport. However, much community transport activity is supported by Suffolk County Council on a deﬁcit funding basis thus exacerbating the downward spiral. 4.2 Reductions in local authority capacity for support for community transport threaten access to the conventional activities of life for those individuals and communities least able to access alternative transport. However examples of innovative approaches and good practice within the community transport sector are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Transport Committee: Evidence

available from the Community Transport Association (UK) and provide a basis for further mutually beneficial co-operation with local authorities. 4.3 Together with the other communications components including ICT, transport should be considered the “glue” which holds local, regional and national communities together. As demonstrated above, we believe that reduction in the support for bus services, and in particular for community transport must be seen in a wider context. The true impact on the public purse is likely to be a significant increase in overall financial costs. However the costs in human and economic terms, lost opportunities, increased disconnection and disaffection cannot yet be calculated. 4.4 We recognise that this is outside the remit of this Committee, but would urge the Committee to encourage a review of the method of identifying “savings” across Departments and funding streams (silos) in public spending to ensure true efficiencies.

5. Concessionary Fares 5.1 We believe that dial-a-ride and similar community transport services should be eligible for off-peak concessionary fare arrangements. These passengers are not able to use conventional scheduled public transport and are therefore discriminated against in having to pay for what would otherwise be free.

6. Passenger Involvement in Bus Service Planning 6.1 As an Industrial and Provident Society for community beneﬁt, our shareholders are the community and determine our activities as well as electing the Management Committee. 6.2 The voluntary Management Committee include CATS drivers and representatives of local community groups who use the services. 6.3 Suffolk County Council undertook extensive consultations before withdrawing scheduled services and introducing Demand Responsive Transport. The services operated by CATS have subsequently been moulded by passengers to meet their travel patterns. After six years, the original service still demonstrates a random pattern. The service in its second year quickly established a regular pattern to meet peak ﬂows with utterly random routing in the intervals. After only 10 weeks, passengers on the latest service have yet to settle. January 2011

Written evidence from Lancashire County Council (BUS 51) I refer to the inquiry that the Transport Committee is to undertake into the funding of bus services in England (outside of London) in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. I set out below the position with regards to public transport in Lancashire and would be grateful if you could give the following comments some consideration. Lancashire County Council boasts a bus network which is 80% commercially operated by bus operators with the remaining 20% of the network being provided by subsidised bus services. Net funding for subsidised bus services in 2009–10 in Lancashire was £6.5 million and this mainly provided rural, evening and weekend services across the County. These are services that are deemed socially necessary and which the bus operators are unable to provide on a commercial basis. In addition to this, we also fund other passenger transport services, namely community transport, home to school transport, SEN and Adult Services transport with a total spend in the region of £32 million per annum. However, there are other significant funding streams to operators which in the main are not targeted towards particular areas but is “blanket” funding provided to the bus industry. In Lancashire, according to the most recent DfT figures, £9.8 million in funding was provided to the bus industry through the Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG). Whilst this grant is due to decrease in the coming years as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, it is still set to remain a significant source of bus industry funding. The previous government had announced their intention to move towards a payment based on an incentive per passenger (IPP), but this would still leave this funding as an uncapped and untargeted funding stream. There are also concerns that IPP has the potential for moving resources from rural to more urban operation. The other main area of bus service funding within Lancashire is that of the concessionary fares scheme with a total £23.9 million per annum being spent on the provision of the scheme. Again, there are changes proposed to the system but much of the funding will still remain poorly targeted. A recent report by the Local Government Association, titled “The Future of Bus Subsidy” proposes replacing the whole subsidy package with a single stream of public subsidy for bus services. The stream, it proposes, should be devolved to local transport authorities who would be empowered to commission bus services from providers at local level through a competitive tendering regime thus maintaining competition for bus service operation but through a substantially increased targeted formula. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w89

Under such an arrangement genuinely commercial bus services would not receive ﬂat rate subsidy and local authorities would be able to choose to subsidise a single service over routes which currently receive multiple subsidy streams for numerous providers. Adopting such an approach in Lancashire would allow us to specify subsidised route coverage in order to support local economic, social and environmental objectives. It would also allow us to integrate school, social care and accessible transport with mainstream public transport and have the potential to make efﬁciencies through better procurement. We would be very keen to develop a pilot scheme within Lancashire based on the above as we would be interested in procuring bus services utilising the Government's BSOG subsidy joined with our own subsidy for passenger services. Obviously, this would require good effective partnership working with bus operators and a new way of working but it is something that we feel there is merit in pursuing. January 2011

Further written evidence from Lancashire County Council (BUS 51a) 1. Introduction 1.1 Lancashire County Council welcomes this opportunity to provide the Committee with our views on the funding of bus services following the Comprehensive Spending Review. 1.2 Passengers in Lancashire make 170,000 bus journeys every day. More than 25,000 children travel to school by bus each year. The county council has invested significantly in new bus interchanges at major urban sites across the county in recent years. We work closely with operators and passengers to design and deliver high quality bus travel in all areas of the county—both town and country—and are committed to providing safe, reliable, convenient and affordable alternatives to car travel. 1.3 Lancashire has always been at the forefront of modern transport in Britain—from the early days of steam railways to the UK’s first motorway. More recently, we have worked with European partners through the CIVITAS programme to design and deliver transport systems fit for the 21st century. We engage with our passengers and bus users can express their views on our services through an online feedback portal. 1.4 Our current Local Transport Plan recognises transport’s dynamic impact on the daily lives and aspirations of Lancashire’s million-plus residents. Given the fragile state of the economy, our top priority will be to support private sector-led economic growth by improving access to areas of economic growth, job creation, education and regeneration. Boosting skills, employability and opportunity through smarter public transport provision will create the conditions for local economic growth and empower citizens to improve their own lives. 1.5 Functional and affordable bus services are integral to local economic development. The central issue for Lancashire is the degree of connectivity between multiple sector-based “clusters” (like the “aerospace corridor” that runs from the coastal west of the county to east Lancashire, or our university campuses), education and training sites and larger residential areas. Local government has a vital role in ensuring, wherever possible, that workers and job seekers can access employment and training easily and affordably.

2. Bus Services in Lancashire 2.1 Lancashire County Council boasts a bus network which is 80% commercially operated by bus operators with the remaining 20% of the network being provided by subsidised bus services. 2.2 Net funding for subsidised bus services in 2009–10 in Lancashire was £6.5 million and this mainly provided rural, evening and weekend services across the County. These are services that are deemed socially necessary and which the bus operators are unable to provide on a commercial basis. In addition, we also fund other passenger transport services, namely community transport, home to school transport, SEN and Adult Services transport with a total spend in the region of £32 million per annum. 2.3 However, there are other significant funding streams to operators which in the main are not targeted towards particular areas but is “blanket” funding provided to the bus industry. In Lancashire, according to the most recent Department for Transport figures, £9.8 million in funding was provided to the bus industry through the Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG). Whilst this grant is due to decrease in the coming years as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review, it is still set to remain a significant source of bus industry funding. The previous government had announced their intention to move towards a payment based on an incentive per passenger (IPP), but this would still leave this funding as an uncapped and untargeted funding stream. There are also concerns that IPP has the potential for moving resources from rural to more urban operation. 2.4 The other main area of bus service funding within Lancashire is that of the concessionary fares scheme with a total £23.9 million per annum being spent on the provision of the scheme. Again, changes to the system are proposed but much of the funding will still remain poorly targeted. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Transport Committee: Evidence

2.5 Concessionary travel is the first application for the NoWcard smart card scheme. The scheme has been jointly established by Cumbria and Lancashire County Councils, and Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool Borough Councils.. NoWcard is a smartcard platform that conforms to the national ITSO technical standard. 2.6 All bus operators within the NoWcard area have been equipped with ticket machines that will read a smart card. This is with the exception of Preston Bus. However, this company is expected to be “smart live” within the next six months. NoWcard has provided operators with grants to assist with purchasing the necessary on-bus and back office equipment, although some smaller operators lease their equipment via NoWcard, mostly those providing only contracted services. 2.7 Within each NoWcard smart card is a small electronic chip. For concessionary travel, ticket machines on local bus services read each NoWcard, check its validity and ensure that passengers are offered the correct level of concession. Personal details are kept securely by the appropriate Travel Concession Authority and these details cannot be read by bus service operators. The NoWcard allows the bus service operator and the local authority to account accurately for concessionary fares so that the concessions are paid for correctly. 2.8 The County Council and its partners are keen to build on the NoWcard platform now it is established. Within the next few months we will be introducing a pilot Stored Travel Rights scheme within the Chorley, South Ribble and Preston areas aimed at 16 to 23 year old people. This scheme, which has been agreed by all bus operators in the area, will allow young people to store a credit on their smart card and obtain a discount of at least 10% off the relevant fare when paying in this way. 2.9 The County Council has noted and supports the Government’s commitment to delivering the infrastructure to enable most public transport journeys to be undertaken using smart ticketing by December 2014. 2.10 We have also noted the tremendous success of the London Oyster Card and will be working with our partners in NoWcard, other neighbouring transport authorities and our public transport operators to deliver a similar range of ticketing products. This would have clear benefits for facilitating expanded use of public transport in general and could be used to help achieve specific socio-economic objectives; like discount, reward or loyalty travel schemes for those people, for example, who may struggle with barriers to job entry such as access to transport. Such a scheme could also be expanded by councils, bus operators and train companies to incorporate other goods and services and take advantage of expected changes to council’s trading powers presaged in the Localism Bill (General Power of Competence). 2.11 As the Coalition’s Programme for Government (and associated Departmental Business Plans) makes clear, service integration must be a feature of future public policy making in the UK. Smart card technology promises to drive better integration between a range of publicly-provided services, including transport, employment, education, health and social care. 2.12 We note that from April 2011, all funding for the statutory concessionary travel scheme will be provided through formula grant. This will give councils new freedoms over the use of funding and negotiations over cost-effectiveness with operators. 2.13 We have been informed by government that the Department for Transport is “considering options for the long-term future distribution of bus subsidy, working with bus operators and local authorities to look at smarter ways of administering the subsidy to get better results for both taxpayers and passengers.” 2.14 Guidance for the Local Sustainable Transport Fund has now been published. We wrote recently to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, who informed us that Fund proposals will “need to clearly demonstrate how they will contribute to supporting economic growth and reducing carbon emissions.” The government made it clear that “it will be for local authorities, working in partnership with their communities, to identify the right solutions for their areas.” 2.15 Government also reiterated its intent to bring together all funding streams into just two revenue pots— Formula Grant and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund—giving local authorities “the power to decide what’s best for them and prioritise resources accordingly.” 2.16 A recent report by the Local Government Association, titled “The Future of Bus Subsidy” proposes replacing the whole subsidy package with a single stream of public subsidy for bus services. The stream, it is proposed, should be devolved to local transport authorities who would be empowered to commission bus services from providers at the local level through a competitive tendering regime, thus maintaining competition for bus service operation but through a substantially increased targeted formula.

3. The Future of Bus Services in Lancashire 3.1 Lancashire County Council would be very keen to develop a pilot scheme within Lancashire based on the above and would be interested in procuring bus services utilising the Government’s streamlined subsidy pot, along with bids to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and our own subsidies for a range of specialised passenger services. 3.2 Adopting such an approach in Lancashire would allow us to specify subsidised route coverage in order to support the local economic priorities referenced earlier. We can use our own local knowledge, coupled with cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w91

the expertise of the bus companies. It would also allow us to integrate school, social care and accessible transport with mainstream public transport and create the very real potential to make efficiencies through better procurement. 3.3 Under a system of streamlined single-pot funding, genuinely commercial bus services would not receive flat rate subsidy and local authorities would be able to choose to subsidise a single service over routes which currently receive multiple subsidy streams for numerous providers. The current system throws up unintended consequences that can sometimes undermine partnerships between councils and bus operators, such as when operators rely on councils to subsidise “feeder” routes to more profitable “major” routes once private sector support for the secondary route is removed. 3.4 As referenced earlier, greater flexibility to organise and fund bus operations in Lancashire will allow councils to capture savings through better “systems thinking”—for example, by ensuring that we maximise outlay on non-emergency hospital transport (eg adult social care) through better integration with “general” public transport services, or through an expanded smart card. This sort of system integration has clear implications for the future of both personalised and community-based budgeting. 3.5 It is possible, although not certain, that such new pilot arrangements could be managed via emerging Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) arrangements which may well include bus and other local transport providers as part of an individual LEP governance structure. Any new products or services—not to mention new ways of working—will require effective partnerships and we are committed to ensuring close consultation with bus operators.

4. Conclusion 4.1 Connectivity is the golden thread that links economic opportunity and aspiration in many deprived areas. We want to increase the ease and use of public transport in Lancashire so we can boost economic development, particularly in these more deprived areas. Beyond the environmental benefits of expanded use of public transport lie the benefits of greater access to education and training and employment. With greater freedoms and flexibilities to design and deliver truly local and intelligent bus services in Lancashire, we believe we can make a real difference to the lives of thousands of residents who want a better life. March 2011

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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Transport Committee: Evidence

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

Written evidence from Shropshire Community Transport Consortium (BUS 54) 1. Introduction 1.1 My name is Linda Cox and I am making this submission in my capacity as founder and Chair of the Shropshire Community Transport (CT) Consortium (ref a). 1.2 In addition to the CT Consortium, in the last twelve years I have also been responsible for the setting up, and running, of several other CT organisations in Shropshire. These have included TESS (Transport for Everyone in South Shropshire), The Shropshire Hills Shuttles and the 49Link. Both The Shropshire Hills Shuttles and the 49Link were mainstreamed by the local authority with the 49Link being rolled out as a service across the whole of the county. 1.3 I currently divide my time between managing Shrewsbury Dial a Ride and running a CT Consultancy. I represent CT on the Board of the Shropshire Voluntary and Community Sector Assembly and am a Board Member of the Shropshire Infrastructure Partnership.

2. The Impact of the Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG), Including on Community Transport 2.1 Research undertaken by the Community Transport Association (CTA), (ref b) shows that CT organizations nationally claim nearly £3.7 million in Bus Service Operators’ Grant. It is my assertion that for many, this income represents the difference between survival and closure. Voluntary and Community Sector organisations run on very tight margins and often struggle to cope with rising costs in areas such as volunteer management, insurance, heating and lighting. 2.2 I know of at least one small, entirely volunteer run, organisation in South Shropshire where the amount they claim in BSOG is often equal to the amount of surplus they make each year. It is, therefore, their only source of contingency money, to be used, for example, to pay for any major or unexpected vehicle repairs.

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 Shropshire Council has been very supportive of CT and regards CT as the safety net when rural bus services are cut. The Council’s Bus Strategy (ref c) for the next five years (currently out for consultation) puts CT in the highest priority band. The draft strategy states that: “Community Transport is a priority service for Shropshire and that regular reviews will be undertaken to ensure the service is operated as effectively and efficiently as possible.” It recommends that; “the Council continues to work with, and support, community transport providers to deliver high quality, value for money transport opportunities.” 3.2 However supportive Shropshire Council is, the level of grant the Council is able to make has been frozen for the last three financial years, and will remain at the same level in the coming financial year. 3.3 Over this same period diesel costs alone have risen by 37% or 34p per litre (ref d) with no corresponding increase in our support grants. 3.4 The costs of delivering a door to door service in one of the most sparsely populated counties in England are higher than those of more urban areas. Rural CT groups have to travel further between pick ups and cannot increase passenger numbers where potential clients are scattered widely across the countryside. 3.5 Our CT groups have made efficiency savings, and make even more use of their volunteers where they can, but some groups are now having to make cuts in their services. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w93

3.6 One of the larger CT groups in the South of the county has been forced to reduce its service to some of the most rurally isolated people in Shropshire by 20%. My organisation, the largest in the county, has cut paid staff and will do so again in the coming year in order to maintain our service. We are becoming more and more reliant on the good will of volunteers whose average age is in the high 60s.

3.7 Over the years CT has beneﬁted from central Government schemes such as Rural Bus Challenge and those delivered through the Countryside Agency. The withdrawal of these sources of funding means that new services cannot be developed and that there is no clear source of capital funding to replace our aging ﬂeets. We would acknowledge that in an ideal world provision should be made to save for replacements but it is the nature of the sector to spend all available income on providing the best possible service. It has also been the case that many funders would not give grants to organisations with relatively large reserves even when the money had been put aside as part of a vehicle replacement policy.

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 CT in Shropshire has been very fortunate in the support given to it by the new Unitary Council. As part of the development of the Unitary Authority, it was agreed to give discretionary reimbursement of income lost as a result of allowing concessionary bus pass use, to all CT groups across the county. The Council was also persuaded by the argument that the “fare multiplier” levied on commercial bus services should not apply to CT as all our passengers are elderly, and or disabled, and there was therefore no room for new usage from accompanying fare paying passengers.

5. How Passengers’ Views are Taken Into Account in Planning Bus Services, and the Role of Passenger Focus in this Area 5.1 When planning our services, all of the CT groups in Shropshire undertake a process of questioning, listening and review before, and after, any changes to our service.

5.2 External market research is expensive and with tightening budgets, anything that is not directly concerned with the day to day running of the organisation is seen as an unaffordable luxury.

5.3 The Shropshire CT Consortium is a consultee whenever Shropshire Council considers changes to its services.

5.4 It is my understanding that Passenger Focus does not have the remit or resource to interact with CT, although an independent review such as theirs would be welcomed.

References 1. Shropshire Community Transport Consortium

Overview

Shropshire Community Transport Consortium has been involved in community transport since 2004. The consortium has a county wide role and has contact with similar groups in other adjacent counties, for example a similar organisation exists in Worcestershire. The consortium’s membership includes seven bus owning organisations and 25 car sharing schemes. The membership is updated annually.

Terms of Reference

“Members of this group will be representatives of non-proﬁt making community transport (CT) operators providing and supporting transport services in Shropshire. Members agree to: (a) Meet together on a regular basis. (b) Provide information for the purposes of joint research and funding bids.

The consortium will: (a) Provide a forum for discussion and sharing of experience. (b) Facilitate joint working between operators. (c) Raise the proﬁle of CT services in Shropshire and promote services to potential users and volunteers. (d) Share information. (e) Initiate research into sustainable CT models. (f) Put together joint bids for funding. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Transport Committee: Evidence

2. The CTA State of the Sector Report for England 2010 3. Shropshire Council Bus Strategy 2010 4. AA Fuel Price Report January 2011

Written evidence from M Rushmere (BUS 55) I am writing as the user of our local bus service and as a holder of a concessionary bus pass for the over 60s. I live in North Yorkshire, and use the Dales and District service number 70 that runs between Ripon and Northallerton. It runs six days a week during the day time only. This enables my wife—also a pass holder— and I to get to the shops, attend doctors appointments, visit our banks and building societies, and the post ofﬁce amongst other facilities. It also connects to other services such as the east coast main line that allows us to visit family and friends around the UK. Both Ripon and Northallerton have other bus routes that can transport us to all areas of Yorkshire and beyond. By using the bus we leave our car at home and save in the region of 5,000 miles a year in general commuting. As a free service we, and many others, ﬁnd the facility extremely useful. IF this service was to be reduced then I would prefer to see the frequency each day retained but a whole day removed during the week. Say Tuesday. In order not to have it reduced at all, I would consider accepting a nominal charge per journey to go towards the cost of providing this service for all over 60 pass holders. This could be 20p for any journey. This would go some way to mitigating the cost and should not involve the bus operator in any extra work as they take fares already; so cash handling is not a problem. I hope that in the end the facility is not reduced or removed as the numbers that use it in this rural area is considerable. January 2010

Written evidence from R Drever (BUS 56) I only very recently found out about this enquiry. So sorry I am responding one month late. Hopefully, the brief nature of my comments will allow you to at least give them a little consideration. I write as a disabled, non-driving bus user. 1. What is the point of providing free bus passes if there are going to be no buses to use them on. 2. Bus-use “fees” should be made up of two elements: 2.1 A “service membership” style fee which a user has to purchase in advance—on a monthly/ quarterly/annual basis. If a user does not possess this permit then they would have to pay a premium fare. 2.2 A usage or travel fare which is paid according to how far the journey is. This is paid in addition to the “membership” charge mentioned above. 2.3 As an alternative to the above two-element fare, it should be possible to purchase a “roaming” pass for unlimited weekly or monthly use. 3. The principle behind the above fare system that the users don’t just pay for service usage, but also have to pay something towards the existence of the service. It is quite unsatisfactory for a would-be traveller to say they only need the bus once a week or month and expect the service to be there for their rare benefit. There has to be a fare element that helps assure the existence of the service. 4. In terms of the free passes for the 60s+ and the disabled, only one or the other of 2.1 or 2.2 above should be provided free. They should pay for the other one. 5. I don’t know what percentage of the cost of providing the free bus pass goes towards covering its national benefit, but this has to feature in the cost somewhere. I believe this is the most stupid and wasteful part of the facility. It is one thing to provide a pass for going about my daily living needs, but there is no justification for providing free national, ie holiday, travel. 6. Still on the subject of the free passes, why should the disabled be getting a free pass anyway when they most likely get Mobility Allowance thru Disability Living Allowance. 7. Much as I like having my evening bus service (which I probably use once a month), it is doing the planet no good having two tons of bus driving around with none, one, or maybe two passengers on it. At the end of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w95

the day, if people want to travel at “unusual” times they will just have to walk, cycle, or take a taxi. My father and grandfather walked five miles each way to get to their work. If they coped, why can’t the people of today? 8. More thought should be given to use of mobile phones in time-tabling of bus services outside peak times. Instead of buses running at fixed times outside peak times, the service providers should commit to run a minimum of say one, two or three buses at a time to be determined by service requests from customers. Customers will have to rely on their phone to find out when the bus is scheduled to run. 9. Looking at my own bus area (Guildford in Surrey) I would say there is good scope for realistic rejigging of some routes during off-peak times, eg where there are clockwise and anti-clockwise services running on the same route. I am sure there will be other ways in which routes can be fine tuned to reduce cost but still keep a service running. 10. It has long been an argument of mine that it is the punctuality and reliability of a service that really matters, not the theoretical frequency. People should be able to plan their affairs round a reliable timetable rather than expect buses to turn up at a time most convenient for them. January 2011

Written evidence from D Montague (BUS 57) 1. About St Lawrence St Lawrence Bay is located in a rural area of Essex on the east coast. It is a rapidly developing village with 1100 adults on the electoral role and approx 175 children. The population of St Lawrence has increased considerably over the last 10 years. A new housing estate consisting of some 120 new homes were built in Anchorage View, in addition to development and expansion of existing properties which has meant that the village now has an increasing number of young families living here. Due to the lack of public transport it is estimated that 98% of the population have to own and use a car. In addition the Waterside Caravan Park attracts tourists to the area during the summer.

2. The Current Service The D1 bus service currently serves St Lawrence but only goes to Maldon. It takes an hour to get there and only runs every two hours. The ﬁrst bus leaves at 9.07 and the last bus returns from Maldon at 15.55. This restricts the users to those who are retired wishing to shop in Maldon and does not accommodate anyone looking to commute to work. The St Cedds primary school bus acts as a shopper bus on two days of the week travelling to Southend and Basildon and this is well used again by those who are retired but it does not run during the school holidays.

3. Services we Lack (a) Inability to access employment—there is no access to work. (b) There is no connection to the rail service at Southminster other than a commuter bus that leaves at 06.20 and returns from Southminster at 18.30. The trains have recently been improved to run every 40 minutes as against every hour but we have no transport to Southminster station. (c) Links to other bus services from Bradwell on sea have delays between connections from anything between 45 minutes and an hour and there are no facilities or anywhere to wait. (d) No transport to doctors, which are located at either Tillingham or Southminster. (e) Facilities such as Opticians, Dentists, Banks are available in Burnham but those travelling by public transport are restricted to using those in Maldon. (f) Adult education courses are provided by St Peters High School in the evenings but there is no transport to Burnham. (g) Southminster is our nearest railway station providing the only transport we have to South Woodham Ferrers and beyond to Southend, Chelmsford and London. (h) The local Secondary school is located in Burnham on Crouch yet we have no public transport to get to Burnham on Crouch. So if they are unable to catch the school bus for any reason there is no other means of getting to and from school at any other time. This means that any after school activities are limited to ﬁnishing by 16.30 or children being collected by parents. This often occurs when children are involved in attending activities such as sporting events at other Essex schools and they return after the buses have left. (i) Social isolation for the young—The Secondary school is attended by children from Burnham, Southminster and other neighbouring villages but there is no transport for children to meet up with their friends either after school, at weekends or during the school holidays. Whether it is to go cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Transport Committee: Evidence

shopping in Chelmsford or Southend, visit London or just meet friends, there is no way the younger generation can get anywhere independently and without being taken by car. (j) Barriers and restrictions on choice for further education. Proves to be difficult to choose to study anywhere other than Burnham for A Levels or BTEC courses. (k) Transport to Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford—this entails getting the current bus to Maldon and changing buses. This would take two hours in total. The last bus returning leaves at 14.32 and the journey would take 2 ½ hours unless you wanted to change buses four times and take three hours in which case you could leave at 16.06 and arrive back in St Lawrence at 18.56. The 4 ½ hour round trip is therefore not an attractive option for those attending outpatients and definitely not user friendly for those restricted by visiting hours.

Impact on St Lawrence after the Spending Review

We appreciate that there is no money to spend at the moment but with the ever increasing cost of fuel and running costs for cars it seems the ideal time to change the route of our one and only bus and to encourage more people to use public transport. Other villages on the current bus route are serviced by more than one bus and have transport to Southminster. So why can’t St Lawrence?

We need transport to Southminster to provide a link to the railway line and other bus services such as the 31x to Chelmsford via Maldon. Southminster is the ideal location to become the hub for all Dengie Bus services and from here more services should then be provided direct to the hospital.

We need to encourage good bus-using habits and to tempt people to use the bus services rather than there cars. February 2011

Written evidence from J Nevell (BUS 58)

1. As a frequent user of bus services for commuting, shopping and leisure journeys, I am writing to express my concern about the likely effects of current government policies towards the bus industry, following the suggestion to respond on the Passenger Focus website (14 January 2011). Neither my wife nor I drive, so we depend on public transport, mostly travelling by bus to reach areas that are not served by rail. On holidays we use rural services to travel around scenic areas such as the Derbyshire Peak District, The Lake District, North Yorkshire and Cornwall. Our quality of life would be adversely affected by major service reductions in these areas. However the economics of bus operations are being undermined by government policies, putting the future of many routes at risk.

2. In recent years new regulations, such as vehicle emissions standards, have increased bus fuel consumption rates, which have compounded the effects of rising fuel prices on industry costs. The recently announced reduction in fuel duty rebate will further increase fuel costs, turning some marginal commercial routes into loss makers. The scope for relaxing some regulations (such as low ﬂoors, Disability Discrimination Act measures and emissions standards) for vehicles used on marginal routes, particularly in rural areas, should be investigated. For the majority of passengers a service with lower speciﬁcation vehicles is better than no service at all.

3. The free travel for pensioners scheme also appears to be adversely affecting bus company ﬁnances. Although it is claimed that the reimbursement system covers the costs involved, some operators appear to be reducing service frequencies on routes that are used by mostly by pensioners. Fares for non-concessionary passengers also appear to be relatively high in some areas with large pensioner populations. This may be an attempt to recoup losses made on concessionary travel—ie other passengers are subsidising those with free passes. It seems unfair that fare-paying passengers suffer from reduced services and higher fares as a result of this scheme. The ﬁnancial impacts of the scheme need to be made clearer. If its costs are unaffordable to the government, without affecting service viability or other passengers, then its scale and scope should be reduced.

4. I hope these views can be considered in the inquiry into the funding of bus services. February 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w97

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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Transport Committee: Evidence

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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w99

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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Transport Committee: Evidence

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 page 16 (page 24 of PDF ﬁle). [2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, . [3] European Convention on Human Rights, . [4] Amnesty International UK magazine issue 165 (January/February 2011). [5] “Buses Matter”, Campaign for Better Transport (January 2011), see: . [6] “Transport for Suburbia”, by Paul Mees, 2010, Earthscan , ISBN 978–1- 84407–740–3. An excerpt from the book can be found at . March 2011

Written evidence from Sherborne Transport Action Group (BUS 60) The following points are submitted for the Committee’s consideration: 1. The ability of a bus operator to alter services at will can create substantial problems for the Transport Authority which has to maintain a coherent network. The 56-day notification period does not allow sufficient time for the Authority to consult users about the implications. We recommend that, where there is a significant impact on the service, the notification period should be increased to at least three months. 2. In rural areas the practicality of a service is more important than a notional dedication to ‘competition’. Operators in these areas should be encouraged to co-operate in the interests of a better service. For example, where two operators have garages at opposite ends of a rural route, they should be permitted to co-operate so that the first bus of the day starts, and the last bus finishes, at its home garage. Through-ticketing between operators should also be actively encouraged. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w101

3. The EU restriction on the length of route is creating dire problems for rural buses. This restriction should be reviewed. February 2011

Written evidence from R J Farron (BUS 61) 1. The Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) ensures that essential public transport links are maintained, especially between rural and urban areas. For some users these links are the only method of transport for employment or everyday purposes. For other users, bus services provide a relatively cheap transport mode compared with private transport modes. Whilst a reduction in providing this may be necessary to reduce the Government deficit, alternative methods of reducing bus service operating costs should be considered. 2. Bus services and community transport schemes in particular, are vital for reducing social exclusion throughout England as well as playing an important part in reducing congestion and carbon emissions from private vehicles. The removal of important rural services, as a result of reducing BSOG, removes a transport link for people who do not have access to private transport modes and rely on rural bus services on a daily basis. 3. Coupled with increases to fuel prices, the reduction of BSOG will result in the removal of essential services and in some areas entire service networks could be severely reduced. Both the Campaign for Better Transport and the Local Government Association, among others, highlight the negative effects associated with the removal of the BSOG. 4. Where services are not removed, fares will increase to cover the costs of non-profitable but essential services. These increases will create another barrier and serve to reduce the effect of campaigns promoting the switch from private transport modes to public transport modes. 5. The overall consensus of the bus industry is that these reductions are deeply worrying for passengers and operators. If operators receive less revenue due to BSOG reduction they will be looking to reduce mileage and/ or increase fares. This will lead to a modal switch towards private transport modes. 6. The reduction of BSOG to bus operators could be mitigated by an exemption of fuel duty for all bus and coach operators. This is arguably a more effective way that the Government can help the industry if they remain committed to doing this.48 7. The negative effect of removing bus services will cause an increase in private vehicle transport ownership/ usage, leading to further increases in congestion and emission outputs, running counter to the Government’s carbon and congestion reduction targets. Furthermore, an increase in the number of private vehicles on the roads as well as the number of trips generated may result in an increase in fatal and non-fatal accidents. 8. With bus services regarded as inflexible by private vehicle users, the removal of non-viable routes and services would serve to further degrade the image of the bus industry and the important role it has within society. 9. A potential positive effect of the reduction in BSOG is an increase in innovation regarding “green” buses and fuels. This may occur as bus companies seek to reduce operating costs by introducing cheaper, more efficient buses/fuels or hybrids. This effect is unlikely to be realised in a suitable timeframe to negate the removal of essential services. February 2011

Written evidence from the Association of Colleges (BUS 62) — The Association of Colleges (AoC) represents and promotes the interests of Further Education and Sixth Form Colleges and their students. Colleges provide a rich mix of academic and vocational education. As publicly funded, autonomous institutions established under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, they have the freedom to innovate and respond ﬂexibly to the needs of individuals, business and communities. — The following key facts illustrate Colleges’ contribution to education and training in England: — Every year Colleges educate and train three million people. — 831,000 of these students are aged 16 to 18 which compares to 423,000 in schools. — 74,000 14 to 15 year olds are enrolled at a College. — One-third of A-level students study at a College. — 44% of those achieving a level 3 qualiﬁcation by age 19 do so at a College. — 69% of those receiving an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) study in a College. 48 Chris Cheek—BSOG abolition: making a crisis out of a drama? 4/9/2010 http://taspublications.co.uk/blog/?p=313 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Transport Committee: Evidence

— Colleges are centres of excellence and quality. The average A-level or equivalent point score for Sixth Form Colleges is 800.1, compared with 761.6 for school sixth forms. 96% of Colleges inspected in 2008–09 were judged satisfactory or better by Ofsted for the quality of their provision.

16–19 Transport In December 2010 the Association of Colleges commissioned a survey of its members detailing the accessibility of transport for people aged 16–19 attending Colleges. The survey found that: — 94% of Colleges believe that the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) will affect students’ ability to travel to and from College. — Local Authority support for 16–19 transport is extremely varied with 29% providing transport, 20% providing financial support, 18% providing both and 27% providing neither. — The majority of Colleges provide some form of financial assistance (78%) for transport with an average spend of £140,662, either financial or provision of services. This figure rises significantly for land-based49 Colleges with an average spend of £339,143. — 72% of students travel to College by bus: “Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that no young person in their area is prevented from attending education post-16 because of a lack of transport, or support for it.” Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb MP, Hansard 21 December 2010: Column 1367 The Education Act 1996 originally set out Local Authorities’ duty to provide transport for young people attending further education institutions and has subsequently been added to and amended by further legislation requiring Local Authorities to produce annual transport policies, ensure that young people are consulted when these policies are drawn up and also have the right to complain if the Local Authority is not performing its duty. Colleges in the survey were very concerned that where some Local Authorities provided subsidised schemes, the subsidies may be at risk or were still out of reach for some of the poorest students. A College told us: “Nottinghamshire County Council offer students the option to purchase a Half Fare pass at a cost of £99 for the year which then entitles students to travel at half the adult daily fare on the route between home and College—including different bus companies. For some students there is a benefit to be had from purchasing one of these passes as they can save over the year on their daily fares, but for most students it’s raising the initial £99 that causes problems.” The level of subsidy varies across local authorities, with some charging over £500 per annum for a student travel pass. The survey found that the average distance travelled to College was nine miles, with some Colleges reporting that students travel over 50 miles each way to College. In rural areas if young people want to stay in education or training they usually have to travel further. We believe that students should have the choice of which institution to attend based on the course that they wish to take and the quality of the institution they wish to attend. For some particularly specialised courses, a student may only have a choice of a few institutions. The travel to learn problems faced by young people in rural areas was a key issue raised in our survey. For example, a College told us: “Cumbria County Council provide assistance for under 19’s providing they are attending their nearest provider. Most students are issued with a bus pass to use on scheduled bus services, however a few receive financial re-imbursement as there is no bus service available.” Another told us: “We are a rural college and transport is a major factor. The population of the Forest of Dean is approximately 80,000 but it is widespread. Transport within the Forest is poor, with some areas only having one service per day. There is a cost to our College through non-participation due to transport.” The “formula grant” from Whitehall to Local Authorities is set to be reduced by 9.9% in 2011–12 and by 7.3% in 2012–13. Local Authorities are expected to make use of their core funding to meet their duties and it is clear in a context of limited resources that difficult decisions are being made. Students at City College Norwich say that the local council will no longer provide a transport subsidy at all in light of the strain on its budget and they are worried that this, combined with abolishing the EMA will result in young people being unable to afford to attend College at all. 49 Colleges which specialise in agriculture and horticulture courses cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w103

Colleges are concerned that even where Local Authorities are providing assistance, it will simply not be enough with the abolition of EMA. This needs to be understood in the context not just of constrained budgets in local authorities, but also of fuel cost increases and the VAT rises that will inevitably push up the cost of transport.

In particular the problem of transport in rural areas needs to be addressed, not just in terms of cost, but availability.

There are problems with the inconsistency of assistance across local authority boundaries, with some authorities not funding students travelling out of boundary.

Restrictions within some Transport Policies do not reﬂect the realities of a College day, with some stating that only one journey may be made per day, some stating that journeys must be completed by 9am.

As one College concluded: “The Government needs to recognise that travel costs are a key, and in some cases such as land based specialised colleges the prime, barrier to access to a quality specialised vocational education especially in rural counties. Learner Support Funds need to be able to be used for 16–18 years olds for transport costs and the guidance changed. This deﬁnitely needs to be done if EMAS are being withdrawn or else the number of NEETs a key government priority will just increase as learners will not be able to access ﬁnancial support for transport costs.” February 2011

Written evidence from T N D Anderson (BUS 63)

Synopsis

Successive governments have maintained a range of subsidies to the bus industry, largely in pursuit of social inclusion and modal shift objectives. The continuing low modal share for buses, in whatever variant, and in many areas declining, suggests that the industry requires rather more scrutiny than the current inquiry will afford.

As Transport for London has demonstrated, there are ways to increase bus ridership to some degree (albeit that many users are captive to bus in London and elsewhere). This submission contends that the unsatisfactory nature of the mode itself, especially for urban commuting, will ensure that its modal share will remain low, and that fares will continue to rise, subsidies will be required for the foreseeable future, or both.

As Ministers are aware, there is an alternative. Affordable British-made Light Rail is now available, and is capable of attracting a modal share that would ensure proﬁtable operations. Cross-subsidies to feeder buses in an integrated network offer the potential reduction or elimination of Government subsidies to urban bus services in the medium-term.

There is good practice exhibited in rural bus services in the Gower Peninsula and Bwcabus in Wales, for example. But generally, bus services suffer from a lack of imagination and innovation among proﬁt-maximising providers, a ﬁxation with technology (eg alternative fuels) rather than the “soft engineering” of passenger comfort factors, and pre-eminently, the provision of free or low-cost urban centre parking.

1. Introduction

At least part of the problem undermining the widely sought-after modal shift to public transport is the over- reliance on buses. The bus mode is not popular, and is especially not an attractive option for car-users. Inevitably in most locations, it requires public subsidy.

The modal share for buses in OECD cities is proportional to the size of the population. Larger cities tend to have more routes and more complex networks, outlying bus interchanges and P + R sites, all contributing towards a slightly higher modal share for buses. Many also have suburban rail and metro services available as well, limiting bus modal share.

For example, buses in Cardiff (0.4m population) have about 8% modal share, in Dublin (1m) 10% and London (8m) 18%. Figure 1 illustrates the approximate relationship—probably affected by the prevailing economic climate to the extent of 1–3%. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Transport Committee: Evidence

Figure 1 APPROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUS MODAL SHARE AND URBAN POPULATION

Bus 18% Modal Share 10%

1m 8m Dublin London Urban Populaon (after Lesley; Lesley and Anderson, forthcoming)

2. Ridership Strategies for Buses and their Limitations Undoubtedly, improvements in what is typically poor information design and provision, interchange and integration with all other modes, and other passenger comfort factors could increase bus modal share, probably by a total of 1–2%. These could be achieved at relatively modest cost, though a more holistic and critical analysis would be required than hitherto. While growth in ridership will rise in with economic growth, total transport volume will also grow, and the above proportions are likely to be close to the maximum attainable by the bus mode in the respective cities. Further... — bus rapid transit (BRT) makes little impact on bus ridership. High-end bus variants may cost up to 80% of the cost of Light Rail (LR). Partly because the operating costs of LR are lower than bus, over 30y LR is cheaper than BRT; and — there is an understandable reluctance to re-allocate roadspace away from cars while the alternatives are so unattractive, and the political consequences potentially severe. The re-allocation of roadspace for bus lanes is typically uneconomic however, even on many routes in London. Bus lanes are simply not justiﬁable on the modal shifts that might occur (and invariably do not). Any investment in bus and coach infrastructure should initially be directed at... — critically reviewing their routes, interchanges and potential degree of integration; — investigating the conversion of mainline bus routes to LR; and — reconﬁguring services as feeders to nodes, heavy rail (HR) and existing and future Light Rail (LR) or Tram-Train (TT).

3. Buses v Light Rail One of the implications of the above is that additional investment in buses may never realise the ridership increases that might justify conversion of routes to Light Rail. Their need for subsidy will continue. The utilisation of LR and/or TT, and the expansion of HR services where possible would generate a modal shift of a considerably greater magnitude. LR has been shown to attract a 25–45% modal share along a corridor—and importantly, mostly from car. Moreover, investment in LR has been shown to generate additional bus, coach and taxi use, and more walking and cycling. While capital investment in these modes (LR, TT, HR) may appear high, the cost would be less than continuing with inefﬁcient road-based modes (and their environmental costs and other externalities) which are already highly over-capitalised and largely unsustainable.

4. Affordable Light Rail Hitherto, LR has been considered unaffordable by many cities and towns and dismissed without more than superﬁcial review. However, our Client, TramPower Ltd (www.trampower.co.uk), produces state-of-the-art LR products which are half the cost of those of their global competitors. Their lower capital and operating costs mean that on “commercial” routes (where a high modal share would be secured), there would be a positive Internal Rate of Return that would attract private ﬁnance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w105

With one exception, so-called Light Rail in the UK and in most of Europe has been based on scaled-down heavy rail. It is therefore over-engineered, not light and expensive. TramPower’s products will revolutionise the business case for Light Rail globally. Capital Trafﬁc’s research has suggested that, pending pre-feasibility studies and by utilising TramPower products, towns and cities in the UK with more than 60 000 residents could support one or two Light Rail lines. Preliminary work suggests that there may even be a viable scheme for Aberystwyth (28,000 including students). Rapid construction is a key feature of TramPower products. Subject to planning approvals, privately funded Light Rail could be operating within 3–4y. TramPower have recently received permission for a demonstration line in Preston, and are developing a planning application for a new line from the city centre to the northeast to a business park and a P + R facility adjacent to the M6. If deployed widely, Light Rail would contribute to air quality objectives, reduce trafﬁc noise, fumes and congestion, and improve journey times and public transport modal share. Light Rail may also carry freight, which would create a secondary revenue stream for the operator (as well as reducing truck deliveries in central areas).

5. The Bus Industry in the UK Because the revenue per passenger-kilometre is so low, few bus operators have been prepared to invest in route and service reviews, or better information design and marketing with other than proﬁtability in mind. There is probably a case for a more detailed inquiry into the bus industry not hidebound by the ideology of “competition”, which has caused so much damage to services out of London. Now that monopolies are largely in control, stability has returned to a marked degree, though at the cost of continually higher fares and restricted services (nights, weekends). “Showcase” routes and Quality Partnerships are just another way for (local) government to subsidise bus services, with negligible impact on modal share though increased proﬁtability for the private sector operator in most cases. The service ethic that public transport is supposed to exhibit is lacking in many areas of the UK. Despite a sometimes indifferent public, bus drivers nevertheless offer a dedicated and courteous service under almost any management regime. There is a strong element of professionalism there which ought to be built upon. With no disrespect intended, the tier above (eg service delivery managers) appears to require a more sophisticated level of training in service design and marketing.

6. Factors Militating against Increasing Bus Modal Share The major competitor for buses (and for all other modes) is the private motor vehicle—the least efﬁcient tool that has ever been put into mass production. Future resource constraints will ensure that the more sustainable mass transit modes (ie. not electric vehicles) will dominate the market. Public transport modal share is most seriously undermined by policies that have allowed free or low-cost parking in urban centres and at workplaces. Attempts to change this have been tentative to date, and ineffectual. While in some areas there is adequate cooperation between the local authority and bus service providers, other than in London the former are hamstrung by a regulatory and purportedly “competitive” regime that has empowered private sector providers to the detriment of the public interest. The adoption of a London-style model of bus regulation in all areas is recommended.

7. Expanding Public Transport Provision There is a conceptual blindness within many local authorities which does not allow them to look beyond the traditional answer of ‘more roads’ to any question about traffic management. For example... — In Weymouth, there is a serviceable rail line that could have been redeveloped at low cost for LR for the Olympics, and beyond, as the spine of a small network (the opportunity remains). No doubt such a scheme would have been considered unaffordable. — Instead a “relief” road has been built at a large cost, but undoubtedly deemed to be affordable. It remains to be seen as to what benefits, if any, this road will bring. — In South Wales, the M4 Corridor Enhancement Measures Programme (M4 CEM) focuses not on the corridor (defined as the South Wales East–West Corridor in the National Transport Plan), but only the road. The name of the programme is a misnomer. Yet the most cost-effective methods for increasing the capacity of the Corridor (as defined) would be... — to provide for more home-working using ICT and reduce full-week commuting; — to enhance HR passenger and freight services between South Wales and Bristol; and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Transport Committee: Evidence

— to provide Light Rail between Cardiff and Newport. Local authorities and Integrated Transport Authorities should be encouraged to develop more expertise in rail and Light Rail planning to overcome what appears to be a serious skills deﬁcit and a policy vacuum. They should also institute appropriate parking controls in off-street locations.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations Reliance on buses to provide efficient and frequent services in many areas will be negatively affected by the reduction in Bus Service Operator Grants or other forms of public sector support (fuel duty rebate etc). This would have a serious impact on access to employment and on social inclusion. The continuing use of government funds to subsidise private sector businesses that seek to maximise profits rather than public utility ought to require a commensurate quid pro quo, which the London model does reasonably well. However, bus routes in London have never been systematically scrutinised, and rationalisation would lead to savings. Passenger information needs to be radically enhanced, but it is predicated upon near non-existent locational information and often vague or ambiguous directional information. Serious consideration needs to be given to comprehensive information design if the efficiency of movement by any mode in the UK is to be significantly improved. With respect, the Committee is invited to recommend — a thorough inquiry into current and future urban and rural public transport provision; — application of the London model of bus regulation throughout the UK in the short-term; and — positive consideration of Light Rail for mainline routes in larger towns and cities. February 2011

Written evidence from the RMT (BUS 34a) Introduction The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Transport Committee Inquiry into Bus Services after the Spending Review.

1 The impact of the reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, including on community transport Prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review, a joint-letter was sent from a variety of passenger groups, environmental groups and trade unions (including the RMT) to the Government and to all MPs, which highlighted the dangers of scrapping the Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG). This letter highlighted the “damaging and wide-ranging consequences for local communities, public transport services, low-income groups, the UK economy and the environment” if the BSOG were scrapped. RMT believes that although the BSOG has not been removed in its entirety the reduction will still cause massive damage to the industry through: — Fare rises to meet the shortfall and any sharp rise in the cost of bus travel and cuts in bus networks would increase car use, worsen congestion, damage the environment and lead to higher costs for businesses. — Cuts in commercial buses services, especially in rural areas and on less used evening and weekend services. The problems faced by rural services in managing the reduction will be compounded by the fact that the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant will no longer be ring-fenced. Services in urban areas will also be affected. — An increase in the costs of bus operators, which will have a negative effect on employment in the industry, both directly and through servicing, manufacturing and supply services. It will be most damaging to independent and small operators, where large monopoly operators will be in a better position to absorb the reduction. These smaller operators are also more likely to operate in rural areas and in community transport. — Transport authorities and local councils, whose budgets have already been cut, will be unable to make up the funding shortfall. Local-authority-subsidised services would become increasingly unproﬁtable. It would also push up the costs of running a signiﬁcant number of school services. — The reduction in the BSOG will also impact negatively on the Treasury through increased unemployment, support for previously commercial bus services and lower revenue through taxation from previously successful bus operators, manufacturers and suppliers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w107

— Bus passengers, many of whom are on low incomes, already pay more fuel tax than wealthier aviation passengers. While buses still pay a significant amount of fuel tax, aviation pays none. BSOG is equivalent to a £437 million a year investment in buses. In contrast, aviation gets a £6.5 billion a year tax break by paying no fuel duty. — A previous study for the Government by the Commission for Integrated Transport found that every £1 invested in BSOG provided between £3 and £5 of wider benefits. These wider benefits will be substantially reduced as a direct consequence of the reduction in the Bus Services Operators’ Grant. Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, recently stated that the benefits of BSOG—including keeping fares lower and bringing more people on to public transport—“are clear”: “Bus service operators grant, for example, directly provides operators with more than £400 million in support for bus services. The benefits of that grant are clear: it ensures that the bus network remains as broad as possible, while keeping fares lower and bringing more people on to public transport, with the obvious benefits of reducing congestion, lowering carbon emissions and improving air quality in our towns and cities. However, no matter how clear the benefits of such investment are, it is important that the Government get as much value as possible from every pound invested in services and it may be that we can increase the benefits of this grant even further. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that I am considering whether it would be sensible to reform the way this grant is allocated, to ensure that it provides the maximum possible benefit for passengers.” Norman Baker, Hansard, 29 June 2010, Column 842 Also, in response to a Parliamentary Question on 25 November 2010, he stated that he had spoken to the “Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, who represent the bus industry, following the Chancellor’s announcement on 20 October. They were hopeful that, in general, the 20% reduction in the Bus Service Operators Grant could be absorbed without fares having to rise”. This directly contradicts the comments of a number of bus operators who have made clear the negative impact which this reduction will have on their ability to provide a service. Peter Schipp, the chief executive of East Yorkshire Motor Services who operate 320 buses in Hull, Scarborough and the East Riding of Yorkshire said: “We made a profit of £436,000 last year and if this goes through we would lose £2.25 million a year in grant from April,” “Our first port of call would be to increase fares, I suppose people would rather pay more to keep their services. We would also have to think about taking some services out, especially early in the morning. “Also if you push fares up, people don't use buses and more services become unprofitable, so it is a vicious circle.”50 Additionally Mark Howarth, managing director Western Greyhound, which operates 117 buses in Cornwall, argues that he faces a 40% cut in the grant he receives for providing the concessionary bus travel for elderly and disabled persons. “We will have to put up fares and cut services. It would not just be rural routes which carry the odd granny, it would be interurban routes which take people to school.” He also warned that councils, who facing spending cuts of their own, will not have the money to plug the gap and subsidise services themselves. Passengers on Western Greyhound could see fares rise by as much as 50%, Mr Howarth warned, because of the cuts in subsidy to the companies. This would see a one way trip from Truro to Falmouth going up from £3 to £4.50.

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 And

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 The Department for Transports’ own equality impact assessment into the affect of the reduction on the elderly and disabled raises some serious concerns. These include: — recognition of the fact that there is an indication or evidence that the elderly and disabled have different needs, experiences, issues or priorities in relation to the particular policy; — that there is potential for, or evidence that, this policy may adversely affect equality of opportunity for all and may harm good relations between the different groups, in particular the elderly and disabled; — that there is potential for, or evidence that, any part of the proposed policy could discriminate, directly or indirectly, on the elderly and disabled; and 50 Reported in the Telegraph Rural passengers face lost services and higher fares 22 November 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Transport Committee: Evidence

— that there is evidence or an indication that there may be a reduced uptake of the service by the elderly or disabled. Furthermore, although not included in the equality impact assessment, RMT believes that the reduction in the BSOG will have a disproportionately large impact on the unemployed. In fact, according to the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond: “Social mobility and, in particular, moving people off welfare and into work, often depends on transport infrastructure. If people on isolated and deprived estates cannot get a bus or a train to the nearest city or town, they may be stranded without work and without hope”.51 Please see attached a report by the Campaign for Better Transport for the RMT.52 February 2011

Written evidence from TravelWatch SouthWest (TWSW) (BUS 65) This response is based on feedback from over 90 affiliated organisations, either in writing or delivered orally at the annual general meeting of the company held in Exeter on Saturday 19 February 2011. TravelWatch SouthWest (TWSW) was established in 2001 as The South West Public Transport Users’ Forum (SWPTUF) to promote the interests of public transport users in the South West of England government region (comprising the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire and the unitary authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, Bournemouth, Bristol, North Somerset, Plymouth, Poole, South Gloucestershire, Swindon and Torbay)—the Forum became a Community Interest Company, limited by guarantee, in August 2005. SWPTUF adopted the trading name of TravelWatch SouthWest in June 2006 and the Community Interest Company changed name to TravelWatch SouthWest CIC in November 2008. Membership of the TravelWatch SouthWest CIC is open to every “not-for-profit” organisation in the South West England government region whose sole or principal purpose is to represent the users of any public transport service or to promote the development of public transport services. Membership is also open to other “not-for-profit” organisations in the South West England government region who represent the interests of special and potential classes of public transport users eg the disabled or the elderly. TWSW currently has over 90 affiliated organisations. TWSW, which is a social enterprise company, acts as an advocate for passengers to lobby for the improvement of public transport in the region and works closely with the South West Councils, the South West Regional Development Agency and the South West Strategic Leaders Board—with the dissolution of the former Rail Passengers Committee for Western England in July 2005, TWSW is the representative body for public transport users throughout the South West England region. TWSW is currently funded by the South West Councils, the South West Regional Development Agency, local authorities and a number of public transport operators.

Summary TravelWatch SouthWest cic (TWSW) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry. The ﬁrst three bullet points in the terms of reference ask for evidence of the impact on bus services of the “triple whammy” of Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) reduction, lower concession fare reimbursement and reduced Local Authority bus support budgets. The effects of the “triple whammy” will take two or three years for the full effects to become apparent— this very important issue therefore needs to be kept under regular review. In rural areas the “triple whammy” could be life changing for some residents. The impact of the changes needs careful monitoring. Data needs to be collected over the next two or three years to enable the issue to be revisited in an informed, evidence-led manner. The fourth bullet point of the terms of reference asks how passengers’ views are taken into account in planning bus services and the role of Passenger Focus (PF) in that area. Bus passengers are far greater in number than rail passengers but feature less in transport discussions. Many bus users have no alternative. The likely reduction in service coverage will have profound effects on some. In the South West around one in ﬁve households (20.2%) have no access to the private car. This is highest amongst those living in unitary authorities where around one third (30.2%) have no access. The shire county areas vary from 16.1% to 20.5% with more than a quarter of households having no access in three of the district authorities. For these people there is little alternative for necessary transport to work, training, shopping and leisure activities. Full attention should be given to bus provision—or else to reliable and regular alternatives. 51 http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surrey-news/surrey-columnists/2010/08/24/philip-hammond-mp-transport=-is-at-theheart-of-the- country-growth-86289–27135014/ 52 Buses Matter: a report by the Campaign for Better Transport for the RMT, January 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w109

TWSW welcomed the bus role given to Passenger Focus (PF) and has found its research material to be of considerable value in informing its day-to-day contacts with the bus industry and local authorities in the South West of England. We are concerned that budget cuts could adversely affect PF’s research capacity although we do not yet know how PF intends to match its expenditure to its new budget. TravelWatch SouthWest cic, its constituent Members (who comprise several dozen users’ groups throughout the South West) and, we understand, our sister TravelWatches elsewhere in England, are obviously willing to facilitate the use of their own regional and local networks for the purpose of gathering passenger information and ensuring that passengers’ views are taken into account. We have had preliminary discussions with Passenger Focus to this effect. While our existing resources are nothing like those previously available to PF, our organisations do have the twin strengths of extensive local knowledge and the level of commitment to community interest activities that frequently characterises social enterprises and the voluntary sector. The Committee are urged to press that the important task of bus passenger advocacy is adequately resourced, particularly during the next few years as the full effects of the “triple whammy” become apparent. In particular, the Committee is urged to ensure that adequate provision is made to measure and monitor the developing impact of these effects.

Detailed Submission 1. TWSW believes that there are ﬁve important issues for the inquiry that are very timely and these are commented on here: — Firstly it is important that the bus market, use levels and passenger reactions are monitored over the next two to three years and that the Select Committee revisits this issue at regular intervals to determine what has happened. — Secondly the bus passenger, now more than ever, badly needs effective and well-resourced champions, particularly at a sub-regional level, capable of looking across local authority boundaries. — Thirdly, with the availability of diminished local authority funding, commercial bus operators need to be innovative in developing way of promoting and operating marginal services with less support from public funds. — Fourthly, some local authorities are making cuts to bus support budgets at a far higher level than the cut in their central government grant. — Last, but certainly not least, bus fares need to be monitored and compared with changes in car costs and rail fares.

Bus Monitoring 2. Each Local Authority used to collate bus use and report it in the Bus Strategy within its Local transport Plan (LTP). TWSW understands that there will be far less recording of bus use but it is imperative that the Select Committee presses government to ensure that the there is a consistent time series of such data, geographically disaggregated, to observe the effects of the “triple whammy”. Passenger Focus’s bus passenger satisfaction surveys appear to have stalled but again it is vital that the Select Committee press for a consistent time series of such satisfaction levels over the next two or three years. The one PF bus passenger satisfaction survey covered only 14 small areas of the country with about 1,000 in each sample. There is no sign of this being repeated. PF have also done some very useful work on non bus users to help determine how to attract more passengers. The projected severe cut in Passenger Focus budget may not allow this useful approach to be continued. It is imperative that the effects of the “triple whammy” on the bus industry for bus users should not be disguised whether from Parliament or Government. 3. TWSW believes that the effects on the bus market, use levels and passenger satisfaction from the “triple whammy” will take a couple of years to fully manifest themselves. TWSW doesn’t attempt to quantify these effects at this time. We do believe that the bus market and passengers will suffer greatly over the next two or three years. TAS has estimated a cut of 8% in bus mileage outside London and a 3% real increase in fares. The effect in rural areas will be far more traumatic. 4. The effect on people’s lives of a frequency reduction on a busy urban corridor from 12 to 10 buses per hour will be marginal. The removal of the only bus of the day to a village or a reduction from four buses per day to two will have life changing effects on the rural communities affected. The third element of the “triple whammy”, the cuts in local government bus support budgets, will primarily affect rural areas.

Bus Champion 5. We greatly admire PF’s early achievements in this area and share profound concerns about the potential impact on bus passengers and decision makers about the signiﬁcant cuts to PF’s budget. Bus passengers need properly resourced and active champions both nationally and at a local level. Perceived rises in car costs, higher rail fares and low performance by rail attracts great media coverage and there is no shortage of editorial criticism and pressure on government to reduce fuel duty etc. However, the plight of bus passengers rarely attracts media comment. Media people seem to rarely use buses or only use them in London where services cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Transport Committee: Evidence

are far superior. In the absence of a an adequately resourced statutory body there is a need for established associations of voluntary groups and social enterprises, like the regional TravelWatch organisations, to bring the plight of bus users to the attention of the public and their representatives and to lobby bus operators and local authorities on behalf of passengers. The need for this over the next two or three years is greater than ever.

Commercial Operators Step Up to the Plate

6. These comments will apply differently among the large group operators. Some operators take the view that any service not fully contributing to overheads and meeting group proﬁt targets should not operate without a local authority subsidy. For any service operating at a time that adds to Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) the desire to fully cover overheads is understandable. Taking cross subsidy too far is not sustainable but an inter- peak, evening or Sunday service that covers its marginal cost should be considered differently. The danger is that operators have grown accustomed to subsidy, even on non-PVR services that cover marginal costs but only make a partial contribution to overheads.

7. The Select Committee should invite operators to open their books to inspection of non-PVR services to consider the fare and subsidy revenue and marginal costs of them. Some operators may need to be reminded that a network with adequate temporal as well as spatial coverage is needed to grow their business and that lack of subsidy should not deprive passengers of a service that covers its marginal costs

Local Authorites

8. Some councils in the South West have applied larger percentage cuts to bus support budgets than the percentage cut in their central government grant. Local Authorities in the South West that are closing community facilities, including libraries, should ensure that it is still possible for residents to reach the available alternatives, including larger libraries etc by bus when their local facility has closed.

9. TWSW hopes that the Select Committee may bring this to the attention of local authorities and include in any re-visit to the issue an analysis of changes in the level of council support for buses.

Bus Fares

10. Recent above RPI rail fares increases have attracted strong media criticism. Increases in fuel costs cause outrage, even though overall car costs (in the long term) have fallen. Bus fares over a couple of decades have seen continuous above inﬂation increases, without any wider media reporting, let alone protest. Data available suggests that in real terms, between 1997 and 2009 overall motoring costs fell by 12%; rises in running costs were more than cancelled out by cheaper car prices. However, rail fares increased by 12% but bus fares increased by 22%. There is no central collation of bus fares and no regulation. The negatives for bus passengers from the “triple whammy” will work through as a mix of reduced service and higher fares. It is imperative that the Select Committee presses government to ensure that rises in bus fares over the next two to three years are monitored and that the long term trends in overall car costs, rail fares and bus fares are researched and studied when the Select Committee returns to look at changes to the bus market and bus passengers.

Recommendations

11. TWSW hope that the committee will revisit this inquiry at regular intervals with particular reference to rural areas but that in the meantime would consider making recommendations to the relevant bodies on the following topics: (a) Continued collection of consistent data sets on bus market indicators especially passenger numbers and satisfaction. (b) Appropriate funding to allow sufﬁcient bus passenger surveys. (c) Appropriate funding to ensure that the role of bus passenger champion is met, either by a properly funded statutory organisation (PF) or by established associations of voluntary groups and social enterprises like the regional TravelWatch organisations. (d) Bus operators to be encouraged to innovate with a view to running non-PVR services that meet marginal costs with reduced local authority subsidy. (e) Local Authorities recognise that cuts to bus support budgets above the general level of grant reduction is not compatible with closing other local facilities. (f) Continued collection of data on bus fares and their long term comparison with rail fare increases and overall car costs. February 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w111

Written evidence from G Oldﬁeld (BUS 66) I live in a village bordering the City of Norwich. I am severely disabled and am unable to walk very far—only a few yards. Fortunately I have a Blue Badge and a concessionary bus pass for the city Park and Ride. I use a tricycle to get around, and I use the Park and Ride two to three times a week, and to do so, I have to drive about three miles to the Park and Ride terminus. The bus has a ramp which I use to get on to the bus and I park my tricycle on the bus in the place for wheel chairs. Unfortunately, our bus terminal has just lost the County Council attendant, and therefore there is no one to give the parked cars security. Since we have lost our attendant the number of people prepared to leave their car exposed to theft has dramatically reduced, and therefore the revenue to the council has gone way done— including the revenue from me. Prior to the cuts to the service, it was excellent for people like me—and looking at the use of the service now, to many other people as well. I understand that savings have to made after the activities of the last government, but I am being severely discriminated against. March 2011

Written evidence from R Sumser (BUS 67) Reference Cuts on Park and Ride Bus Services in Norwich I use “Park and Ride” at Postwick (Norfolk) for shopping and voluntary work in Norwich city centre. I am a pensioner and since the closure in February of waiting room and toilet facilities, less car park security and fewer buses, I have become very dissatisfied with the “Park and Ride” service. Added to this, with the forthcoming withdrawal of the Saturday service in April and hence the difficulty and cost in parking my car in Norwich on a Saturday I will no longer be able to offer my services for voluntary work. The whole purpose of a Park and Ride facility is to lesson the amount of traffic using and parking in city centres. With any business the main ingredient is investment and unless this is met then less people will use the facility. On the other hand, the more attractive a business is then the more people will use it. In keeping in line with government cuts, I will also be implementing my own cuts and that is not to visit the city and therefore saving money not only on the Park and Ride but by not eating out. My shopping however will be done on-line and at out of town supermarkets. March 2011

Written evidence from B Daggers (BUS 68) Cuts Re Norwich Park and Ride Services In particular I refer to the Postwick Park and Ride. I have used the Norwich Park and Ride Service for some years. As a resident in rural Norfolk I have found it a reliable, well run service giving excellent access to the city of Norwich. Such a service encourages less use of our cars, reduces the use of fossil fuels, pollution and congestion in Norwich and helps the city to thrive in many respects. I am concerned that the current cuts relating to the service will act as a disincentive both to using the service and as a knock on, less use people using the city whether for shopping as well as its range of other facilities. The closure of the toilets on isolated sites such as the Postwick site means that people will arrive at the site after car journeys of varying lengths to ﬁnd no access to any toilet facilities. This is a particular problem for people with children, the elderly or disabled. The problem will be compounded by the planned reduction in the frequency of buses. Some people are using bushes on the site as ‘toilets’ which is totally unsuitable. The closure of the buildings with staff and waiting area means no one on site to deal with problems or queries. Members of the public now wait for their bus in a windswept and isolated place. The empty buildings, waiting areas and unsupervised car parking areas are likely to attract crime and vandalism. In addition, there are issues of safety at quiet times and I have felt very unsafe using the site when there no people around and no staff. The planned closure of a number of the sites on Saturdays will simply mean that Norwich is not accessible for many people at weekends. There are long queues for all Norwich car parks on Saturdays and with the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Transport Committee: Evidence

cancellation of the Park and Ride facility I will not be going into Norwich on a Saturday. My shopping trips and my voluntary work will have to cease. The empty buildings, waiting areas and car parking areas are likely to attract crime and vandalism. In the light of the cuts, I will be going into Norwich less frequently, certainly not on a Saturday and will be seeking alternatives to the Park and Ride service. In the future I hope that we may see some of the services reinstated. March 2011

Written evidence from A Darbyshire (BUS 69) The cutbacks will hit hard on our communities (Wigan, Greater Manchester), the school children instead of paying an 80p subsidised fare and now being told from April that the fare will be half the adult fare which will be in the region of £1.80 each way. This is a huge blow to families even with one child but a disaster to families with several children who need a bus service. Personally I feel this will put more cars on the road, parents will ﬁnd it cheaper to take children to school even with petrol costs so high than pay the new bus fares. It will add to congestion, accidents and impact and the state of our roads with more repair costs due to private vehicles using them for school runs. In the long term I cannot see how money will be saved, it will just have to be spent on road improvement programmes and repairs which will be counterproductive to the savings plan! The sick and disabled wishing to attend early morning hospital appointments at the moment can travel for the same 80p before 9.30 am. This is also being raised to the half fare rate before 9.30am Monday to Friday, so you will have people trying to book later appointments being unable to afford to travel on the new rates. The subsidised 80 pence fare I think was affordable even though it was free after 9.30 am. With the National travel pass some would still make the journey and pay the 80 pence but I cannot see anyone now paying the higher fares which is also counterproductive—people will just travel for free after 9.30 am and the hospitals early morning clinics will have vacancies and the bus companies will have lost the 80 pence revenue! March 2011

Written evidence from J Heyburn (BUS 70) I do not think Southend is being affected by changes in bus services, but I think some aspects could be improved: — The buses are usually late, sometimes 10 minutes or later. I have had to get a bus 45 minutes earlier than I normally would to get to school on time. You may think this is strange, but there is a large gap when there are no buses: so it is either early or late. — The bus drivers usually treat the young people that travel on the bus with what seems like disgust: some are kicked off (usually after school—there is only one bus that goes into Leigh-on-Sea that goes past our school (Southend High School for Boys), so there is usually a competition over seats, which is understandable, no-one would like to stand up for over half an hour on a stuffy, hot bus—when the bus driver doesn’t seem to want to have around 50 customers each paying at least £1.20), they say it is because we are pushing, but if adults were pushing they would not think of telling them to get off. Young people are often over charged, we do not bring it up to them otherwise we will not be allowed on. March 2011

Written evidence from Age Concern North Craven (BUS 71) We are an Age Concern Group operating in the predominantly rural area of North Craven in the North Yorkshire Dales. Our transport service is crucial in this area, as public transport is at best sporadic and in many cases non-existent. It enables older people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. Many describe it as their lifeline. All our volunteer drivers and couriers are MIDAS trained. There are currently 60 plus volunteers engaged on the service. It needs a full time member of staff to co-ordinate the service which is very busy and often operating at capacity. For more than 10 years our older peoples transport service has been partly funded by North Yorkshire County Council and the Primary Care Trust. We have just lost the £3,000 we received annually from NYCC and the PCT funding of £6,660 is also under threat. If we lose this funding it is likely that we will be unable to operate the service in the future. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w113

We currently run our own minibus. This is our third (bought in January 2009) and we need to purchase a new one every ﬁve years. We have always done this through our own fund—raising efforts. Quite an achievement for a small organisation as the last one cost just short of £40,000.

The minibus is used every weekday, some evenings and most weekends particularly in the Summer. We provide a door to door service with a courier who can assist those with mobility or other difﬁculties. We take older people shopping, provide access to services, transport them to our network of lunch clubs and arrange outings/trips for them. We provide assistants for those who are unable to travel on their own.

The other strand of the service is our volunteer car driver’s scheme. We have a team of trained volunteers who will drive older people to appointments often to hospital, GPs or the dentist. Our nearest main hospital is a 45 mile round trip. There is no direct bus route so we often transport older people who have no transport to visit patients.

If this service ends then it will have a hugely detrimental effect on older people in this area who are reliant on it and describe it as their “lifeline”. Many would not be able to continue to live in their own homes. It enables them to socialise, meet up with friends and relieves loneliness and isolation. There is no other provider of a similar service in this area. March 2011

Written evidence from E Jones (BUS 72)

As a resident in a small area out of town the bus service which used to run every 15 minutes is now not on evenings nor will there be any services on Sundays, also services at school times am and pm don’t run because they are doing school runs. When they do run times are not reliable (so no early doctor’s appointments). I went 1½ miles, no return bus/school run, so it took me two hours for a 15 minute appointment. I am elderly and disabled SO STANDING FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME IS PAINFULL.

ARRIVA run the services for this area Chilton Lane, Ferryhill, County Durham. TO TRAVEL NINE MILES TO DARLINGTON TAKES THREE BUSES AND COSTS ALMOST AS MUCH AS A TAXI. March 2011

Written evidence from L Friend (BUS 73)

We started our campaign for cheaper bus fares in June 2010 and ran it until August. We managed to get over 1,500 names within the Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset areas. We have also collected written evidence of expensive bus tickets. Where dayrider tickets are available in Bristol and Bath they are generally good value for money and better than single or return tickets depending on your journey. We have enclosed a separate sheet of fares that us and other people have paid and we feel it is these fares that are the most unfair. Timsbury to Bath 7.50 adult return Timsbury to Bath 5.20 Child return Timsbury to Bath 4.15 Adult single Peasedown st John to Bath 4.45 adult return Saltford to Bath 3.85 adult return Saltford to Bath 6.00 adult return Midsomer Norton to Bath 5.25 adult return Keynsham to Bath 6.00 adult return Willsbridge to Keynsham 3.80 adult return Keynsham to Longwell Green 2.45 adult single Willsbridge to Bath 6.80 adult peak return Warmley to Kingswood 2.00 adult single North Common to Kingswood 3.70 adult return North Common to Bristol 4.00 adult return Warmley to Kingswood 3.60 adult return February 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Councillor Sue White (BUS 74)

I am e.mailing you in response to your question “re the public being consulted about the funding for public travel”.

I am a Town Councillor in Crewkerne, a small market town between Yeovil and Chard, with 3,416 properties paying Council Tax. We have just been informed (without consultation) that the local transport affecting my town has been cut by the Somerset County Council as follows: “Somerset County Council have cut the funding for evening, Sunday, Public Holiday, and night bus services. From April 17 there will be only two buses running in Yeovil on Sundays—one to Bridport and one to Wells. There will be no local Sunday services in Yeovil and no buses at all on the Public Holidays coming up.”

As Yeovil is nine miles away, and no buses will be running as mentioned, Crewkerne will therefore be devoid of any public transport buses within that period. Many of my constituents are elderly and do not have a car and rely on public transport. The cost of petrol now is making people think twice about any journey, not just an outing out for the day. We are in the middle of the country, on the boarder of Dorset, and any cuts in public transport is a serious business for our residents.

We have not been consulted over such draconian measures, it is almost as though they do not care about the southern part of the County.

There are measures we could take and help with this situation, but Somerset County Council are hell bent on saving so much money and leaving the inhabitants of small towns without any infrastructure. We all know money has to be saved, but only this week I received my Council Tax Bill to the sum of £1,363.32. Somerset County Council are to take £913.16p of this amount. (Most of this will go on administration and pensions). We still have to pay this bill, but what we receive in return in grossly unfair.

I would like to see a Government initiative for rural areas. We are not all ﬁnancially afﬂuent in the countryside, in fact most people are living in areas where they have grown up and call home. I would hope you will take these points on board, please contact me again if you have any queries, and I hope for a positive outcome to this impossible position. March 2011

Written evidence from Kingsdon Parish Council (BUS 75)

The aged in small rural communities are very dependent on public transport where the village has lost its post ofﬁce and in many cases has lost the village shop or closure is imminent. To these people this service is a life line. Any attempt to reduce the bus service with less ﬂexibility would produce a narrow timetable creating anxiety for the aged.

If cuts are to be made in the transport budget free transport should be conﬁned to essential journeys only. March 2011

Written evidence from Mr and Mrs G R Hollaway (BUS 76)

We are a very rural community, a good bus service is essential here. I am sure you have all the necessary levels of support for maintaining the Somerset bus service which is very good especially the route between Yeovil and Taunton and Yeovil to Wells, these are a lifeline for a great many people especially the elderly.

We believe services must be maintained. March 2011

Written evidence from A Robson (BUS 77)

In my opinion I think that public transport in the Washington area are very poor and the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro through the use of the pelaw junction would be very practical for the residents of Tyne and Wear. Areas that are served by the metro have beneﬁted greatly and the extension of the metro would be brilliant. This project would be very practical. But expensive. A possible bus service that would go through all of the areas that would have a station would be a possible way to trial such an extension. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w115

Written evidence from J Willett (BUS 78)

1. The elector is aware that the Transport Committee is looking into the concerns for future bus services, the outcome for rural areas and communities which shall suffer as a result, the accountability of the Councils in rural England are all facing the same, reduced or total reductions in vital services.

2. The Government in conveying greater powers to Councils in the entire capacity in a period of the forthcoming ﬁve years, shall by the very nature reduce the income in terms of tourism in such counties as Shropshire with no doubt higher unemployment as a result.

3. The travel to work “circus” will not assist the younger generation in tackling their search for employment nor the aged Society who will be denied the very rights that Governments from one Party to the next advocate.

4. The elector asks what evidence has been taken from the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus as well as local community groups.

The elector cites the lack of forward planning as the changes and reforms continue, the very severity in welfare reforms is not in the least reflective of just how the future five years will realise the total eclipse as the copy of the enclosed leaflet outlines. March 2011

Written evidence from D Hibberd, Town Councillor, Wincanton (BUS 79)

I enclose a copy of a letter sent to the leader of Somerset County Council for your information. I am very concerned about the effect these cuts will have in the rural areas, in particular on the young and the elderly. Despite all the talk about global warming and public transport the simple fact is that at every step the non- driver is disadvantaged. More and more we are expected to use a car as there is no other means of transport. This is a rural county and subsidies should be used in the countryside not in the major towns.

Please can you support this plea for a rethink on essential bus services by writing to Somerset County Council and pointing out the damage to those who are disadvantaged?

Thank you in anticipation of your help.

APPENDIX

LETTER TO KEN MADDOCK, SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL

Please can you have the cancellation of the buses from and to Wincanton reconsidered? There are less people living in the country areas and thus less people using the buses. But these buses which are about to be axed are the lifeline of those living in the rural areas or who have no car (or a 4 x 4) to get to the shops, post ofﬁce, hospital appointments, and other essential visits. In the summer families used to use them for days out. Young people still use buses to get to college, jobs, cinema and theatre. The Sunday buses are a blessing for those who need to travel through to Bristol, for the airport or to the bigger shopping centres. The late night bus from Yeovil is essential to return from the cinema or theatre.

Buses could be ideal for visiting hospitals, thus leaving car parks for those who just must use their cars. What happened to the campaign to use public transport etc, to save the planet.

I, being a pensioner, and using the buses a lot with my bus pass would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to renew the bus pass, although I do pay council tax which I understand helps to subsidise the buses. Maybe all these council workers should think about using the bus to travel to work and leave their cars at home.

The decline of the High Street in Wincanton is critical, we are over supplied with foreign eating houses and estate agents and an acute shortage of retail shops selling the essentials of everyday life. At the same time we are being inundated with houses and ﬂats on every green patch in the town.

These will be occupied with workers who have to travel up to twenty miles if they need to work to live. Too many people travel outside the town to work and therefore do their shopping elsewhere leaving the elderly and inform deprived of the basics to maintain independence.

I am enclosing a petition signed by several hundred bus passengers to plead with the county council to think again and reinstate the subsidies for our late night bus especially, and also to look again at the Sunday services, maybe reduce but not remove altogether. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from N Browne (BUS 80)

Bus Service Cuts in Somerset The 50% bus subsidy cuts in Somerset will affect buses serving medium to large urban areas not just rural villages. In fact ﬁtting work, leisure, hospital and other appointments around the limited hours left around 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday only will in most cases be impossible.

The last bus between the two main towns of Somerset Taunton to Yeovil will leave at 6.50pm weekdays and never on a Sunday.

The use of a car or taxi will be essential, those without cars and unable to afford taxis will be isolated and ﬁnd that they cannot get to work if they have to work shifts whilst the elderly will have to rely on friends for lifts or drive until they drop.

Many towns across Somerset and Dorset will have no evening or Sunday bus services such as Taunton, Yeovil, Glastonbury, Street Wells, Shepton Mallet, Frome, Weston Super Mare, Mindhead, Bridgewater, Wellington, Crewkerne, Chard, Dorchester Dorset etc.

All evening and Sunday bus links to railway stations are being withdrawn leaving passengers stranded at stations unable to the last few miles. An example is Yeovil Junction on the Waterloo to Exeter line this station is two miles from the twon of Yeovil down a country lane with no street lighting or pavements. Many people use buses to get to rail stations such as Bristol Temple Meads, Bath, Frome, Castle Cary, Axminster, Taunton, Bridgewater, Western Super Mare and Yeovil Junction.

The Rail Network in Somerset is sparse cut back in the 1960’s by Doctor Beeching many bus services were introduced to link towns off the Rail Network and have remained to this day but will now have no evening or Sunday bus services.

If you wish to make a day trip by train you may get a bus in the morning to the station but to get a bus home in the evening you will have to catch a train from London for example in the middle of the afternoon.

Visiting patients in hospital in the evenings or on Sunday’s will require access to a car or taxi. Regional specialist hospitals such as one at Shepton Mallet which will lose all its evening and Sunday buses will mean patients having to use expensive taxis or hospital transport to reach homes at that time.

Somerset’s tourism will suffer, Sunday is the most popular day for visiting attractions, pubs or the countryside. This will now mean using a car all adding to the increasing car traffic in the countryside. Somerset has many foreign tourists who do not have cars and rely on public transport they will find difficulty in just reaching their hotel or B&B. People arriving at Bristol Temple Meads in the evening and wishing to catch a bus to Somerset Glastonbury for example may find themselves stranded having to pay for other accommodation or expensive taxi fares. Many hotel and B&B owners are concerned about these issues.

Young people having to walk home in the evening instead of being able to catch a bus could be more vulnerable to attacks.

Shopping centres will also see a downturn in trade on Sunday’s it is a myth everyone goes by car.

The environment will suffer, no buses mean more cars and a large increase in Co2 emissions.

When the 6.50pm bus from Taunton arrives in Yeovil at 8.06 pm no more buses will run anywhere in South Somerset an area stretching from Wiltshire to East Devon until the following morning.

Somerset is not just a rural county many towns like Yeovil are growing fast with new housing and business developments without any public transport and these bus cuts will make things worse. The County will become completely car dependent. March 2011

Further written evidence from N Browne (BUS 80a)

Thank you for your letter dated 28 March 2011.

Since sending my letter on 21 March 2011 I have found out by attending a public Transport Forum in Taunton that cuts to evening and Sunday bus services mentioned in my letter represent only a third of the total bus cuts proposed by Somerset County Council more cuts to bus subsidies are to come in 2012 and 2013.

With nearly all evening and Sunday buses withdrawn this year it is obvious that only buses left to be cut are the Core Monday to Saturday daytime services and rural buses. In Somerset many many Monday to Saturday buses are subsidised. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w117

By 2013 if the planned cuts go ahead, Somerset will be left with only a handful of scattered and fragmented bus services across the county. The bus network will have been destroyed. Exact details of services to be cut have still to be worked out over the course of the next year. March 2011

Written evidence from N Thompson (BUS 81) I wish to object most strongly about the bus reductions due to begin next month. The weekend services into the Yorkshire Dales are extremely well used by walkers in particular. These buses play an important role in keeping cars off the road, thus reducing pollution. The X59 service between Skipton and Harrogate is to be reduced drastically and will only be of real beneﬁt to passengers travelling from Harrogate. It will no longer provide an opportunity to Skipton people to spend a day in Harrogate. I urge that all is done to prevent these valuable bus services being curtailed or withdrawn. March 2011

Written evidence from H Whitaker (BUS 82) Future of Free Bus Services in North Yorkshire I am 92 years of age, and the free bus pass is a great help and necessity to and from our area, and is much appreciated by our age group. I live in a bungalow at the foot of Rombalds Moor, I can manage to walk down but find it impossible to walk uphill, therefore the free bus service (Horse Close) is a boon. The fare for under age passengers is £1.80 single, which in a matter of four or five times per week would be more than we can manage. I use a taxi for a week’s shopping which is £4 one way. There are numerous visits to the doctors as you can imagine at my age, and local hospital. Sometimes an appointment coincides with a bus, apart from this, it is nice to have a day out in Harrogate. Unfortunately that services has been reduced. Keighly is another good free bus service which enables us to shop at Marks and Spencer’s too. I travel to Gargrave to take flowers to my brother’s gravestone, if our free bus pass ceased, I would be robbed of a life line. I sometimes think I am living beyond my sell date, but as long as I am able to get out like this, I do fairly well considering. I look after myself, do my own housework etc, and life seems worthwhile so long as I can manage and get out, otherwise I’d be confined to four walls and vegetate, probably go mental or live in a home of some sort, costing the earth to the powers that be. So please, please, do consider to continue to give us a free bus pass. This Government promised they would, that is one reason we voted for them. Look at it this way, if you had an aged mother, or other relative, who was on a low income, could you honestly rob her of one of life’s such luxuries. Surely we aren’t going to be cast aside without these little extra’s added to our meagre pensions, we who fought for our country, my husband served in the army from 3 September 1939–46, Dunkirk included, and I worked on munitions for a while. Are we not entitled to something more than just an existence in life now, after all you may not have many more years to support us. Our MP Julian Smith has asked all Craven residents to make their views known on the future of our free bus service, well, I’ve done my bit and my best to point out my feelings and hope and pray all things will be given due consideration to OAPs with a favourable answer. March 2011

Written evidence from Newton on Ouse Parish Council (BUS 83) You asked for evidence of the impact of recent public expenditure cuts on local bus services. Our bus service has been thoroughly inadequate for some years, with about nine buses a day. The age structure of our village is skewed towards the older range with a very substantial number of people aged 60 and over, many of whom do not have access to a car. There is no shop in the village, no post ofﬁce (the nearest two were closed or partially closed last year) and no other amenities other than a pub. For a while, the Parish Council ran a bus for older people going to York for Friday mornings (a 20 mile round journey) but ceased because it was unaffordable. We have now been informed that the county council subsidy to the local bus is to be substantially withdrawn and that bus service levels in the county are to be “equalised”: this effectively means being levelled down to the worst service. The result of this is that we are losing key buses during the day and evening such that some young people will be unable to get to sixth form collage and further education or to go to York for other reasons; and buses will cease altogether between mid-evening Saturday and Monday morning. Others dependent on buses will be unable to visit the city for leisure activities. We are effectively becoming completely isolated cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w118 Transport Committee: Evidence

community over the weekend. You will now from research of the impact of isolation on the physical and mental health of older people, that this is likely to lead to earlier admission to residential care. Economically, the cuts make no sense whatsoever because against the short term savings we can envisage long-term costs. Given the costs of petrol now, providing an adequate and reliable bus service makes clear economic and environmental sense. Ours is not the only rural area to suffer this loss and potentially disastrous impact. We ask the Committee to recommend strongly that county councils covering deeply rural areas such as ours should be provided with adequate subsidies to enable an effective, socially useful, affordable and reliable bus service. Consultation incidentally was derisory. We asked to meet the operators and county council to discuss our concerns and this request was met with a blank refusal. Consultation here means being told what is going to happen and putting up with it. March 2011

Written evidence from Cllr A Turpin, South Somerset District Council (BUS 84) Severance of 30A evening and Sunday bus service—linking Axminster (Railway Station) Chard, Ilminster and Taunton including the main District General Hospital, Paddington Line/ South West railway station and the National Express bus service. I am a South Somerset District Councillor, Vice Chair of the Somerset Public Transport Forum and use public transport and my Brompton bike as my main mode of transport. I have also been bombarded with very sad stories since this news was announced. In this capacity I meet many bus users and continue to learn much. The effects of this termination of this service with no impact assessment nor consideration of other initiatives has had horrifying consequences. In relation to the Sunday services I know of residents along the route who: — are now having to look for alternative employment; — use these services to collect and return children of broken marriages and who have week-end custody of the children. This will no longer be possible; — can no longer attend the church of their choice; — usually travel to Taunton on a Sunday for shopping; — use the service to travel to and from relatives; — use this service as a link to main line rail and National Express services at Taunton; — I don’t know how many, (though I know of one) who will be deprived of visiting relatives and friends in Musgrove Park Hospital both on Sundays and in the evenings. (His wife has just had a stroke); — but I do know that for many, many people (including those with disabilities) this service is all they have to “get around” on a Sunday; — we do know that Taunton trade will be affected. The evidence for all this is that most 30A buses are at least half or two thirds full at the Taunton end. I travel on the 30 / 30A regularly. Yesterday, I joined the 1510 bus at the beginning of the route at Axminster. By the time the bus reached my village (the ﬁrst part of the journey) there were 10 passengers, seven were young people who had been camping. This illustrates the point these Sunday buses are very popular with holiday makers. The evening services provide for those (some of whom I know) returning from evening work: — We have no idea how many students will be affected either for evening studies at the SCAT College or travelling to casual employment so as to boost their grant. — nor do we know how many staff will no longer be able to work into the early evening. — nor do we know how many young people like to travel to Taunton to socialise in the evenings. One of the problems that is less money is taken on these evening services because travellers use return tickets or they have passes. One thing we do know is that as pump prices rise so demand for bus travel will also increase. I am particularly sorry that this has all happened without looking at ameliorating initiatives such as more express services with Parish Councils providing a local service to the nearest interchange. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w119

Further written evidence from Cllr A Turpin, South Somerset District Council (BUS 84a)

Severance of 30A evening and Sunday bus service—linking Axminster (Railway Station) Chard, Ilminster and Taunton including the main District General Hospital, Paddington Line/South West railway station and the National Express bus service.

Reference my earlier correspondence of 21 March 2011.

I have since been contacted by another distressed resident, a Mr K Roberts. He is unable to drive and is employed at the Little Chef near Ilminster. Using the bus in both directions, he is often required to do an evening shift and will on these occasions need to get the last bus back.

He has been told by his line manager that he could well lose his job if he is unable to get home as a result of the loss of our evening bus service.

I have contact details for some of those with learn difﬁculties in this area who will, from and including 17 April, be conﬁned to Chard on a Sunday. They have, until now, been using this service every Sunday! (I meet them on my Sunday travels.) This is pitiful. April 2011

Further written evidence from Cllr A Turpin, South Somerset District Council (BUS 84b)

Reference my earlier correspondence of 21 March and 3 April, I have yet more evidence of deprivation owing to the loss of the 30A Sunday bus service.

This last Saturday, a student joined the service 30 to Taunton. She works week-ends at Sainsbury’s. She told me that because she has no other means of getting into Taunton on a Sunday, she will lose her Sunday work and has been told she might possibly lose her job altogether.

This last Sunday, a glorious day, was the last of the Sunday bus service on the 30 route. It connects with the 31 service to Weymouth. It provided a day out to the Lyme Regis for the young and old who have no car.

An example of this is a family in Chard who I know use this service regularly.

Many elderly from Chard go out as a group together. They spend a couple of hours in Lyme and join the 1715 30A service back home. It was a therapy for all.

For me, lose of this service means that most Sunday afternoons I have to cycle the very steep Tytherliegh hill on the busy A358 (a ﬁve mile journey and a prospect I don’t relish) in order to get back to Tatworth. I am 65 and have had a quadruple heart bypass. April 2011

Written evidence from A Boyce (BUS 85)

Being aged 69, I am the holder of a Herefordshire concessionary bus pass. At the time of writing, this may be used at any time of day but, from March 28, it will be invalid before 9.30am Monday to Friday.

Currently Herefordshire, although a very rural county, has an excellent bus service. But, with the future of all subsidised services due for scrutiny by the local authority because of what it describes as an “unprecedented reduction in central government funding”, the future for some services does not look good. Either they will be withdrawn or, for instance, have their evening and Sunday timetables lopped off, where these exist.

I had been on the point of giving up my car and relying instead on public transport. But, because of the uncertainty, I have re-insured my vehicle for a further year and, as I send this e-mail, it is being put through another MoT. This is the very ungreen situation into which I have been forced. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w120 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from C Walker (BUS 86) I am 17 years old currently studying at Craven College, Skipton. I have seen an email that says your company wants people to write in about cuts made to public services and how it has affected people. North Yorkshire Council are cutting the times of the X59 bus from Skipton to Harrogate, this bus is the only bus to link Skipton and Harrogate. It’s £3.10 return (with a half fair pass) £6.20 without. Many users are affected by the time reductions, the bus currently runs every hour, from 8:30 am leaving Harrogate, the journey is around 50 minutes. North Yorkshire Council want to cut the service to just two times a day, the first one leaving Harrogate would be 9:50 and the final journey back to Harrogate would be 2:50 pm. I regularly use this service along with many others, I use the bus to do my duke of Edinburgh Gold at Pately Bridge, and to see my boyfriend on weekends. The times that the bus would run now wouldn’t be of any help to me as I finish college at 4:00 pm on a Monday and can’t get back to Harrogate cheaply without this bus. To get from Harrogate to Skipton using the train (as it would be the only other way if the 8:30 am bus didn’t run) would mean catching the 7:50 train to Leeds, which would arrive at Leeds at 8:30 am then I would have to catch the 8:50 am Skipton, arriving at Skipton at 9:24, this would roughly cost £13. I finish college at 4:00pm and would normally get the 4.30 bus to Harrogate which would get me back to Harrogate for 5.25 whereas I would now have to wait for the 16.49 train to Leeds, then I would catch the 17.44 and get back to Harrogate for 18.16. This is a huge inconvenience for me, as I start scouts at 7:15, I would have to catch the 18:30 to Pately I would get their at 19:30 not only would I be late but will have had nothing to eat and not be dressed correctly. Furthermore, my friend’s from college use this bus every day, they are saying they won’t be able to afford to get to college every day, paying £13 to get there, and are thinking of dropping out of education. I have been fighting for this service, we have over 200 signatures to save the bus, and many emails that have been sent by other users, who use it for work, leisure and to see friends. Users are of all ages, and this bus is normally full with people. What more can I do to save this bus? March 2011

Written evidence from D & M Lilley (BUS 87) We would like to complain about the cuts in bus services being brought about by the spending review. We regularly use out local City7 Cambridge-Saffron Walden service, sometimes three returns a week, and would struggle without it, as would many others in our village. March 2011

Written evidence from M Jackson (BUS 88) I wish to add my protest to the plan to cut bus services from Hartlepool Centre to the Headland area—this will cause hardship to elderly people and families with children who do not drive as well as affecting businesses in the area. March 2011

Written evidence from D Walsh (BUS 89) I am over 60, and therefore have a free bus pass. Perhaps I might be considered to be insulated against increases in fares etc. That is not the case, as if the service is cut entirely, or reduced to the point of uselessness, the free pass is of no value. If a moderate ﬂat rate fare were introduced for bus pass users, and that helped to keep a useful service in place, then I know of a number of over 60s that would be happy with that. However, I suggest that great care is needed to prevent this simply becoming a revenue earner, or lining the pockets of the bus companies. Perhaps the method would be on a case by case basis, where the existing pass carrying users of a service were canvassed for their views, eg by issuing a questionnaire with the zero value ticket. Done properly, this could preserve a number of rural services that might otherwise disappear, or like the Skipton to Harrogate service, be reduced to virtual uselessness. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w121

Written evidence from M McKenzie (BUS 90) I live in Threshﬁeld, a small village in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and write to express my concerns about the possible threat to our local bus services. In my view it is vital that these should be protected because: — Many local residents do not have their own transport and a bus link to our nearest market town is essential, particularly so for the elderly, for those on low incomes and for those who are too young to drive. — It is a “green” service keeping unnecessary cars off the roads, cutting down on pollution and greenhouse gases. — Our own bus service managed to keep going this winter despite the snow and ice when many local residents were unable or unwilling to risk driving. — Rural communities have already had to bear the brunt of increased fuel charges both for transport— if we are to keep these communities alive and thriving we have to ensure that those on low and average incomes can still afford to live here and to get to their place of employment. In times of recession it seems to me even more important that we protect the few services available for the more vulnerable members of our society. March 2011

Written evidence from B J Turner (BUS 91) I understand that your committee wishes to have views on changes to Bus Services. First of all, let me set the context. I live in a village (population 700) in Somerset, right on the border with Devon & Dorset. Our nearest towns are Chard in one direction, four miles distant, and Crewkerne, seven miles distant. The largest towns are Taunton to the west, 20 miles away, and Yeovil to the east, 15 miles away. Four years ago, we decided to “down-size” from our ﬁve-bedroom house with large garden to a smaller, more manageable dwelling suitable for retirement living. We had a number of criteria when looking for a new property, one of which was that it had to be on a bus route, since my wife does not drive and we wanted to follow guidelines of reducing car use to a minimum. We settled on Winsham because it had an hourly bus service that ran from beyond Crewkerne in the east to Taunton, via Chard, in the west. This was ideal and we discovered that the bus was well used. Travelling to Chard or Crewkerne meant that there was an hour to do what was needed (this might be shopping; dentist/doctor/optician/hairdressing appointments) before catching the bus back. On occasions, a bus would not turn up for one reason or another but an hour wait, although irritating, could mean a visit to the library or a coffee somewhere and the day was not too badly disrupted. Recently the service has been changed. It now runs every two hours and only from Crewkerne to Chard. A change of bus in Chard or Crewkerne is necessary if one wishes to visit Taunton or Yeovil. Then there is the constant worry of missing the connection (in a rural area, one only has to meet a herd of cows, a slow tractor or two large vehicles unable to pass each other for this to happen) and having a two hour wait in the middle of one’s journey, possibly in both directions. The consequence has been that the number of people using the bus from Winsham has dropped dramatically. People have lost conﬁdence in the service, certainly where appointments are concerned. We fear that there are further changes afoot and that the bus company, Stagecoach, will decide that the service—which they have ruined—is no longer viable. It will be of their own making. We have never had an evening or Sunday service but we can live with that. What we need is the through service restored. Even a two hourly through service would be acceptable. As to the concessionary scheme for the elderly, most would be happy to revert to the old “half-price” system if we had a reliable service. March 2011

Written evidence from E A Turner (BUS 92) I understand that you would like bus users to comment on the way changes to the bus services have, or will, affect them. As a non-driver, we chose the village of Winsham very carefully when we moved here from Chard three and a half years ago. At the time there was a splendid service, the No 99 which went straight through to Taunton once every hour. This meant that trips to Chard and Taunton were almost hassle-free. Now, we have the No 90 bus which only runs to Chard and is every two hours. I ﬁnd that I am terriﬁed of missing the bus home because two hours is a very long time to have to wait for the next one. Trips to Taunton are also affected as we have to juggle the time-table to catch the connection in Chard. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w122 Transport Committee: Evidence

A lot of villagers no longer use the bus because they have no one to call to rescue them if they miss the bus, or as happened last week, the bus breaks down and is taken out of service. Others take their car to Chard and travel onwards by bus to avoid a long wait.

Unless a service is user-friendly, it is not going to be used and this causes the bus company to say that there are insufﬁcient users and they withdraw the service. One minute we are being asked to be “greener” in our outlook and use public transport and the next we are being forced into using our cars. Now that fuel prices are so high, we are beginning to feel like prisoners when once we had the freedom to go shopping, visit hospital, the doctor, the dentist, the optician etc as well as meeting friends and relations. March 2011

Written evidence from S Hicks (BUS 93)

The current bus service between Yeovil Junction and the town centre now runs half hourly for much of the day (hourly on Sundays) and provides a useful connection into and out of rail services, thus making a joined up journey by public transport easier—the road is just about walkable distance wise but is secluded, unlit, has no footpath and is not that pleasant.

To encourage use of public transport instead of private cars, such a joined up service, with decent connections, is highly desirable if not essential. Hopefully this will be part of the government's transport strategy going forward. April 2011

Written evidence from Brympton Parish Council (BUS 94)

I refer to your recent request for information on cuts to bus services in Somerset.

Brympton Parish Council consider it is too early for consultation to take place as the cuts have only just come into operation. Could the consultation be extended?

The Parish Council expressed concerns regarding the loss of Sunday and evening services—many people in rural parishes do not drive and the bus is their only means of access for hospital visiting, shops, recreation and other services.

The Parish Council is also considered that there may be an increase in drink-driving offences. April 2011

Written evidence from C Sweetland (BUS 95)

I live in a rural area of Somerset and have already written to my local MP regarding the situation which I ﬁnd very unfair regarding public buses. It seems to me extremely unfair that subsidies for bus passes for young people and EMA etc is being withdrawn and yet the over 60’s still do not have to contribute anything towards their tickets. (And please don’t tell me that there will be other arrangements to replace the EMA because that is only available to those who don’t work or who didn’t make an effort in the past and not to people like me, a single parent who has worked very hard and gained a job with a moderate income.)

Why could the over 60’s not pay a small amount rather than the young having to pay ridiculously high fares. My middle daughter will not be able to attend the excellent colleges in Taunton or Bridgewater, like her elder sister, because there are no buses connecting at the beginning and end of day for students, and yet there are still several running during the middle of the day for those not paying. As a parent, do I decide to continue working, travelling in the opposite direction to the town where my daughter wants to attend college or do I give up work so that I can take her to the college so that she can get her A levels and progress towards a career?

I am not alone in having to make this decision and it seems so unfair. What is the point of having colleges offering vocational training etc if there is no infrastructure to support the students getting there.

There are in my opinion, many more people over 60 who can afford the bus fares more easily than young people.

Please think again. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w123

Written evidence from Cambridge City and Mencap (BUS 96) We want to keep our city buses for members of the public and for people with learning disabilities. It is important to provide the City One bus service from midnight until 02:00 in the morning. March 2011

Written evidence from T Reese (BUS 97) 1. Summary The changes to bus services in Somerset this spring are devastating, and were introduced with no consultation.

2. My Details I am 63 years of age, ﬁt, and able to walk, ride or use public transport. My wife and I own a car each, and use it whenever public transport is not available as a viable alternative. I am required to report any deterioration in my diabetic conditions to DVLA, and I have a three-year driving licence. I am aware of the damage to the environment by the increased use of private transport and I can forsee a time when I will not able to drive. I am therefore a local advocate for public transport, and I have seen welcome improvements in public transport over the past few years. 3. You asked for information under a number of headings so i will try to follow your list of headings below.

4. The Importance to Me of Local Bus Services I see local bus services as becoming more important to me for the reasons outlined in paragraph 1. I use the local bus services between West Coker village and Yeovil whenever possible, but there have been no evening services for some time, so my use is limited at present to occasional daytime journeys. I travel by train to Exeter quite frequently (about three times a week, often including on Sundays) but there are no convenient connecting bus services at present. In other words, I don’t use buses very often, but as there have been slow improvements over the past few years, and I am looking forward to more reliance on public transport, I am very concerned if the bus service appears to deteriorate.

5. Recent Changes Somerset County Council announced in November 2010 that it was going to balance its budget over the next few years, which would result in halving the subsidies to local bus services. The announcement at the time was that up to half of all Somerset bus services would disappear in the three-year period. Since then, there has been no consultation, until March 2011, when Somerset County Council announced that it had withdrawn all subsidies for evening, Sunday and Public Holiday services, and that FirstBus had agreed to try to make one Sunday service in our area commercial, on a trial use-it-or-lose-it basis. These cuts do not affect me personally, other than the reduction in Sunday service between Crewkerne Station, West Coker village and Yeovil. As I said above, I have not used these services as they are so infrequent that they were virtually useless to me anyway. However, we are hearing of many local cases of hardship that some of these cuts will cause.

6. Free Concessionary Travel I use the free concessionary travel whenever possible, and it enables to me to make bus journeys which otherwise I may not be able to afford. The fact that it is a national scheme, means that I can use it on holiday, and also for occasional trips to local market towns and countryside places. I also use it extensively in Exeter, and in other places where I am doing voluntary work, and would not wish to have to make the choice between funding my own travel, or preparing expense claims and passing on the cost to local voluntary organisations. I think this is an important point, in that it facilitates local voluntary work by the over 60’s. I am aware of the difﬁculties of the way the costs are recovered, and the funding mechanisms, but those are incidental problems which need to be overcome, and should not be used as part of the argument as to whether the free concessionary travel is a desirable service. With improved ticketing technology, it should be possible for the difﬁculties to be overcome.

7. Passengers’ Views As far as I am aware, no consultation of any sort was given before the announcement of the recent cuts. At the Somerset Passenger Transport Forum, held in March 2011, this point was put to the County Council, and an apology was made. It was agreed that an additional Forum is to be held in June 2011 (the forum is usually held every 6 months) so that additional ideas can be sought on how to work with the next round of cuts. I intend to use the opportunity to try to make sure that passengers and those who represent them have an opportunity to put their views in to this forum, and that Somerset County Council work to identify other sources of funding and other ways of providing public transport in the area. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w124 Transport Committee: Evidence

8. I am willing for any of the above to be published, and i am willing for anyone to contact me to discuss any of these points.

9. This article appeared in the Western Gazette in February 2011: Mum fears isolation as Sunday bus ends AN ILMINSTER woman has said that she is losing the only support she and her son get after First Bus revealed it was cutting Sunday services because of Somerset County Council economy measures. Karen Platt attends Chard Baptist Church with her seven-year-old son Adam who has special needs, which cause him great difficulty in social situations. Ms Platt recently moved from Chard to Ilminster so that her son could be better supported at Greenfylde Church of England First School, which he attends for one hour a day. She was upset to learn about the withdrawal of the Sunday bus service she uses to get to the church in her former town. She said: “I’m devastated. I was almost in tears when I heard about the bus service cuts.” “The cuts seem to be affecting the poorest people the most.” First Bus revealed last week that it would be cutting the 30A service that runs between Taunton, Axminster, Ilminster and Chard on Sundays, public holidays and some evenings. Ms Platt said that because Adam was not in school full time she had to be a full time carer for him and now she has lost the only support she got which came from her church. She said: “From April I will be cut off from the only people I see and I feel very isolated. I’ve been going to church in Chard for years. All our friends there are used to Adam and know how to deal with him and it allows him to be in a social situation.” Adam suffers from social and behavioural problems and doesn’t cope well with new people and situations. Ms Platt said: “Social situations are hugely difficult for him and verbally he doesn’t cope. He goes into melt-downs, throws tantrums and makes inappropriate comments.” “Even with me he often won’t make eye contact and will phone me or leave notes instead of speaking directly.” “I’ve spoken to the minister in Chard and he said he will try and find someone who can drive to maybe help us but you can’t expect people to do a 20-mile round trip every Sunday.” Ms Platt intends to speak to David Laws MP about her situation when he next holds a surgery in Ilminster. She said: “I fully understand the need for cuts but it’s not what it means to us. I’m stuck at home and I never ever get a break.” “Is there nothing else they can do? When I see statues going up and money being spent on other projects, nice as they are, people are losing their jobs, buses and support.” A spokesperson from the bus company said: “First has done what it can to minimise the impact of the council cuts on local people but this has not been possible in all cases.” Andrew Turpin, who represents Tatworth and Forton on South Somerset District Council and is also chairman of the parish council, is urging councils to explore all options to keep buses running, particularly the 30A service. He said: “There are a number of serious implications as a result of these cuts.” “For huge numbers, particularly of the vulnerable both in the Chard and Ilminster locality and across the county, the effects will be devastating.” “Many of the services to be cut are very popular. For the many without a car, who depend on these services to get them to and from work, this could mean redundancy. There are people who will no longer be able to get to church, visit friends or relatives in hospital or go shopping.”

10. Other Severe Cases of Hardship

The removal of evening services means that people who rely on a bus to get to work, and work longer hours than 9 till 5, will now not be able to get home from work in the evening.

The removal of night services in Yeovil, which have been particularly successful in getting young people home, and out of trouble, will have an effect on the local crime rate.

The removal of evening and Sunday services threatens the tourist business in the area. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w125

Written evidence from J Robertson (BUS 98) First of all, I need to say that I live in a rural town (Richmond) in North Yorkshire. Our nearest large town and railway station is 12 miles away in County Durham at Darlington. At the moment we have a good service of buses there during the daytime (up until 6pm) and then they are every hour from Darlington (including the railway station) up until 11pm (but there is no service at 10pm). If the evening, or Sunday services were stopped, it would mean Richmond would become “cut-off” for many people at those times. There are other buses that service the town area and the local villages. However, it needs to be understood that by “local”, I mean 21 miles up to the end of Swaledale, as well as Wensleydale and the villages to the N, S and E of Richmond. We have been informed that the local town bus will stop running at 6pm on weekdays and all day on Sunday. This will have a severe impact on many people who do not have access to cars. Eg a pensioner friend of mine would have to walk a mile and a half to attend church on Sunday (both ways). Whilst this may be “healthy living”, you must understand that the weather is not always kind and walking in driving rain, icy pavements, or just very cold weather is difficult. Some people are just not capable of walking that far. Taxi fares are too expensive especially on the longer journeys. The Concessionary Bus passes are a real “life-saver” for most disabled and elderly people and I think it would be a particularly cruel and hard hearted government to take away one of the few really worth while concessions for this group. After all the pensions have not exactly kept pace with the rate of inflation and this group are unable to boost their incomes in any other way. I have heard that some of the top Managers of the bus companies are receiving six figure salaries—surely it would be worth looking into the need for this excessive payout. Do we really need so many “managers”? If cuts have to be made, this is an area that needs serious consideration. I agree that some savings could be made but to just scrap services without a proper consultation of the users is not fair. One needs to consider the wider implications of a restricted bus service. In a rural area like this, there are many local markets and activities up the Dales. Tourism is of huge importance here and helps boost the area economy. Whilst I agree a lot of people use cars, some of us try really hard to leave them at home, (as promoted by your government) and use public transport. If I am walking in the Dales, or up in Teesdale or down near Ripon, I usually manage to use the buses. So if they are taken away, do I then presume you want me to use my car? A poor bus service would have a pretty drastic effect in this area. Not only that, people would become housebound and depressed but quite likely they would need the services of the NHS more. Another consideration is that Catterick Garrison (now the largest army camp in UK?) is only three miles from Richmond and when I travel back to Darlington by rail on a Sunday evening, the Richmond bus, which also serves Catterick, is usually full of soldiers returning from weekend leave. Just imagine removing buses and tubes from London, there would be an enormous out-cry! We may be a less dense population up here, but our buses are vital to our way of life. Think long and hard about what your decisions may mean to this community and I beg you to do your homework properly. April 2011

Written evidence from V Boulton (BUS 100) Whilst I live in West Yorkshire, proximity to the county boundary and to the Yorkshire Dales National Park and Nidderdale AONB mean that the majority of leisure trips are to North Yorkshire. There has been much media coverage of North Yorkshire’s decision to cease funding evening and Sunday and Bank Holiday tendered services. It has also cut the money it was paying to the Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company which has been managing the majority of the Sunday and BH services in the Dales. Potentially this could have been disastrous, and it still could be unless alternative funding can be found within the next few months. Judicious husbanding of reserves plus support from a number of other sources means that the D&B CIC is offering an excellent schedule of services over the summer. I understand that that money will run out at the end of the summer season. Several NY tendered services have been rescued by D&B CIC. In particular the 66A, which until this weekend has run from Keighley to Grassington, will from 17 April only run as far as Skipton. The important shuttle service between Skipton and Grassington will, from 17 April, come under the DalesBus banner. It is important for people living on the A65 corridor, and to others like myself who have found the ﬂexibility in the timing very useful on a number of occasions. Another service which has featured in my feasibility studies on a number of occasions is the main Wensleydale service (156/157). Whilst Dalesbus already covers part of the route with its summer 800 service, and the 127 Vintage bus service is useful for those able to get to Ripon quite early in the morning, the fact that DalesBus is offering a service from Northallerton to Hawes, again from 17 April, has been greeted enthusiastically by local residents and potential visitors. There are connections with other DalesBus services at Leyburn and at Hawes. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w126 Transport Committee: Evidence

Visiting Nidderdale would be quite difficult without the various services offered by DalesBus. Another useful service which as far as I know is still a casualty of the cuts is the Dentdale service. This part of the National Park has long been rather difficult to access by public transport from the east side of the Pennines. Occasional extra buses have been chartered by walking groups. The scheduled service on a Saturday (a peak day for visitors) used to consist of two buses, one meeting the first train out from Leeds at ~10.30, and the other getting up to Dent station for the mid-afternoon train. Last year the CIC ran an extra bus to get up to the station for the later train at ~17.30. This enabled walkers and others to get a full day in the area and was popular. The plan was to run a similar service this year. Unfortunately the two earlier services which were tendered by Cumbria Co.Co. were victims of that county’s cutbacks and as a consequence the later bus will not run. This was a superb way to get a day in a less busy Dale. Wading through the long list of NY’s cuts I found a reference to the Coastliner service to Whitby. Funding for winter Sunday & BH services is stopped. It is a service I have used on a number of occasions although not recently. We are all supposed to be cutting our carbon footprints. Left to NY, society would be cut in two on a Sunday—those who have a car and those who do not. In the interests of the health and wellbeing of all potential visitors to the Yorkshire Dales the operation of services (bus and train) on a Sunday should continue to receive support. April 2011

Written evidence from O Lambert (BUS 101) I am writing in to stress how important local bus services are to residents in Somerset. Many people do not have a car and rely on buses to get to work, do shopping, attend appointments and generally get to do activities locally which enable an active and full life. Many people of my mother’s age (60’s) are widowed and are entirely reliant on buses to get from a to b as they have never driven and are now not in a position to learn. Without subsidy, my mother could not afford to pay for many bus trips as prices have risen substantially over the last few years. A return trip of 10 odd miles costs £3.20 which soon adds up along with all the other current price rises and general income reductions. My mother derives great pleasure from a change of scenery and the opportunity to go somewhere else for the day. The alternative is being stuck in a village day in day out. Buses are the bloodline for many people in any rural area. They also contribute to a reduction in pollution as they encourage less car travel. I think a reduction in subsidy should be considered very carefully and tempered with the awareness that very little can be done without appropriate transport links. Thanks for the opportunity to send in my comments. April 2011

Written evidence from Ian Wright MP (BUS 105) I welcome the Select Committee’s investigation into local bus services following the Spending Review, and the opportunity to contribute to it. Hartlepool is a relatively compact town, with a population of about 90,000. Its population is predominantly based in the dense urban centre: the town is made up of a number of distinctive and close-knit communities in addition to a number of attractive rural areas and villages such as Dalton Piercy, Elwick and Greatham in the Borough. The Borough also contains a small suburban seaside resort, Seaton Carew, with a population of over 6,000. The town is governed locally through a unitary council, headed politically by a directly elected Mayoral model. Despite improvements in recent years, Hartlepool still has longstanding social and economic difﬁculties. Of 354 local authorities in England, Hartlepool was ranked 23rd most deprived in the country. This ranking was an improvement from 14th most deprived in 2004. Hartlepool has 17 wards, seven of which fall into the top 10% of most deprived wards in Britain. Five wards—Brus, Dyke House, Owton, St Hilda and Stranton—fall into the top 3% most deprived in the country. All of these wards, in addition to others, have been affected by recent changes to bus services. About 40% of households in Hartlepool do not have regular access to a car, which means that it is important to have a comprehensive, cheap and reliable public transport service. The bus service in Hartlepool, for both commercial and supported services, is dominated by one large company, Stagecoach. Stagecoach is the only large provider in the town which has a depot in Hartlepool. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w127

A number of other bus operators provide a small percentage of routes: Arriva, for example, tends to provide services within the town that also incorporate routes outside of Hartlepool, whilst a number of very small local bus companies, such as Tees Valley Coaches, which is a company based in Hartlepool, provide several additional routes. I have seen no evidence of true competition within the bus market in Hartlepool: there have been no new entrants into the market in recent years; the market is dominated by one large national provider; and other providers appear too small to compete effectively or respect the current established territorial position. The market in Hartlepool is distinctive in not having “medium-sized” players offering wider choice and competition. Ticketing arrangements undermine competition and choice in Hartlepool. I understand that Stagecoach offer a ticket discount scheme, but this is only available on Stagecoach buses, rather than across all bus services in Hartlepool. Anecdotal evidence from my constituents strongly suggests that passengers who have purchased Stagecoach discount tickets are dissuaded from considering other bus operators because of the additional cost of buying another ticket. For one ticket discount scheme operated by Stagecoach in the wider Teesside area— the Teesside Daytripper—this is allowed to be used on Arriva buses as well as Stagecoach vehicles; however, this is only permitted on buses within the boroughs of neighbouring Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees. Hartlepool Borough Council has faced cuts to its budget from central government of about 9%. The local authority decided to cut all subsidised buses in Hartlepool by the end of March 2011, amounting to a saving to the local authority of about £287,000. It has also decided to scrap the H1 hospital bus service, running between Hartlepool and the University Hospital of North Tees, saving £85,000 per year, as well as the “Dial a Ride” taxi service. Specific bus routes affected by this change included: — the number 1 service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from High Tunstall to Seaton Carew, and then onto Middlesbrough, has had all evening and Sunday journeys withdrawn. In addition, the 0550 and 0635 Monday to Friday departures from Hartlepool have been cancelled; — the 516 service, operated by Tees Valley Coaches, which ran from Tesco Extra to the villages of Elwick and Dalton Piercy, has been completely withdrawn. This means that the villages have no bus service whatsoever; residents have a three mile walk to amenities in the town such as doctors’ surgeries, shops or schools and colleges; — the 527 service, operated by Arriva, which ran from Hartlepool Marina to the village of Greatham, has been withdrawn; — the number 4A service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from the Headland to Hart Station, has been withdrawn; — the number 6 service, operated by Stagecoach, which ran from Clavering to Owton Manor, through the town centre, has had its evening service withdrawn; and — the number 7 service, operated by Arriva, which operated from the Headland to Owton Manor, has had its evening service withdrawn. I am concerned that these changes will have an adverse impact upon my constituents. The community of Burbank, which is in Stranton Ward and which is in the top 1% of deprived communities in the country, as well as the rural villages such as Elwick and Dalton Piercy, now have no bus services at all, leaving such communities isolated. In Greatham, the village was previously served by two bus services: following the loss of the 527 service, the only other service, the number 36, stops on the outskirt of the village, which makes it difficult for the elderly, disabled and others to walk to the bus stop. The loss of evening services will have a disproportionate effect upon the town’s social and economic amenities. Entertainment venues such as the Town Hall Theatre will suffer, as will the prospect of evening matches for Hartlepool United Football Club. Jobs in these sectors will undoubtedly be affected. For the resort of Seaton Carew, which provides seasonal and often low-paid employment, as well as attracting day visitors from the rest of Hartlepool and elsewhere, the loss of Sunday bus services will have a detrimental impact upon the resort’s economy and will in all likelihood reduce the prospect of employment in the area unless one has access to a car. Unemployment is relatively high in Hartlepool, and the town’s economy cannot afford the adverse impact on demand for services that the loss of bus services will produce. There are areas of potential economic growth through the development of high value added manufacturing industry, with a particular focus on renewable energy, on the outskirts of town. However, economic potential is not matched with transport routes or a suitable timetable: no buses are available, for example, for early or late shifts in factories, meaning that people could be left without transport and therefore unable to take up the offer of employment. I would like to see the whole business model for local bus services looked at again. I am concerned that bus companies can cherry pick the profitable bus routes and force local authorities to pay ever increasing public subsidies through expanding the proportion of bus routes which are categorised as supported services. When this public subsidy is removed, as we have seen in Hartlepool following the cuts to Council budgets, passengers are badly affected. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w128 Transport Committee: Evidence

I am also concerned that there is limited competition between bus operators; since deregulation in 1986, we have moved from a monopolistic situation provided by the public sector, albeit one concerned with the wider social good, to a monopolistic situation whereby a dominant private bus operator’s main priority is to widen profit margins and enhance shareholder value rather than provide a comprehensive service. I would like to see the possibility of local area agreements between the Council and bus operators, whereby private bus companies could be provided with the right for a period of time to operate commercial services, on condition that loss-making but socially-important bus routes are also provided. This concept is similar to the Quality Contract Scheme, as established by the Transport Act 2000 and refined in 2008, but which has seen little take-up. Such an initiative could also incorporate the concept of Quality Partnership Schemes as established under the 2000 Act, whereby the local authority could promise to provide improved or enhanced facilities, such as bus priority lanes or electronic information at bus stops, in return for a more co-ordinated approach with bus operators for commercial and supported services. Last month I provided a petition to the House of Commons, signed by people who are concerned about the poor provision and loss of bus services in Hartlepool. I have encouraged the people who have signed the petition to contact the Select Committee to express their feelings about the loss of bus services. I look forward to reading the Select Committee’s findings.

ANNEX PARLIAMENTARY PETITION ON BUS SERVICES/TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE I wanted to thank you for signing my petition to the House of Commons on the loss of bus services in Hartlepool. I have provided an extract from Hansard, the record of Parliamentary proceedings. I will let you know once I receive a response from the Government to the petition. I still wish to campaign on this important matter. The powerful Transport Select Committee is looking at the impact of the Spending Review on bus services outside of London. The Committee is particularly keen to hear about the experiences of places like Hartlepool, where cuts to public subsidies to bus operators are seeing the cancellation of essential services. I have provided for your information my own contribution to the investigation, but I would urge you to provide your own personal experience, particularly in terms of how the cuts to bus services will affect you. The Committee will accept written contributions until Easter by mail to: Transport Committee, Room 101, No 7 Millbank, London, SW1P 3JA; or by e-mail at [email protected]. Thank you again for signing the Parliamentary petition. I do hope that you feel able to contribute to the Transport Select Committee’s investigation. April 2011

Written evidence from J Hutchinson (BUS 106) Hello there please help me to stop bus fare prices going up from National express £41.40. I know I have got bus pass to pay half price because when I go to Dorset by national express I don't want to pay full price okay because I have learning disability. Please help me to stop. April 2011

Written evidence from Carperby-cum-Thoresby Parish Council (BUS 107) A. Introduction 1. Carperby-cum-Thoresby is a small parish in on the northern slopes of Wensleydale. The village of Carperby is located between two small market towns—Leyburn, seven miles to the east, and Hawes, nine miles to the west. There are direct buses to both these towns but little else. Current bus service provision through the parish is poor and seems to be deliberately designed to discourage customer use. There are three different service providers who run buses through Carperby but there is little co-ordination between them. Most local usage would appear to be for journeys into and out of Leyburn, but the timings of the services make it difﬁcult for passengers to make the most of the different services.

B. The Providers 2. Until recently Dales and District provided the 157 service bus four times a day in both directions, Monday to Saturday and twice on Sunday, Arriva provided a through service to Richmond & Darlington once a day, Monday to Friday and the Royal Mail Post Bus went through the village, in one direction only, once a day, Monday to Friday. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w129

C. The Services 3. Eastbound to Leyburn—The first service of the day is Arriva’s X59 at 07.24. This is the through service to Darlington. It arrives in Leyburn at 07.47, 17 minutes after the Dales & District service to Bedale has departed. Passengers wishing to travel to Northallerton need to catch the Dales & District service to connect with the Northallerton bus in Bedale. In fact, it is impossible to reach Northallerton, via Bedale, before 13.00 4. The first Dales & District service at 08.16 does not connect with a Bedale/Northallerton service. This is followed by further Dales & District services at 10.56 and 12.56 5. The only through service to Northallerton was provided by the Royal Mail Post Bus at 17.17. This will be withdrawn shortly. 6. The final service of the day, eastbound, was the Dales & District service at 18.26. This was withdrawn on 17 April. 7. On Sunday there were only two eastbound buses, the first at 15.02 and the last at 19.02. It was, therefore, impossible to make any eastbound journey until half way through the afternoon. It is now completely impossible as the Sunday and Bank Holiday services were withdrawn on 10 April. This service is being replaced by the Wensleydale Flyer 856 from 17 April but, if you are a non-driver you would have to walk for 25 minutes to board it as it runs on the other side of the dale. 8. Thus, the recent and post-cuts service east bound to Leyburn is as follows: Service Arrive in Carperby Waiting time for next service Arriva X59 07.24 * 52 minutes Dales & District 08.16 2 hrs. 40 mins. Dales & District 10.56 2 hrs. Dales & District 12.56 4 hrs. 21 mins.(1) Post Bus 17.17* 1 hr. 09 mins. NOW WITHDRAWN Dales & District 18.26 12 hrs. 58 mins.(2) NOW WITHDRAWN * Monday to Friday only (1) 5 hrs. 30 mins. on Saturday (2) 13 hrs. 50 mins. on Saturday 9. Westbound from Leyburn - The services provided by Dales and District arrived in the village at 10.02, 12.02, 16.22 and 19.07. The westbound service at 19.07 was withdrawn on 17 April. Additionally there is an X59 service that arrives in the village at 18.55. 10. There is no through service from Northallerton and there is no westbound service of any kind after 18.55. 11. On Sunday there were only two westbound buses, the first at 11.58 and the last at 15.58. It was, therefore, impossible to make any westbound journey in the morning or at any time after late afternoon. It is now completely impossible as the Sunday and Bank Holiday services were withdrawn on 10 April . 12. The major inconvenience arises when passengers are attempting to shop in Leyburn and return home within a reasonable time. The time available in Leyburn between each eastbound and westbound journey, from and to Carperby is shown below. (Monday to Saturday service) Arrive in Leyburn (Service) Depart Leyburn (Service) Time available in Leyburn 07.47 (X59)* 09.40 (157) 1 hr. 53 mins 08.38 (157) 09.40 (157) 1 hr. 02 mins. 11.18 (157) 11.40 (157) 22 mins. 13.18 (157) 16.00 (157) 2 hrs. 42 mins. 17.45 (157) 18.25 (X59)* 40 mins. 17.45 (157) 18.48 (157) 1 hr. 3 mins. 18.45 (157) No service available * Not Saturday 13. The two highlighted services are both inconvenient lengths of time, the first being too short and the second too long. The other services seem to provide a better interval but a significant proportion of each interval is outside normal shop hours.

D. Impact — Royal Mail is withdrawing the only through service to Northallerton and two daily services and all Sunday and Bank Holiday services have been lost. This represents a 27% loss of service on weekdays and a 100% loss on Sundays and Bank Holidays. — The Dales & District services are poorly scheduled. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w130 Transport Committee: Evidence

— Dales & District provide no through route to or from Northallerton. The nearest hospital and major railway station are both located in Northallerton. — Although there are regular connections to Richmond from Leyburn, there are no direct connecting services from Leyburn to Catterick, where major supermarkets are located. — There are long gaps between services. — Weekend services are negligible. — Settlements on the north side of the dale are poorly served compared with the south side. One side of the dale should not suffer as a result of services being provided for the other side. — The village of Carperby has an ageing population. Of 174 full time residents 28% are over the age of 60, 15% are over the age of 70. Many of these people are forced to continue driving as public transport services shrink. — 13% of the population are of school age and rely on school transport. — 5% of the population are non-drivers. — Car journeys will increase and family incomes will be reduced by the spiralling cost of fuel. — Rural communities will be unfairly penalised. A 25% loss of service in York, Harrogate or Leeds does not have same effect as in rural community. It should be noted that a County Council consultation exercise on public transport provision was undertaken in summer 2010. This parish council submitted an analysis of local needs and suggested methods by which the problems could be alleviated. No acknowledgement was forthcoming. April 2011

Written evidence from J Richardson-Dawes (BUS 108) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on changes to local bus services. In the context of severe reductions in Government funding, it is understandable that local authorities have had to consider their service priorities. Whilst a large proportion of local authority services are based on statutory duties, the payment of subsidy to non-commercial local bus services is a power, not a duty. Nevertheless, some authorities have failed to give due weight to the importance of local bus services in underpinning people’s social and economic well-being. “Socially necessary” in the context of Deregulation means precisely that. Quite literally, large numbers of people build their lives—decisions as to where to live, work, send their children to school etc—around public transport links. Such dependence exists not just in car- owning households and I quote my own as an example. We are currently a four-adult household: two parents + two grown-up offspring. I am the only qualiﬁed driver. My wife uses local buses on business. My daughter depends on a local bus to go to work. My son, a student, uses local buses to get to vacation work. We all use local buses for social activities and leisure. All of the services we use for essential travel are County Council-subsidized. Devon County Council has reduced its budget for local bus subsidies in 2011–12 by £1.35 million—about 20%. The Council has been careful in its decisions as to which services to reduce or withdraw and has genuinely sought to minimize the impact on people and communities. Even so, lives have been disrupted or literally ruined. Jobs will be lost, family links broken, education disrupted. It is unrealistic to expect the community sector to step in. Community transport does well in complementing mainstream public transport services, but it does not have the potential to expand on anything like the scale necessary to replace bus networks. The biggest single cost element in public transport is the cost of drivers. The community sector’s sole signiﬁcant advantage therefore is its use of volunteer labour. There is a chronic shortage of volunteers. If expansion entails increasing use of paid drivers, then the sector loses its cost advantage. The sector should not be assumed even to be cost-effective. A community group which buys a new minibus only to have it standing idle through lack of drivers or organization to use it is a bigger waste of money than any conventional bus service. The National Bus Pass scheme should be seriously reviewed and in due course curtailed. At the same time as reducing bus subsidies by £1.35 million, Devon County Council is legally obliged to spend around £12 million on the National Bus Pass. We are now in the absurd situation where people have a free pass, but fewer buses on which to use it. Increasing numbers of people, when considering the issue carefully, conclude that, rather than have a free fare on a declining network, they would happily pay a half-fare and have the savings used to improve the bus network. It is also highly debateable whether all recipients of free travel genuinely need it. With respect to travel costs there is just as much hardship among younger working people as among the retired. It is especially grieving to see working people lose their jobs because of bus cuts, while comfortably off retired people enjoy free leisure travel. With respect to taking passengers’ views into account when planning changes to bus services, my sympathies shift towards local authorities and bus companies. The public expect fabulous bus services but are generally cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w131

unwilling to pay the fares or the taxes to support them. Moreover, it is all too common for communities to lobby for service improvements only for these to be poorly supported in terms of passenger usage. It is unrealistic to expect bus companies and local authorities to risk scarce resources on service provision based over-optimistic passenger representations. Bus companies acting commercially generally have a very good idea how to run successful services which are responsive to genuine demand. Local authorities likewise, if they work with their bus companies are generally good at allocating resources where the passenger numbers are sufﬁcient. There is no reason to suppose that parish councils or self-appointed groups and individuals are representative of genuine demand. “bums on seats” is what matters and the commercial imperative among bus companies plus local authorities spending wisely can generally identify where they are. I would go on to defend bus companies. They are not charities. As businesses in the free market, they are obliged to trade commercially. No one should be surprised therefore when they take decisions which are commercially sound but not always popular. The legislation is clear: the public purse may ﬁll gaps left by commercial provision. The Committee may wish to consider how much more the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire sector might contribute towards the public transport network. This can be a strong complement to the bus network and several local authorities—Devon included—have made use of what the sector has to offer by way of spare capacity at marginal cost. I trust these comments are useful and thank you once more for the opportunity to contact you. April 2011

Written evidence from the Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line (FoSCL) (BUS 109) Background Information The Friends of the Settle Carlisle Line (FoSCL) is the rail user group which promotes the Settle-Carlisle (S&C) railway. Its roots are in the pressure group formed to save the line from closure in the 1980’s but FoSCL now works in partnership with the railway authorities and local statutory and voluntary bodies to promote the entire S&C corridor which runs through the western side of North Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales National Park. FoSCL has 3,500 members and it provides on Train Guides for tourists; works with the Settle Carlisle Development Company to provide a catering trolley with locally sourced products; works with the Development Company, Settle Carlisle Trust, Network Rail and Northern Rail to preserve and improve station facilities; organises 100 guided walks per annum to encourage rail use by walkers and gives ﬁnancial support to connecting weekend bus services from remote stations such as Ribblehead to nearby villages and Dales. Through its quarterly magazine and website, FoSCL promotes local bus links and bus timetables are available in station waiting rooms throughout the line.

Importance of Local Bus Services These services are vital for: (1) Local residents to access the S&C line through their “local station” which may be up to eight miles away in order to visit hospitals; shopping centres; friends; relatives; college; university. (2) Visitors by train to access local facilities including accommodation; tourist attractions; historic sites; cafes; pubs; shops all of which are often beyond walking distance of their “local station” especially if encumbered by luggage or affected by limited mobility. Day visitors use the S&C to visit the Western Dales from a wide area including West Yorkshire; south Yorkshire; Lancashire; Greater Manchester; East Midlands; North Cumbria whilst the area attracts overnight visitors by train from all corners of the globe; overseas visitors do not wish to negotiate the narrow twisting Dales roads in a hire car. The income generated by visitors to the Dales is vital for the economic viability of the local communities and using the S&C together with local bus services makes many remoter areas more accessible whilst reducing congestion, pollution and car parking problems. Without the buses, many villages and tourist attractions would only be accessible by car or by long distance hikers. In 2010, FoSCL evaluated all connecting bus services and found over 60 villages and tourist attractions accessible by a short bus ride (less than 10 miles) from S&C rail stations. Bus links to existing train services are extremely efﬁcient in terms of reducing carbon emissions and pollution thus helping the government to achieve its aim of a low carbon economy.

Affect of Recent Changes in North Yorkshire North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) has withdrawn support from all Sunday and evening bus services from April 2011 despite widespread opposition to these proposals. This means that the only Sunday and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w132 Transport Committee: Evidence

evening bus services now operating in North Yorkshire are limited commercial services in major towns such as Harrogate; Summer Sunday MoorsBus services in the North York Moors National Park funded by the NYMNPA and DalesBus Sunday services in the Dales managed by the third sector Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company (DBCIC). DBCIC is a voluntary body and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Yorkshire Dales Society in conjunction with the Yorkshire Dales Public Transport User Group which has generated 30% year on year growth in passenger numbers since taking over the DalesBus network in 2008. DBCIC has tapped a variety of funding sources including FoSCL, National Trust, CPRE, tourist attractions and Northern Rail in addition to support from Metro (WYITA), YDNPA, Nidderdale AONB (and NYCC pre April 2011). NYCC has also reduced support for many weekday services leading to a reduction in the Garsdale to Hawes minibus and the reduction of the Skipton—Bolton Abbey-Harrogate service from ﬁve return journeys per day to just two and omission of the deviation towards Bolton Abbey (a popular international tourist attraction). Indeed the Garsdale-Hawes link only survives due to the formation of the Upper Wensleydale Community Partnership but the new minibus will only accommodate eight passengers and midday journeys are now demand responsive. (Hawes is seven miles from Garsdale Station and is the market town for Upper Wensleydale and a major tourist attraction) The Malham Tarn Shuttle service between Settle and Malham will only operate on Sundays this year (managed by DBCIC with National Trust support) so there will be no Saturday service between Settle and Malham leading to further overcrowding (and passengers stranded) on the inadequate NYCC supported service from Skipton to Malham. (Malham is a major tourist honeypot eight miles from Settle and 11 miles from Skipton). Cumbria County Council has withdrawn funding from the only bus service connecting Dent station with Dent Village and Sedbergh; FoSCL is currently negotiating with the Dent Community to provide a summer replacement service. (Dent Station is ﬁve miles from Dent Village with a very steep hill to the station). The replacement service for the previously NYCC supported Sunday bus service from Skipton to Grassington no longer serves Skipton Station making it unattractive to rail users—the Bus Station is 10 minutes walk away and some connections are now impossible. Forthcoming changes to the Settle-Slaidburn-Clitheroe service threaten to sever connections with the S&C to and from Lancashire whilst it is uncertain where the additional £150k savings in NYCC’s Craven area bus budget will be found.

Free Travel for Elderly and Disabled People This concession was framed with urban areas in mind where there is excess capacity to be filled and operators are pleased to fill these empty seats by carrying pass holders at low rates (often <50% of the adult fare). However in rural areas where frequencies are sparse and limited capacity buses are used it is leading to the loss of vital bus services as the reduced income for carrying concessionary passengers results in the subsidy per passenger journey increasing as the increased usage does not compensate for the lost income. This is due to limited capacity vehicles (with no standees allowed) and a finite potential market; if a bus service only runs once a week, a Free Pass will not encourage existing passengers to travel twice a week. There is no evidence that the cost of bus travel was a major barrier to elderly passengers using rural services in the Dales and many passengers are now asking for passes to be prohibited so that everyone pays and the bus service becomes more viable. The real barriers to using rural buses are frequency, reliability, hours/days of operation and destinations served together with a fear that the bus service may be withdrawn in the near future; many young people rely on bus services to access employment in tourist related businesses or to get to the station to access Further and Higher Education by train. A Free Pass is of no use if there are no suitable (or even unsuitable) bus services to use it on whilst elderly people on the lowest incomes should receive additional financial benefits which they can choose how to spend. Free Travel is a distinct disincentive to commercial bus operation in rural areas as even a full bus may not be profitable if 75% of passengers are pass holders with reimbursement rates as low as 40% on some longer routes. The only commercial bus service linking with the S&C is the parallel Settle to Skipton route which probably abstracts revenue from the S&C (although there is no evening or Sunday service and the Saturday service is now only two hourly).

Passenger Consultation Over Changes Whilst NYCC had a public consultation over its Sunday and evening cuts it appeared to ignore the protests and suggested alternatives put forward by many individuals and bodies, and all services on the “consultation list” were terminated with the minimum eight weeks notice given to passengers and operators. Cumbria CC imposed its cuts with little consultation or warning; the operator of the Dent service received eight weeks notice with no warning. Cuts to weekday NYCC services have received very little publicity with most passengers being unaware of impending cuts until operators displayed notices or new timetables on buses. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w133

This is in contrast to proposed changes to rail services which receive extensive publicity over a period of several months and formal consultation with passenger groups and local councils often accompanied by public meetings and exhibitions.

FoSCL has sent formal responses to NYCC Consultations and written to Cumbria CC concerning bus links from Dent and Kirkby Stephen Stations. NYCC has not engaged with FoSCL in any way although Cumbria CC did invite FoSCL and representatives of the Dent community to discuss the Dent bus although they were unwilling to continue the service for even a few weeks to allow a rescue package to be formulated.

An area of concern to FoSCL is that local authorities either rely upon patronage data provided by operators or undertake a very small sample survey. By close observation of services FoSCL are aware of undercounting of passengers when ticket machines are not used; non-recording of concessionary passes; return tickets being cancelled by tearing up with no entry on the ticket machine; “Rover Ticket” holders not being recorded on the ticket machine. FoSCL stresses that all cash transactions are diligently recorded and perceives that such activities have had negligible effect in the past but are now critical when local authorities are withdrawing services based upon subsidy per passenger journey.

FoSCL recommends that whilst the registration period of eight weeks for new bus services or minor changes to existing services is reasonable, operators and local authorities should be required to give a minimum of 13 weeks notice to withdraw a service or impose major changes such as the withdrawal of Sunday or evening services. This would give a “window of opportunity” for a replacement service to be procured either commercially or using alternative funding without recourse to “special registrations” and also permit adequate time to publicise the changes and new timetables.

FoSCL also recommends that changes to bus services should be restricted to the December and May rail timetable change dates together with an additional date in September to correspond with the start of the new academic year which often has implications for bus services. This policy is already adopted in some European countries. If this is considered too restrictive for commercial urban bus services, it should be possible to implement it for all tendered services (which will cover most rural routes). This would have the added beneﬁt of allowing train operators to publicise connecting bus links in their timetable leaﬂets without the risk of these services being altered/withdrawn during the currency of the rail timetable. April 2011

Written evidence from Mr and Mrs Banks BUS (110)

WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SUBSIDIES—HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL

We are writing to you as residents of Elwick Village which is approximately 4 miles from Hartlepool in the North East of England. We understand from our local MP, Iain Wright that you are currently seeking evidence of the effects which cuts in public subsidies have had on bus services and, therefore, on local communities. The answer is signiﬁcant.

As part of its arrangements to reduce spending, Hartlepool Borough Council took a unilateral decision to end all subsidy for bus services within the Borough irrespective of the different effects it would have on the residents. Elwick is a community of some 600 people which, in keeping with many other similar communities, has an increasingly aging population. It has a sheltered housing scheme which, by definition, is populated by older, often more infirm residents, a significant proportion of whom were, and still are, dependent on public transport. We are aware personally of a number of elderly widows who used to rely on their husbands to drive them and who became dependent on the bus service. Many of these people are pensioners in receipt of state pension who simply cannot afford the £10 return taxi fare but need to go to town to access essential services. Apart from a small village shop, we do not have any services in or near the village such as doctors or dentists. Consequently transport to and from these essential services is vital.

What has so dismayed the village is the arbitrary way in which the local authority totally withdrew its subsidy without, it seems, any consideration of the effects such a decision would have. It then had the audacity to blame the whole problem on “greedy bus companies” and seemed incapable of coming up with any viable options. We all accept that it would have been impossible, given the extent of spending reductions, to maintain the previous service, nor would we necessarily want that. However, the provision of a skeleton service on, say three days a week with one return bus in the morning and afternoon would at least have given those vulnerable people in the village an affordable means of accessing services so many take for granted. As of 26 March we have nothing! April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w134 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from J Robinson (BUS 111) Our local MP Mr Iain Wright recently contacted you and submitted a petition regarding the withdrawal of subsidised bus services in the borough of Hartlepool, I would just like to submit how the cuts are affecting me and my husband. We live in sheltered housing in the village of Elwick I have the following health conditions Spinal stenosis and C.O.P.D. am aged 61 on state pension my husband aged 62 is partially sighted and he claims guaranteed pension credits. I am a carer for my 85 year old father who lives in the Brus ward of the town whom as just undergone a operation for bowel cancer also has heart problems (defribulator implant), prior to losing our bus service I used to get 516 bus service from Elwick to Hartlepool town centre (this as now been completely withdrawn) then service 6 to my fathers house six days a week. It now costs me £11 per day by Taxi so am only visiting my father three days a week which is leaving him alone four days in each week. We also have to get out of the village for Doctors and Dental appointments collect prescriptions, it is a three mile walk to town along a country road with no footpaths at all, this road is very busy as people from Hartlepool use it for access to the A19 which is the major trunk through the area. I pray you can be of some help to the people of this village as those of us whom do not drive and have no access to private transport are completely isolated. April 2011

Written evidence from D Caygill (BUS 112) I have been urged by my MP Iain Wright to contact you regarding the petition to the House of Commons on the loss of bus services in Hartlepool that I signed, to let you know how these cuts have affected myself and my family. It is my 16 year old son who has directly been affected by these cuts because he uses the buses to get to and from college and to get out and about to see friends who live the other side of town to where we live. He buys a weekly ticket which allows him to have unlimited use of the bus service for seven days, which was marvellous for him and was at a reasonable price, he was able to come and go as he pleased not relying on anybody else for lifts. The loss of the buses on an evening have now reduced his independence because he now has to rely on myself or my husband for lifts on an evening or he isn’t able to socialise with his friends. With the spiralling costs of petrol/diesel and with him, still having to still buy the seven day pass to get to and from college because it is still cheaper than for him than to pay each time he uses the bus, this has now caused extra expense on myself and my husband. My son doesn’t receive EMA because the household income is above the threshold for him to receive this so as you can imagine this comes out of my household budget to fund him through college. It may seem trivial but I think the loss of his independence is the main issue and the fact that Stagecoach have INCREASED their fairs from April 2011 whilst reducing the services hence putting extra costs on me is shocking beyond belief but I fully expected this. Everything is going up in price but my household hasn’t received any pay increases for at least three years now so I’m not quite sure where this Government expects people to keep ﬁnding the money from, but that is another issue!!!! The Government keep telling us to use public transport to help the environment but how can we do this when there are no buses running after 6.30 on an evening. Here’s hoping that something can be done about this. April 2011

Written evidence from P Taylor (BUS 113) I have lived for 41 years in Elwick Village, about four miles west of Hartlepool. I have eyesight problems and have never driven. For the first 10 years, until my wife learned to drive and we purchased a car, we and our two daughters relied entirely on public transport to get to and from the village. This was sometimes inconvenient, but it was a price we were prepared to pay to live in an attractive village which was—and is— a socially mixed community rather than a single class suburb. In recent years there has been much talk in political circles of localism and the “big society”, but the counterpoint to this as far as our village is concerned has been a sustained attack from various quarters on our independence, and even our viability. The village community has organized to help fight off attempts by the Post Office to close the village office and by the Borough Council to close the village school; it is likely soon to have to fight to retain a village Rector against amalgamation attempts by the Church Commissioners, and to maintain representation on Hartlepool Borough Council against changes proposed by the Boundary Commission. You will excuse us for feeling cynical in face of the rhetoric of politicians. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w135

Against this background, the loss of the village bus link is damaging blow. It saddens me that families like ours was when we moved here, will no longer be able to choose to live in Elwick, and that, deprived of its transport link, the village will pitch further towards being just another middle class dormitory ; a vibrant village community will be lost. On a personal level, my wife and I are both over 70. We have no wish to leave the village, but can foresee a time when for us, as is already the case for a number of elderly residents, it will just be too difﬁcult to continue to live here in consequence of the lack of public transport and other service cuts. In bringing about the removal of the public transport link, the Borough Council is making it difﬁcult, if not impossible, for a proportion of its residents to access those remaining public services to whose upkeep they contribute in paying one of the highest Council Taxes in the country. April 2011

Written evidence from J Thompson (BUS 114) I am writing to you as a signatory to the petition to the House of Commons by my local Member of Parliament, Mr Iain Wright. The local primary bus services run by Stagecoach have been withdrawn by 7 p.m. Monday to Thursday and all day on Sunday on most routes. The result of this is that there is now no bus service to the Hartlepool Hospital for evening visiting and no access by direct bus to the North Tees Hospital and you can’t get home after reaching Hartlepool town centre. The villages around town have no facilities for shopping, doctors or schools within them. A number of non drivers live there and they are now completely isolated or dependent upon the goodwill of neighbours. The withdrawal of the service to Seaton Carew on a Sunday will affect access to beaches, the RSPB reserve at Saltholme and the businesses in the village which are heavily dependent upon visitors. With no public transport available from the early evenings the local theatre, cinema and social events will be affected as will events within the Marina and on the Headland. Access to the recent Tall Ships event was restricted to the outskirts of town for the motorist and the bus services were overloaded. There were evening events on all four days, but many people would have been unable to support these, myself included. A return walk of seven miles for me. Many people do not own a car or drive, or are financially able to use a taxi for a “round trip” to access those activities and events which enrich and add meaning to their lives. We are living longer and we are not ready to shut the door at 6.26 p.m., the last bus from my area. I use the buses to attend two social groups one of which I have attended for 15 years and the other for four. My view is that if you wish to join in activities you should be able to get to them independently but a round trip by taxi will add between £9 and £10 for each occasion and as a pensioner on a limited budget I cannot afford it. Whilst the government has not amended the concessionary fare scheme, users have in effect been disenfranchised by the withdrawal of services at 7 p.m. and on Sundays. I know from the journeys that I use that a number of minimum wage employees working unsocial hours are dependent on the buses. Can those employees continue in employment if it means that they have to use a taxi home from work? I think not. The losers are the general public and employees of the bus company and the service industries to the amenities within the local area. It concerns me that the people making the decision to withdraw services and subsidies (a) do not live in the town/area and (b) are not service users. Buses require a public service licence but they are far from being run as a public service. If the current situation is allowed to continue the bus company which has the monopoly will have carte blanche to withdraw whatever it deems unprofitable in the future. I understand the restraints that have been placed on council budgets and that a subsidy to a profit making organisation is the first to go in preference to the unemployment of thousands of Hartlepool people but there must be some better solution to transport problems and the well being of bus users. This is not only a Hartlepool problem. It exists wherever a bus company has a monopoly and is in receipt of subsidies. April 2011

Written evidence from Harrogate District Community Transport Scheme Limited (Little Red Bus) (BUS 115) Introduction Harrogate District Community Transport Scheme Limited, (Little Red Bus), established in 1986 is a social enterprise. It is an Industrial and Provident Society registered with and regulated by the FSA. 1. We have no political afﬁliations and do not support any particular vested interests. 2. Little Red Bus primary aim is to improve quality of life through the provision of transport services for the beneﬁt of the community by: — Working to develop sustainable communities, — Promoting social inclusion, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w136 Transport Committee: Evidence

— Providing or ensuring connectivity to work, leisure, health and social care, and — Enhancing environmental performance. The organisation has continued to progress a planned programme of development, facilitated by the award of the Futurebuilders funding package that was made available in May 2006. Futurebuilders Programme involves working in partnership with other community transport partners to increase the capacity of the organisations in order to enable the sustainable expansion of community transport. The ultimate objectives of this growth are to: — Achieve improved community cohesion by connecting people across the county. — Enable statutory agencies to improve access to services and, thereby, achieve best value. — Increase the numbers of people attending health care, thereby enabling a better quality of life. — Enable older people to live independent lives. — Provide access to social and recreational facilities for young people in order to reduce the incidence of anti-social behaviour. — Increase the numbers of people accessing educational facilities; eg school children utilizing Extended School Hours provision. — Enable the long term unemployed to access work and training opportunities. — Enable low income families to undertake day to day activities to the advantage of their health; eg accessing supermarkets and sports and leisure facilities. The organisation has consistently grown and in 2009–10 achieved a turnover of £1.7 million. It has used investments from Futurebuilders England, Local authorities, various government initiatives including Rural Bus Challenge, Rural Transport Partnerships and earned income to develop an independent integrated transport centre using the latest technology and a range different size vehicles and community car schemes to operate, a range of transport services flexibly and in response to local need. The aim is make efficiencies by breaking down barriers between the silos of transport funding agencies that are responsible for different services for the same communities at different but often the same time. Also to provide a network that supports commercial operators where they exist and to fill the gaps where they do not.

Cuts and their Affect LRB has been severely affected by the cuts to services and budget allocation to transport services in North Yorkshire. For several years we have been developing packages of work particularly in rural areas that included home to school transport, local bus service demand responsive services and group trips which enabled the passenger subsidy maximum of £7.50 to be reduced to £4.31 in very rural and isolated communities This subsidy was also reducing as spare capacity was available and local communities were gaining conﬁdence and relying more on public/community transport. This has now been destroyed by NYCC Integrated Passenger Transport Unit without any consultation and in fact the local community partnership which has been growing since 2005 has been deliberately undermined in order to obtain immediate budget cuts and severe cuts in local transport services and community conﬁdence. Other similar services around North Yorkshire have been weakened or completely cut in order to make instant budget cuts. In many cases bus services and other local authority or health services have been withdrawn and people told to contact “Little Red Bus”. Little Red Bus has not been consulted or offered any support to provide these extra services. In one instance a large GP consortia moved to a joint headquarters and their brochure informed people to use Little Red Bus services if they could not access the surgery. Millions of pounds were spent on this project but at no time were we consulted.

Concessionary Fares The extension of concessionary fares to community transport services would support the most vulnerable in areas where there is no public transport or access is difﬁcult. This could be supported by introducing a nominal fare with a concessionary fare pass which seems to be acceptable to the majority of people.

Lack of Consultation, Strategic Planning Whilst the need for savings and efficiencies is accepted the lack of consultation or understanding of community links is of more concern. An understanding of the need or attempt to use the knowledge understanding and skills of operators, users and relevant local authority departments would significantly improve the level of service provided. The lack of this leads to inflexibility extra cost mistrust between stakeholders and a single solution for a range of different problems. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w137

Transparency and accountability with a jointly accepted strategic approach with agreed priorities seems a fairly obvious solution but the lack of this has led to the catastrophic cuts affecting the lives of people who cannot now get to work or access services. In the case of an individual wishing to get to hospital, work or for shopping the difference can be £24.00 for a taxi or £2.50 in a little red bus which may now not be available.

The recent award to NYCC of £415,000 for community transport could enable some of the effects of the cuts to be limited as the inability to plan services is a major factor prohibiting the sustainable development of community transport providers in North Yorkshire.

Unfortunately these funds are not ring fenced and the current system of funding operated by IPTU appears to be random and not subject to consultation. Various reviews, strategies and plans for Community Transport In North Yorkshire have been developed by NYCC Integrated Passenger Transport Unit (IPTU) since 2004 but there is very little evidence of any change or consideration of the consultation process. Referral to these documents in order to attempt changes is usually referred to as “history” and “not relevant now”. Inevitably there is then another expensive review which supports procrastination, and the resumption of status quo.

As a result community transport providers and other stakeholders find it difficult to plan their operations and prepare meaningful budgets. Some CT operators try to support communities from contracted local authority services which are generally commercially competitative and allocated on an individual and non strategic basis. This makes it very difficult to support expensive non commercial community services without subsidy.

The lack of a county wide strategic approach by NYCC Integrated Passenger Transport Unit (IPTU) and outcomes based on agreed performance indicators mean that the IPTU allocate funding on an “as and when” basis to individual organisations on an “ad hoc” basis.

The lack of transparency or agreed system of accountability or monitoring does not encourage partnership between community transport operators but can lead to an environment of suspicion. This strategy could be interpreted as a way of preventing strong partnerships from developing which could be seen as a threat to local authority power and jobs which is the opposite to the Localism agenda and counter productive to the aims of avoiding duplication, shared resources and achieving efﬁciencies.

It is not suggested that NYCC are unique in this approach and that the IPTU based on the lack of guidance, national policies, historical status and achievements of the community transport sector are entirely to blame for the situation.

Community Transport as a creditable player is a recent phenomena and therefore may have been difﬁcult to accept as part of budget negotiating... Community transport has been seen as a cheap option based on volunteers and in some places this opinion still prevails. The development of some community transport providers into the contract culture has enabled the sector to raise its proﬁle and be included in the transport network as a key connector in the transport network.

The dilemmas and issues need to be discussed and addressed. The Local Transport Bill went some way towards assisting this and the impact is slowly becoming apparent.

Local authorities must decide if they want community transport and understand what it can offer, how much, at what level and at what cost. Meaningful comparisons between in house, community commercial and a strategic partnership of all can be debated and consulted on and the outcomes shared. Then it may be easier for these services to be considered as a part of the transport solutions and budgets and will enable transport ofﬁcers to develop the consultation and planning process required.

Community Transport as a Solution

Community transport is now recognised as being part of the solution but it must be allowed to join up become a part of the transport network. It should be included in concessionary fare scheme but also operate under quality standards.

CT can prove to be a costly solution in terms of human resources due to administration of scheduling and control functions. This can be effectively resolved by the use of the hub concept as proposed in the Futurebuilders Little red Bus Network Model and the Dales Integrated Alliance Project. Core scheduling services can be operated using a web based system with local connections that will also provide administrative, technical, ﬁnancial, monitoring and recording services. 24 hour service can be provided as all local providers can be “off service” and the Hub will respond. Hub will contract larger and cross sector contracts to be delivered locally and local providers will also remain independent and work with their local communities to provide demand responsive and supplementary local solutions.

Local organisations working with local communities can provide more services and at reduced cost the Dales and Bowland Community Interest Company have reduced subsidies by over half and increased patronage by over 50% in only two years and by providing weekend services improved the local rural economy by increasing tourist numbers whilst at the same time reducing the carbon footprint in the Yorkshire Dales. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w138 Transport Committee: Evidence

Solutions are readily available if consultation is used effectively and users, operators and other stakeholders are accepted as real partners. April 2011

Written evidence from M E Sim (BUS 116)

I wish to bring to your attention how the loss of a bus service in our village of Elwick Hartlepool has severely affected my life.

I have no transport during the day seven days a week so therefore I am unable now to shop visit a Doctor, Dentist keep hospital appointments or socialize.

I think we are all intelligent enough to realize cuts would have to be made but to be discontinued completely is dreadful leaving all ages disadvantaged and isolated.

Trusting we can have a resolution to this very serious problem. April 2011

Written evidence from F Hare (BUS 117)

I and my husband, Chris Hare, have received a letter from Iain Wright MP regarding the bus services in Hartlepool. We live in Dalton Piercy which now does not have a bus service. We are both pensioners. My husband no longer drives as he is suffering from Parkinsons Desease so it means if he wants to go out of the village I have to take him which is not always convenient. On top of that I can see the day dawning when I must stop driving and then we are stuck. Elwick village which has the same problem has come up with a scheme where several people share a taxi. but again that is not always convenient and Dalton Piercy would have to make its own scheme as it would cost more for a taxi to come via this village. We have bus passes which are not much use here

What would happen if one of us took ill?

Then there is the problem with younger people. Going to classes, scouts guides etc is out unless someone drives. We do not all have cars and we cannot be in two places at once!

My husband spends some time down at Shardlow where he has a narrow boat. From there he can get busses to Derby, Long Eaton and many other places. How come local authorities there can afford them when Hartlepool can’t? I do not go there because I am no longer steady enough. Perhaps we should think of moving there, but who would want to buy a house when there is no bus service. I have also noted buses in country areas nearby, so it is not a blanket policy.

Trusting you will view my remarks with favour. April 2011

Written evidence from G Wainwright (BUS 118)

My husband, myself and friends attend regularly a dance held in the Catholic Club which is a bus ride away from the estate where we live, this bus service has been taken away from us of an evening.

As I can’t drive and my husband can’t manage at night, this means expensive taxis are needed. This is not always a pleasant experience standing outside an empty club waiting for a late taxi. Dancing is very good exercise for people our age (being pensioners). If we could have our evening buses back we’d be willing to pay a small charge when using our bus passes, this would enable us to get home safely.

Also a number of younger relatives and friends are having to seriously look to changing their employment as in some cases the cost of their transport home on certain shifts are rapidly eating into the savings, making them having to wonder which bills they can leave unpaid.

This problem is going to soon force ﬁrms to change their methods of production in order to keep staff. In turn this will inevitably lead to shut downs or closures. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w139

Written evidence from Mr and Mrs Hale (BUS 119) The loss of bus service for Elwick is a disaster for local people. The elderly have no way in or out, and I’m sure this will have tragic consequences regarding their health and welfare. I use the bus and know from experience that for them to go about their everyday business is very important to them. It is a three mile walk into town and this is impossible as there is no footpath, which makes it impossible even for people like myself. We sincerely hope a solution to regain the bus is possible in the near future. April 2011

Written evidence from H Oliver (BUS 120) I am writing regarding the cuts in bus services in Somerset. As from 17 April First bus has stopped all Sunday services between Axminster and Taunton on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Furthermore they have reduced evening services. The last bus from Taunton is now 6.15pm and from Axminster 5.25 pm for anyone wishing to alight at Ilminster. First bus will tell you the reductions are because Somerset County Council has reduced the financial support to them. It seems only a short time ago the British public were being encouraged to travel by public transport and to therefore save on the use of cars, fuel and congestion. We all know that oil will not last for ever and we are also told that pollution is causing global warming. So we have been doing our bit. Now, however, if anyone in Ilminster wishes to go to Taunton or return in the evening they will need a car. Our local hospital, Musgrove, is in Taunton so for evening visits people will have to use their car (if indeed they have one). There are a lot of people, especially those over 60 years, who never learnt to drive, live in villages and rural areas and are therefore reliant on public transport. A friend of ours whose son attends Richard Huish College in Taunton and stays after lessons for cricket, etc will now also have to be picked up by a parent in a car. Of course he could just not do any activity after college! There is also a young girl who works at the out of town Sainsbury on Sundays. How is she going to manage! Not everyone has a car. Now I do appreciate that buses have to be paid for and I know that some are not well used but they are still essential for those who do use them. When I see the waste that goes on elsewhere it does make me cross. I will give you a for instance. Some years ago now the powers that be dictated that we should have raised pavement stops so people with impaired walking, or with wheelchairs or buggies could get on buses with low floors. I presume the County Council did this work. Great idea! Unfortunately we very rarely have buses with low floors on the Axminster to Taunton route. And there is a raised pavement stop near Ilminster where there is no pavement on the other side. How would a wheelchair user get off!! Just be tipped out I presume onto the road or verge! What a waste of money, money the County Council could have spent on subsidising the buses. May 2011

Written evidence from C Olley (BUS 121) LOSS OF BUS SERVICES IN HARTLEPOOL I wish to bring to your attention how the loss of bus service in our village has affected my life. I am eighty years old a pensioner and a widow living alone, my only form of transport was the public bus service. I have lived in Elwick 20+ years and love my home and the village but now feel isolated and a prisoner in my own home. How am I and supposed to shop visit doctors, dentist, hospital and have any form of social life: meet friends visit parks seaside, cinema etc. Taxies are much too expensive when you are on a limited pension income.

I appreciate that spending reviews where needed and could accept a reduced service but to discontinue the service altogether is appalling. I trust we can have a satisfactory outcome. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w140 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from P Cowlyn (BUS 122) I have picked up a leaflet inviting bus users to make their views known before Easter to the transport committee, and my county of Somerset is mentioned. I live in Wells in Somerset, and have until recently been a bus driver for our main company Firstgroup. I have taken the decision to do without a car and now use public transport for all my travel. There has been a lot of concern in Somerset over the drastic nature of the bus service cuts being introduced this weekend. Basically the county council have withdrawn all subsidies from evening and Sunday services, meaning that none will now be operating. Somerset have said that they are reducing bus subsidies by 46%, which seems a far greater reduction that the reduction in the money coming from the government. They are also saying that there will be further cuts to daytime services over the next two years. Somerset are making huge cuts in other areas (ie 40% libraries closing) and I understand that they had a lot of exposure to the Icelandic banks which has hit them badly. Although I might be quick to complain that I can no longer go out in the evenings, particularly to the theatres in Weston and Yeovil, and can no longer pay a day visit to my father in Devon, I have to be realistic and say that many of the evening and Sunday services have been very little used. In fact Somerset has been lucky in that the county have until now supported such services, as many other counties have not done so for years. However I think the county would have done better to leave some evening and Sunday services going and perhaps reduced some daytime frequencies, but they have rejected this suggestion. Our area includes four sizeable towns (Street, Glastonbury, Wells and Shepton Mallet), all a long way from the nearest railway station. Fortunately the evening and Sunday buses on the main route to the main railhead in Bristol has been covered by a new subsidy from Bath and North Somerset and Bristol city council, which will at least keep three of those towns connected on a Sunday. But Street, Glastonbury and Shepton have been left with no public transport at all on a bank holiday, which seems crazy. As a bus driver I know that Bank holidays can be very busy indeed, especially as our towns attract many tourists. I suspect that in the forthcoming spate of Bank holidays many visitors will come down to the area for the long weekend and find themselves unable to leave. Having had good evening and Sunday services for years, many people have come to rely on them, many to go to work, and these people are facing serious problems. On the subject of the free bus passes for the elderly, I can say as a bus driver that many of our elderly passengers consider that the bus pass is the best thing the government have ever done for them, and I certainly agree that the benefits are huge. Free travel greatly enhances the lives of pass holders who can now lead much healthier and more active lives. Free travel keeps them busy, keeps them out of their cars, and helps the economy by allowing them to go out and support local businesses and attractions. Many local shops (especially tea shops!) say that business has really improved since the passes came in. There is opposition to the passes, mostly from those who drive cars, but many seem to misunderstand the point that the pensioners are merely filling empty seats on buses that would be running anyway, and therefore costing nothing in real terms. Examples of overcrowding have been very rare, and in the very few places where this has happened (the Lake District and the Torbay area are the only two examples I have found) the problem has been dealt with. Some bus operators claim they are not being sufficiently paid as they receive much less per journey than the normal fare. But they miss the point—over 90% of the journeys would not be made if fares had to be paid, so they would be no better off. I wrote to the government a year ago with some comments about the pass. I have said that I think to 0930 morning restriction on pass use is unhelpful because it causes a large peak just after that time. This does not occur in those counties (ie Cornwall, Suffolk etc) that have removed the time limit. Also, many counties have different start times and this causes confusion. Some counties now have complicated rules concerning the frequency or routes, allowing early journeys where frequencies are low, causing more confusion. Many pass holders say that if money is tight they would rather make some payment than see the passes, removed. A small fare such as 50p per trip, or an annual fee for the pass (as with a Railcard) are two ideas I suggested last year, but the reply I received stated that the passes would remain free. Means testing has been suggested but this would be quite unfair to those who have saved all their lives. Certainly the funding needs to be carefully looked at. I feel the scheme works better in Wales and Scotland where the bus companies are reimbursed direct from the government works better. Many of the counties did very bad deals with the bus companies (Somerset included) but I believe this has now been changed. Somerset claim there is a five million difference between the money they get for the pass use and what they have to pay, and they are blaming this for some of the service cuts. I feel that the scheme should be centrally funded and that if this is not possible then money for pass use should be kept separate from other cash such as the rural bus grant. Over a number of years bus services have greatly improved, and if we are serious about wishing to reduce the use of private cars we need to maintain the improvement. No fit-for-purpose public transport service can operate at a profit, but I believe that money spent on bus (and rail) services is money well spent. To sum up I would say that whilst I agree that cuts have to be made I think Somerset are being a bit too drastic. I depend entirely on the currently excellent public transport system we have in this country and I hope cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w141

to be able to continue to do so. And, ﬁnally, I feel that the beneﬁts of the free travel for the elderly and disabled far outweigh any drawbacks. April 2011

Written evidence from J Weeks (BUS 123) Mendip District Council are planning to cut bus services—Evenings, Sundays and Bank Holidays. Shepton Mallet in particular is a very poor relation where transport is concerned. To be fair it had improved but all this will stop and backwards we go once again. We need buses in this area for work, visiting family, Hospital appointments, not everyone has a car. Young people are isolated, friends cannot visit. Why must this be, most of us would pay extra council tax to keep the bus services running. How can we encourage visitors/tourists to this area if we do not have a sensible Public Transport system? Trains are non-existent in Shepton Mallet. I hope you will be able to do something about this situation, please. April 2011

Written evidence from K Gregory (MCA 124) I apologise for encroaching on your time. I am writing in response to a leaflet collected from the customer information point at Yeovil Bus Station informing of the Transport Select Committee. The leaflet claims that the committee would like to hear the views of bus users in Somerset among three other areas mentioned therein. The importance of local bus services to my wife and I, and, many other non car owners is total. We are in our later seventies and, for medical reasons, I gave up driving some six/seven years ago making buses and trains our/my sole form of transport. Therefore, I repeat that our reliance on bus services is total. In fact, several of our elderly neighbours and friends are in a similar situation—for differing reasons. Likewise young people below the legal age of driving. Recent changes to funding for bus provision will mean there will be no evening services or indeed, Sunday services. My wife and I rely on bus services to make—and keep—hospital and clinic appointments; hospital visiting; family visits; and, for a number of leisure pursuits. I have so far this year kept appointments at two hospitals (one 10 miles, another 20+ miles distant), and a clinic, with more to come. I suffer from failing eyesight, hence, my withdrawal from driving. Moreover, we have been able to make family visits to share birthdays etc, with our children and grandchildren. This, of course, helps to bind the family group and alleviates the need of relatives to transport us should they have taken a drink. The benefits of concessionary travel to the elderly and disabled are, I think, quite evident. In fact, I was born in an area where elderly folk enjoyed free travel, without grudge, and for many years back I also recall— with disgust—that here in the West Country, a friend used to push his very frail mother to the bus stop, lift her onto the bus and to a seat, return to fold and stow the wheelchair, and then pay for them both. Makes one quite ashamed does it not? Perhaps a lower, more selective qualification maybe worth considering? It could be that 60 is too low given the raising of retirement age(s). After all, I f a person is say, 63, and still working, there is probably more income for bus travel. Additionally, it is odd that we have had neighbours claiming, and using, bus passes while in ownership of perfectly serviceable—and expensive motor cars, in one case a Range Rover. There are many instances of this practice, of course with varied makes of car. So, maybe, as suggested higher qualification age and more selective means of qualifying. For very many people of our acquaintance, it is extremely annoying that bus services, and, concessionary travel is under threat from people who enjoy FREE travel and allowances both nationally and locally. Perhaps at age 60 to retirement half price travel could be considered? Regarding passengers’ views, there is not much evidence to indicate that bus companies or local authorities pay much heed. In the Somerset area there has never been much meaningful competition—just crumbs from the table of the major operator. Moreover, there is no evidence of there ever being municipal services in place. Certainly not in living memory. In summary, for us, bus services are vital. I was recently quoted “seven to eight pounds” for a single taxi journey well within Taunton town boundary. Around 1–1.1/4 miles... one way. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w142 Transport Committee: Evidence

Many people I have spoken to do not feel inclined to respond for a variety of reasons—none too complimentary. Many feel as we do that the withdrawal of services will widen the gaps already present in society. On behalf of my wife and I, may I thank you for the opportunity to make our position known. March 2011

Written evidence from J Gordon (BUS 125) I am writing to ask for your help about the disruption in the service 10A. To Greenside. This service was very frequent and dependable. It served this area perfectly; we could go directly to the Metro Centre or Newcastle. All these buses were new clean and comfortable. I know the 10a now stops at upper Greenside this is too far for us and many others retired people in this area to walk. The replacement service 69a only runs once an hour then does not go to any of the shopping areas, Gateshead, Newcastle or the Metro centre. Hence every journey is very inconvenient and takes twice as long, as we have to change at Blaydon. These buses that are used for the 69a are old rattles and uncomfortable. Return journeys can be very difﬁcult; if the bus from Metro centre or Newcastle is a little late then you miss the 69a at Blaydon. This means you have to sit in a cold drafty shelter for nearly an hour. The government is trying to encourage us all to use public transport, yet this company is making it difﬁcult to do this. May 2011

Written evidence from W Wainwright (BUS 127) I am writing to complain of the cancellation of bus services in Hartlepool, from 7.00pm from Sundays to Thursdays only Friday and Saturdays having a service around the town till 11.15pm. I’m sure you are aware that Hartlepool is the 7th most deprived town in England and what employment there is, is based on the minimum wage structure and people who work in jobs that continue after 7.00pm are having to ﬁnd more expensive ways to get to their homes ie Taxis. Surely this cannot be right in the 21st century as public transport is a necessity to keep towns alive. Mr Cameron said we are all in together but this action doesn’t give credit to his statement. I hope the Committee can put pressure to bear and let Hartlepool have its bus services back. April 2011

Written evidence from G Hutchinson (BUS 128) Re: Bus Service 516/518 I am writing to oppose and object to the proposed cancellation of the above bus service. I am totally reliant on the service when i do not have access to a car, using it to take my children, aged three and eight months, to playgroup at Elwick, the Play bus at Dalton Piercy, to town, to the Marina, to Tesco and simply to Ward Jackson Park. I have even used it to go to their swimming lessons at the hydrotherapy pool at Tunstall School. I may have to rely on the service to pick up my daughter from the Sacred Heart School at 3.10pm in the not too distant future. The bus stops directly outside my house and transports us safely to our various activities. As there are no pavements or street lights outside my home and the road has a national speed limit, this makes it extremely dangerous to venture out on foot, especially as i do, with a buggy and a toddler in tow. Removing the service would be extremely life-limiting for me and my young children. The service also provides a life line for many older people and teenagers in Elwick, Dalton Piercy and en route and this is reﬂected in the community/social atmosphere on the bus amongst the passengers. Removing this service is a “cut” too far as it provides no feasible alternative for me or the surrounding community to use and it means I will have to put myself and my family at grave risk to continue just a fraction of our current daily life. I urge Hartlepool Borough Council not to cut this crucial link with the rest of the town. March 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w143

Written evidence from A Raw (BUS 129) I refer to the Parliamentary Petition on Bus Services and would like to contribute to the Transport Select Committees investigation from my personal point of view. I have lived in Elwick village for over 70 years and we have always had a bus service into Hartlepool. Now this has been withdrawn leaving the village completely cut off from Hartlepool. I do not drive and therefore am ﬁnding it very difﬁcult to shop for essentials, visit doctors, dentists, opticians, banks, hospital visits etc. Also I can no longer visit friends, go to the theatre, or cinema, especially in the evening. In fact we are completely isolated. It is not possible to walk into town a distance of 3/4 miles along a very busy and narrow road and a return journey using a taxi is approximately £10. This is a lot of money for a pensioner, especially when i have a free bus pass. I would like to see some form of bus service reinstated. April 2011

Written evidence from I McLaughlin (BUS 130) I am writing this letter in a personal capacity, as a supporter of CT and public transport and to give additional information, which has come to light since January 2011. (1) Quote from Darlington and Stockton Times (14 January 2011) “Bus contract signed weeks before consultation ended” copy attached.53 NYCC officials refused to comment on claims that they had pre-empted the outcome of the public consultation into the bus cuts by signing a contract with a bus service provider that removed evening and weekend services, three weeks before the consultation period on bus subsidy cuts ended. The contract for services 31A, 31B and 31C in Richmond was signed on 8 October, consultation ended on 31 October 2010. (2) Norman Baker £10 million of funding to kick start Community Transport development. NYCC has received £415,000 from this fund. At a meeting, 30 March 2011, for Community Transport providers, NYCC were asked if the money was ringfenced for CT? The reply was “no it wasn’t” and “NYCC would use the money to support its deficit”. So we the taxpayers can presumably not expect any improvement in rural or evening/ weekend bus services. (3) Hawes/Garsdale Head bus service. This service, provided by Little Red Bus, with a subsidy from NYCC, (£4.31 per passenger journey) connected Garsdale Head station to Hawes village and also took children to local schools. It then provided demand repsonsive services to take residents to the Doctor, Hospital, shops etc. Garsdale Head is on the very successful Settle-Carlisle line, which was saved from closure by the local community some 20 years ago. The railway provides a vital link for those travelling to hospitals in Carlisle, Newcastle and Leeds and for work commuters and also for students travelling to Craven Further Education College, Skipton. (A car journey from Hawes to Skipton takes at least 60 minutes to cover 30 miles on hilly, winding roads.) Without the bus service, Garsdale Head can only be accessed by car, as it is remotely situated, high above Hawes about three miles from the village. After taking children to school, LRB connected to buses running down Swaledale to the larger service centres at Leyburn and Bedale and connecting to Richmond and Ripon. LRB also took walking parties and tourists from the trains into Hawes, where what they spent was a great boost to the local low wage economy. NYCC decided to withdraw funding for the service and it was due to end first week of April 2011). Miraculously, NYCC then found funding to provide a new eight seater minibus, which meets only two of the trains at Garsdale Head (10am and 7.30pm) The new service is being provided by Upper Wensleydale Community Partnership in conjunction with NYCC but LRB was never involved in any discussions about the service and only learned about the service from press announcements. Strangely, the service being provided by UWCP is not dissimilar in type to that provided by LRB. The main difference is that LRB service was much more frequent and comprehensive. Services ran Mon-Sat, during 12 hours of the day and met all the trains coming in to Garsdale Head. The UWCP service doesn’t seem to be very integrated when it no longer takes the children to school or meets each train that comes into the station and attempts were made to persuade drivers from LRB to join the new scheme which seems heavily reliant on untrained volunteers. Journeys will be at “a very subsidised cost”, presumably up to £7.50 per passenger journey. (Max subsidy that NYCC will pay.) (Article in Yorkshire Post 17 March, “residents get on board to save village buses.”) I cannot understand how the new service can be better when service levels are reduced and cost must surely have increased, when taking into account the provision of a new vehicle. I have now learnt that the new service has not been able to commence “because of a lack of resources” and so LRB have been asked to step into the breach!! 53 www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/8792266.Bus_contract_signed_weeks_before_consultation_ended/ cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w144 Transport Committee: Evidence

(4) The rural areas of North Yorkshire are very heavily dependent on cars and buses, as there are few railway lines and these tend to be on the county borders, as far as the very rural Dales area is concerned. (Carlisle- Settle-Skipton-Leeds) NYCC committed to reduce carbon emissions from transport, which are currently 38% of all emissions in N Yorks, by 32% by 2020. (Nationally CO2 emissions from transport average 21%) Unless more bus services are provided, CT or otherwise, people will have to make more use of cars, with consequent increases in carbon emissions. Cuts in bus subsidies and bus services, will only lead to higher CO2 emissions. — The community of Sleights, near Whitby was going to lose its bus services in the evening and weekends. This would have been a disaster for those who work in the pubs and restaurants of Whitby and needed to get home after their evening shift. NYCC totally ignored submissions by the locals and their Councillors. Fortunately, they took matters into their own hands. After discussions with the bus company it was agreed that fares would be increased, but services will still run and residents can remain gainfully employed. (5) At a time of rising fuel prices, N Yorks households in rural areas are spending at least £1,000 per annum extra on transport costs compared to households in urban areas and a further £1,600 extra on other household bills, (heating oil—no gas in rural areas-food etc) because of the costs of “importing” goods into remote rural areas (ONS). (6) There will always have to be subsidies for rural bus services, but NYCC seem to think this is not the case. There are not the volumes of passengers and the travelling distances between customers and their services are much greater than for those in the urban areas (60 minutes from Hawes to hospital A&E) thus affecting financial viability of services. However, that is not to say that subsidies cannot be reduced year on year. (As they have been by Dales and Bowland Community Interest Company buses.) — The current piecemeal attitude of providing subsidy for one or two years and then withdrawing the subsidy means that passengers are fearful of being reliant on public transport. Unfortunately, the old, sick, unemployed and disabled are most affected by this policy. If there isn’t a bus service, they are trapped in their homes and become reliant on others to do shopping for them, take them to the doctor and the hospital etc. Isolation often leads to depression, (an unnecessary charge on NHS.) — Also there is not much point having a concessionary bus pass if there are no buses on which to use the pass. — The unemployed find it almost impossible to look for work, Internet connections in remoter areas are very poor and if they find work, usually low paid, how are they going to travel to it? (DWP then has to pay unemployment benefit for those who cannot get to work—these are NOT people who do not want to work) — Students have journeys of at least one hour to reach further education establishments. The costs and time involved may well put off many teenagers from furthering their education, thus exacerbating the problem of young people without qualifications. (7) NYCC Integrated Passenger Transport Unit. I do not understand why NYCC feels the need to have its own in house Integrated Passenger Transport Unit. (ITPU) I thought it was a recognised fact that private operators, CT and public transport providers are more likely to offer cost effective solutions. An integrated service makes the very best use of the resources available and delivers best value for money for those services, at the same time keeping down CO2 emissions. Discussions with CT providers, local employers, tourist attractions etc must be a starting point when considering provision of rural bus services (subsidised or not) NYCC only seem to understand that they have a pot of money for Education, one for Social Services, one for Transport etc. They all seem to be so busy fighting to preserve their own Empires, that there is no co-operation and thus services are duplicated, such as buses only for school pupils, which could also be used by Social Services, employees, walkers etc. NYCC do not seem to be interested in having discussions with CT providers as a whole. They seem to fear competition with their own IPTU. — In the rural areas a properly integrated service would mean a 16 seater mini bus could pick up pupils from outlying farms, hamlets and villages and take them to school along with people going to work and transport them to a larger village or town for transfer to larger vehicles or the train for onward travel to their destination. The larger bus may well have been “fed” passengers by a number of feeder services. The minibus can then be used during the day (downtime) to pick up those who have appointments at the doctors surgery, need to do some shopping, need to get to hospital appointments, socialise with lunch clubs or daytime outings. The minibus can then do the school hometime run and later in the evening be used to bring commuters back and also children who might have attended after school activities. It could also take people to their evening/night shift jobs. — NYCC officers appear unwilling or unable to provide members with all the relevant facts when it comes to making cost saving decisions. The only option looked at for savings on bus subsidies was to remove subsidies on all evening, weekend and Bank Holiday services. The fact that some daytime services were receiving larger subsidies than some evening services was conveniently overlooked. The officers also appear not to understand that not everyone only works between the hours of 9am and 5pm, Monday -Friday. This was borne out by questioning of an NYCC officer at TSC 22nd March 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w145

(8) Public and Community Transport is the key to vibrant communities and with reliable services leads to more tourists coming to the area, without their cars, and businesses being willing to invest in the area because they would not need to worry about how their staff would get in to work. Not everything can be done by computer! A good integrated transport system, using service buses, CT and train services would help reduce Carbon emissions in the N Yorks region, would bring in tourists, whose spending would support the local economy and would improve the quality of life for the many isolated communities in the region. When the travelling public see that there is a reliable alternative to travelling by car they will switch. The key word is reliable. Subsidies introduced for a year or two and then withdrawn, cannot give reliability. It takes time and a lot of effort for services to develop. Inevitably, subsidies will be high in the beginning, but as more people use the local transport services and feel confident that they can rely on them, so the passenger numbers will increase and subsidies will reduce. It is however a fallacy that subsidies will never be needed in rural areas. — Over the years NYCC has received £millions in grants, supposedly for transport. There seems to be very little to show for it. NYCC have bought vehicles for their Integrated Unit which are not being used efficiently. Drivers fail to turn out in bad weather and do not know the communities that they serve. In spite of LRB having a very good scheduling system, which they have been willing to share with NYCC in the past, officers seem determined to have their own in house scheduling system, at great cost, which would seem to duplicate what already exists.

(9) NYCC produced its LTP in October 2010, the LSTF was mentioned. Along with many others, I became involved with the Dales Integrated Transport Alliance, in preparing a bid for the fund. We had to liaise with NYCC ITPU ofﬁcials who in my opinion were certainly not very supportive. We saw the fund as a big opportunity to improve transport in the very rural county of N Yorks. NYCC did not bother to inform the seven District Councils in N Yorks about the LSTF fund until mid February 2011, and suggested that Councils send in bids by 25 March 2011, which would, if deemed acceptable by NYCC, be put forward into tranche 2 of LSTF. (Funds not available until mid 2012) — A member of the public at Ryedale District council meeting asked why the LSTF was not on the Agenda, since surely all Councils could use some funding for transport initiatives. The response was that there wasn’t time to prepare a bid and so there was no point in mentioning the fund!

If NYCC genuinely wanted to provide the best service for their Council tax payers, they surely should have informed the District Councils back in October 2010 that the LSTF fund would soon be available and perhaps “Districts would like to start thinking of ideas for bids”, so that they would be ready when the criteria for funding were known. Instead they “sat on their hands” and “took the easy way out and did nothing”. As a result, as far as I am aware, only the DITA bid will be ready for the ﬁrst tranche of funding. Once again the taxpayers will miss out on funding to improve transport in their region.

No doubt if there had been any bid criteria for the £10 million of CT funding recently awarded, we in N Yorks would have gone without yet again!

(10) NYCC, as part of its Service Centre Transportation Strategy, recently announced plans to reroute the A61 away from the centre of Harrogate, at a cost of some £800,000 minimum. There has been a tidal wave of letters to the local press against the proposal. I ﬁnd it very perverse that NYCC Transport cannot come up with suitable schemes for CT/improved local transport for LSTF bid, yet can produce a transport scheme that nobody wants. Until NYCC stop thinking in their silos and look at Transport as a whole, we will never achieve an integrated, more environmentally friendly and cost effective transport system in N Yorks.

In summing up, as a mere council tax payer, I strongly believe that Community Transport providers are far better placed and more willing to take note of what their communities want. A major overhaul of how funding for transport schemes is disbursed is long overdue. There seem to be too many different pots of money, each with their own criteria. To work well, Transport needs to be integrated and therefore those delivering the services need to think in more creative ways. There seems to be plenty of will, problem solvers and people ready to take action amongst the local communities, The Big Society, but all their efforts seem to be severely hampered by funding going to the top, where those “in charge” seem unwilling or unable to commence a dialogue with service users and be open to new ideas. Consequently bus users in North Yorkshire have been severely and unnecessarily disadvantaged by a system that is clearly not ﬁt for purpose.

I sincerely hope that Transport users in North Yorkshire and transport providers will see some life changing improvements over the coming months to their rural bus services. With a little co-operation from the “powers that be” we could all enjoy a much better integrated service that actually gives value for money and reduces CO2 emissions. April 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w146 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from J Powers (BUS 131) Can I take this opportunity to make you aware of the situation have found ourselves in because of the Government cuts which have lead to the withdrawal of bus services to the rural village in which we live. We live in Elwick Village which is on the outskirts of Hartlepool, which is in the region of four miles from the nearest sixth form college, with no footpaths out of the village. Because of this when my daughter began college she was given a bus pass which didn’t go directly to the college, but did get her into the vicinity, she was then able to walk the remainder of the way which wasn’t ideal but meant that she could pursue her further education. Since the removal of the bus service my daughter now has NO way of getting to and from college. As we work in Darlington which is approx. 25 miles away all she can do on an evening when college closes is walk to the nearest shopping centre and wander aimlessly until the shops close until we can get there to pick her up. Considering some days she ﬁnishes college at 12.15pm and we can’t get into Hartlepool until 5.30pm it’s not surprising that my daughter is worried about her future. Is she surely not entitled to the education she deserves? My daughter works very hard and gets excellent grades and I feel appalled that her future education is being jeopardised in this way! At the moment the only way she can even get to college is because she is allowed to get on the High Tunstall school bus and walk the remainder of the way to college, but she is only allowed this provision until July when she will be totally stranded with no way of ﬁnishing her A levels and the education she has worked so hard for. My daughter’s social life has also been badly affected as she can no longer meet up with and go out with her friends who live outside of the village. She had a part time job in town which she has recently had to give up because of the removal of the village bus service. Does the Government not want us to bring up children who want to be educated and work for a living? I would be very grateful if you could pass on our worries and concerns to the Transport Select Committee about this matter and help save the future education of our children. I look forward to hearing about the outcome and conclusion of the investigation. April 2011

Written evidence from Bus Users Shropshire (BUS 132) This submission is made on behalf of Bus Users Shropshire, a newly formed group of passengers who wish to see higher quality bus services in our county. The group formed as a result of Shropshire Council’s proposals to signiﬁcantly reduce services across the county. We are not in a position to comment on the ﬁnancial background of Shropshire Council or of government policy and its effects on council funding. We are able to provide our understanding of Shropshire Council’s changes and their effects on us and on people like us. Our evidence draws on the experiences of canvassing hundreds of bus passengers during February and March 2011, from the 100+ people who attended a public meeting in March held specially to express concern about the Shropshire Bus Strategy, and from the 36 people who have come together this month to form the core of Bus Users Shropshire.

The Impact of the Reduction in Bus Service Operators’ Grant, and the Impact of the Reduction in Local Authority Grant Support The impact seen so far in Shropshire has been: — Subsidy withdrawn from several “less used” services entirely. — Withdrawal of services used mainly by school children attending schools which are not their closest. — Fares increases. — Service frequency reductions in commercially operated services. Although not slated for any change by Shropshire Council, the Shropshire Hills tourist mini bus service has been halved because of withdrawal of support from other partner agencies. Shropshire Council’s Bus Strategy proposes further changes this year: — Removal of subsidy from all Sunday services. These currently operate on ﬁve interurban routes across the county, and on four urban routes wholly within Shrewsbury. — Removal of subsidy from all evening services Monday–Saturday. These currently operate on four urban routes wholly within Shrewsbury. — Reduction in subsidy on seven interurban routes across the county day time Monday–Saturday. Frequencies will change from hourly to every two hours. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w147

— Further frequency reductions in some “less used” services. For example it is proposed that the town of Bishops Castle will have a six hours gap in day time services to Shrewsbury. Bus Users Shropshire members know that people rely on buses as an essential means of getting about to do most of the 101 things that car drivers use their cars for. The effects of the changes that have already taken place, and which are planned to take place, will have significant impact on people’s ability to get to and from work during the evening and on Sundays (note: many people’s shifts continue after 6pm, while Sundays are an increasingly popular shopping day), to get to church, to see family members on a Sunday, to go to hospital to visit on a Sunday, to have days out on a Sunday. In order to be sure of leaving the town centre before the last bus home, potential passengers will need to set out extra early. We believe the proposed changes to the network will undermine public confidence in using buses and will discourage modal change away from the motor car. We note that many people who currently use buses have no alternative viable mode of travel. Many users are young, old, poor, disabled or vulnerable. Town traders have expressed concern both to us and in the media about loss of takings because of evening and Sunday service cuts. We have taken evidence that people in Shrewsbury town consider bus fares to be expensive. At £1.80 single (and with no return fares available) a journey to town for a mum and two children costs £7.20 there and back, significantly more expensive than taking a car and paying to park. Arriva have explained that their recent fares increase (and service frequency reduction) on commercially operated services has been decided upon to protect profit following changes in government grants/concessionary fares payments. It is noted that Shropshire Council chooses to charge “park and ride” passengers considerably less for similar routes that are more frequent and faster, and which use state of the art modern buses (and which have free parking thrown in).

The Impact of Changes to Free Off-peak Travel for Elderly and Disabled People Until 31 March 2011 Shropshire Council permitted concessionary pass holders to use their passes at any time. Since 1 April these have been limited to “after 9.30am”. We have received numerous responses to this change: — People with a learning disability have said they need to get to their place of work or college during peak hours and the cost of paying bus fares will be a huge expense for them. They used to have a different scheme, rather than the elderly persons scheme, which permitted earlier travel at a reduced rate. — People with learning disabilities have explained they have difﬁculty with numbers and counting out change. By having to pay in cash in future they will be put off using buses and from going out as the delay they may cause while paying is likely to result in unpleasant comments being made by other members of the public. — Older people living in rural Shropshire have said how unfair the 9.30 rule is as it works to the advantage of people who live near big towns, and against those who live furthest away. For example a bus leaving a rural town at 9am and arriving in Shrewsbury at 9.50am will be cash only for its ﬁrst half hour of travel, but as it nears Shrewsbury it will start being accessible to concessionary card holders from 9.30am. Not only do people living furthest away have the most expensive fares to pay, they often have less frequent services meaning that if they wish to use their concessionary card they may not arrive in Shrewsbury until 11.50am. — Some older people have said they would prefer to be able to pay half fare at any time, or pay an annual fee in order to have free travel at any time. — We would prefer the rule to apply at the terminus of the service ie buses that arrive at their destination after 9am or 9.30am would be open to concessionary card holders, rather than at the point of boarding which has the iniquitous inequality as noted above. — While it is understood that in major urban centres buses are used for commuting and may have no spare capacity, in rural counties there is usually plenty of spare space on board and it is not believed there is any loss of revenue to the operator from permitting concessionary card holders to use services prior to 9.30am. An earlier cut off of 9am might be a workable compromise.

How Passengers’ Views are taken into Account, and the Role of Passenger Focus in the Area We are not aware of any standing consultative arrangement in Shropshire to gauge passengers’ views. On this occasion we understand that the changes introduced in February and April 2011 were not consulted on. The proposed changes in the Bus Strategy for implementation later this year have been part of a consultation by Shropshire Council involving posters at the bus stations with online survey form. Six roadshow events run by Shropshire Council were poorly advertised and were all held during working hours. No representative of Shropshire Council attended the public meeting held to express concern about the Bus Strategy despite an invitation being extended. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w148 Transport Committee: Evidence

We understand that Shropshire Council invited Passenger Focus to comment on the Bus Strategy and we have seen a copy of Passenger Focus’ response. April 2011

Written evidence from P Gibson (BUS 133) I live in the village of Dalton Piercy near Hartlepool, due to cuts in public subsidies to bus operators we no longer have a bus service passing through the village. This means that for anyone without a car there is a three mile walk to the nearest centre of Hartlepool. Many people here are pensioners, a taxi is a considerable portion of their meagre pension for the round trip. I realise that due to the ﬁnancial mess left by the previous government we are in parlous times but please give some consideration to the case put forward by our local MP, Mr I Wright. April 2011

Written evidence from Northampton Group of Bus Users UK (BUS 134) 1.0 Impact of Reduction in Local Authority Grant Support 1.1 As a user group we were dismayed to hear from the local media that Northamptonshire County Council supported bus services were to be totally withdrawn. However this did give the Local Transport Authority the opportunity to start with a blank piece of paper to provide a more cost-effective provision of bus services throughout the whole county. 1.2 The bus subsidy budget was reduced from £3.4 million to £0.7 million, but later revised to £1.0 million. 1.3 Our main concern is that the county council have yet to determine exactly how to effectively spend their lower allocation of funds. 1.4 We currently have a situation where a rural bus service has been reduced from two buses operating the service, to one. There was a two hour frequency from 0700 to 1900 hours. This now means that a journey which on a clockwise circular route used to take 20 minutes, now takes 80 minutes going anti-clockwise. They have two buses into Northampton in the morning, and two journeys back in the late afternoon. Surely a taxibus to link with nearby shopping centres on the edge of Northampton, with links to other buses, would be more suitable. Within this same route, other villagers who have shops and medical facilities just ﬁve miles away, have a ﬁve and a half hour wait to return home by bus. Again, a taxi-bus at mid-day could solve this problem. 1.5 All relevant parish councils are presently being contacted, with a 27 May deadline, with new “dial a ride” or “community” bus services being introduced from 5 September.

2.0 Impact of the Administration of Disabled and Senior Citizen Bus Passes being Transferred from District to County 2.1 The re-imbursement from the local transport authority to the bus operators has now reached an all time low of around 38p in the pound per journey made. 2.2 One bus company in the county has written to the thirteen parish councils their bus service passes through, asking for financial assistance. 2.3 Senior citizens are asking to be allowed to pay £1 each time they travel. They are requesting permission to do this on all journeys, in order to save their bus service. Otherwise they will feel stranded. This would be similar to a scheme this county introduced when travelling outside the District of residence, when free passes were first introduced. Any payment, however, is currently not allowed by the present law of the land. I understand that one bus chain is asking for donations. 2.4 Bus companies are re-costing the viability of providing a bus service where the majority of passengers are pass-holders, finding them not viable, and either asking the Local Transport Authority for public funding, or withdrawing from the route. (See 1.4 as an example). 2.5 Some villages currently receiving a two hourly frequency, six days a week, ace the prospect of just one bus each way, on one or two days a week.

3.0 Consultation 3.1 An on-line “Have Your Say” consultation is presently under way (1.5) Local press are urging bus passengers to participate. 3.2 Passenger Focus and Bus Users U.K. At national level have organised a “YOUR BUS MATTERS” surgery in Northampton Market Square on 4 June 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w149

3.3 One national canal attraction. With limited parking, is included on the bus route at 1.4, and is asking for a better bus service. 3.4 Passengers need to travel to places of work, medical and dental appointments, probation service appointments, connect with rail and ferry services. Leisure pursuits will no doubt be non-existent with the withdrawal of evening and Sunday journeys. This is a quality of life issue.

4. Conclusion I feel consultation should have carried out earlier, in order to allay bus passengers fears. We felt we were in limbo, as no dates for implementation were forthcoming, until the recent consultation launch. The end result may prove to be suitable to most, but not all passengers needs. It is intended to provide schemes similar to those operating in Lincolnshire, in most parts of the county. Bus stop provision for two bus stops, so as not to tread on a commercial route, requested in August 2010 has yet to be installed. A revised service, requiring a subsidy, with a suggested time-table following a meeting attended by Andrea Leadsom M.P. In October 2010 has still to be introduced to replace a three hour frequency service in which passengers have lost conﬁdence. As a Bus User Group, we meet four times a year with representatives from both the Local Transport Authority and the bus companies. At our last meeting First Bus, Stagecoach, Meridian Bus and Centre Bus were all represented. Soul Bothers, Country Lion and Yorks (Bowen) were also invited. Our views and concerns are treated with respect, and changes we suggest are made where possible. April 2011

Written evidence from Somerset County Council (BUS 135) Executive Summary 1. Somerset County Council faces a Budget deficit of £75 million over the next three years. One area of savings identified was a reduction in financial support for local bus services. The reduction agreed by Councillors was £2.4 million out of an annual budget of £5.2 million. Reductions to bus services and in particular evening and Sunday Services were discussed in Cabinet and Full Council meetings at which members of the public and transport user groups were present. The decision to withdraw funding from Evening and Sunday bus services initially was taken to protect the funding of daytime bus services for as long as possible. A significant proportion of evening and Sunday bus services have been taken on commercially by bus operators. A further cut of £1.4 million is required over the next two financial years and measures are already being put in place to consult more widely and allow more time for public comments and suggestions. 2. Somerset County Council has a gap between income and expenditure of £75 million over the next three years. These financial pressures have come about due to three main factors: the Government’s announcement reducing our income, the huge pressure we face from a growing elderly and vulnerable population and the expense that brings and, locally, from the level of debt we are carrying at Somerset County Council. 3. As a result of this financial situation Councillors have been forced to make decisions to reduce expenditure across a range of services provided by the Authority and one area where funding reductions were identified was in our support for local public bus services. 4. Our budget for local bus services for 2010–11 stood at £5.2 million. Due to the rural nature of the County the vast majority of bus services in Somerset receive some level of direct financial support from us. This funding provides a wide range of services across the county from Market Day routes, School and College Day services, Evening and Sunday services, regular daytime services and a Park & Ride scheme in Taunton. The scale of the reduction in funding for local bus services identified was £2.4 million over a three year period which represents a very significant reduction in this budget. 5. Some months before any changes were made; information was made available in a general sense indicating that financial support for all Evening and Sunday bus services was under threat. These proposals were discussed in both Cabinet and Full Council meetings which were attended by members of the public and representatives of user groups such as the Campaign for Better Transport and Passengers Focus and widely reported in the local press. 6. The withdrawal of funding for Evening and Sunday bus services along with a very small number of poorly supported daytime services enabled us to reach our initial savings target of just under £1 million for the first year of our funding reductions. The thinking behind the focus on Evening and Sunday services was two- fold. Firstly our belief that we should continue to protect daytime services for as long as possible in order to facilitate transport for the majority of residents travelling to work, education, medical appointments and social activities. Secondly, our records suggested that within our funding for these services there were significant elements of the timetables that could be operated commercially and therefore we believed that the market would best identify those services during the evening and Sundays that were sustainable. This view has been borne out by the commercial registration of a significant proportion of the services we withdrew funding for. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w150 Transport Committee: Evidence

7. We did consider continuing funding some evening and Sunday services and withdrawing more daytime services in the first year. But if we had pursued this course of action we would have offered support for the most popular of these services whereas as it has turned out these have been re-instated commercially allow us to save funding which will enable us to protect more daytime services in the future. 8. As we continue to address our funding deficit further reductions totalling £1.4 million are planned for our local bus service funding in the next two financial years. Knowing the scale of the funding reductions we now have to make will allow us to move forward much earlier with proposals for reductions in the next two financial years. We have already arranged to hold an additional Public Transport Forum meeting at County Hall in Taunton in early July. This will allow us to begin to formulate our plans by taking comments and observations from user groups, operators and members of the public before drawing up and publishing our proposals for further reductions later in the year giving considerably more time for consultation and comment from the wider public before final decisions are taken on the reductions for the 2012–13 financial year. April 2011

Written evidence from the Save Our 6–7 Buses Campaign (BUS 136) 1. Summary Residents have been campaigning for a full year since our 6–7 bus route within the city of Bath was, and still is, severely affected by cuts from three sources: the bus company, (First); the Council, (Bath and North East Somerset Council, B&NES) and central government cuts. Negotiations with First and the council have stalled. First claims they need subsidy. The council says it cannot afford to subsidise it because it has to provide funds to prevent loss of other services, such as those crossing county lines from neighbouring Somerset Council and Wiltshire Council which have withdrawn bus funding due to central government cuts. We see the council’s lack of response to our community’s need as a direct effect of those cuts. We recommend that central government approves transport funding for the Bath region and stipulates—or at least strongly recommends—that an additional bus is allocated to serve the 6–7 route.

2. Introduction This submission is made on behalf of 235 bus passengers in north east Bath who responded to a survey circulated less than two weeks ago by the “Save Our 6–7 Buses” campaign for your committee. Ours is a grass-roots campaign begun May 2010 when our route was literally cut in half by First, leaving us now with the worst frequency in Bath, 40 minutes—half the former frequency—in a very hilly, densely populated area. Thus the submission is also made on behalf of our whole community, shops, schools, health centre, etc. suffering from inadequate bus service linked to central government cuts. We are not seeking to regain our old frequency of 20 minutes, appreciating the economic constraints, but are asking for a 30-minute frequency, requiring the return of one of the two withdrawn buses.

3. Background Prior to May 2010, the Fairﬁeld Park/Larkhall area was served by ﬁve buses on a 20-minute frequency. First Bus then severed the route between two halves of the local area over a steep hill. This meant each half went separately into Bath centre rather than connecting them as before. At the same time, it reduced the number of buses travelling the route to three. After intense campaigning, the connection was re-instated on 1 August, 2010, but without replacing either of the two lost buses. This has left us with a confusing 40-minute timetable which is totally inadequate to serve this large area.

4. The Save Our 6–7 Buses Campaign The campaign team has been made up of ordinary citizens: a physiotherapist, retired civil servant, artist, cycle ride organiser, psychotherapist/nurse, retired office manager, and a journalist. We attended meetings with First and the council from the beginning, attempting to explain the damaging effect on our community, and learning a lot about bus transport. We called a public meeting; submitted a petition with more than 2,000 signatures to First Bus; mounted several high profile demonstrations; established “Adopt-a-Stop”, a unique communication system with bulletins emailed to residents around the route to post on all the bus stops; letter- writing campaigns and created an email list of 200 people who have opted to stay informed. We were chosen by the Bath Chronicle as “Campaign of the Year” for 2010, but the fight goes on. Since re-instatement of the connecting loop, there has been no progress in improving our frequency because of the National Spending Review and subsequent cuts.

5. Environmental Factors in North East Bath: Physical Bath is plagued with traffic congestion which impacts on punctuality. These delays, compounded with the infrequency, result in times when the buses do not even make it around or are so full when they finally appear that they cannot take any more passengers and leave people behind waiting at bus stops. The topography is very hilly, with essential services, post office, local shops and schools in the lower Larkhall area, the Health cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w151

Centre on a steep hill in Fairﬁeld Park, and no amenities at the top of the whole area, making it very difﬁcult for less ambulant residents and those without cars. “Grinding to a halt: Mounting fears over gridlock in Bath” Headline (Bath Chronicle, 30 September 2010)

6. Environmental Factors: Social The 6–7 route serves an area with approximately 9,000 residents in three council wards, approximately 10% of the population of the city of Bath, (84,000) with young families, students, the whole range of residents. In spite of Bath’s reputation for being affluent, there are some council estates and relatively deprived neighbourhoods here. There is a slightly larger elderly population than in other areas of Bath.54 Many pensioners use their “Diamond Card” for free bus travel after 9:30am, which are subsidised at £.61p/journey so areas with more younger bus users would be more lucrative from the bus company’s perspective. Our route offers a clear instance of the damaging effects of the chronic under-funding of this scheme, and this must have been a factor in First’s perception of our route as not sufficiently profitable.

7. Competition for Diminishing Funds, Outgoings B&NES is using a proportion of its Transport Budget to support services coming into the area cut by Somerset Council, (bordering B&NES) such as Sunday, evening and Bank holiday services on the 173 route between Bath & Wells, affecting ten B&NES wards, and also the 376 between Bristol & Wells, affecting three wards. Wiltshire Council’s 265, 231, 231 and 272 are likewise being cut and will draw on B&NES’ budget. Since B&NES is funding these and possible future cuts, it has not been willing to pay the £80,000 quoted by First Bus as the full cost of the return of one bus. (We question this ﬁgure. Is full cost needed? “The problem is we don’t have the buses we need, and from April 17 we will lose a lot of passengers because funding cuts by Somerset County council have affected Sunday and evening services.” Norman Browne, of the South West Transport Planning Network (South West Business, 8 April 2011.)

8. Diminishing Funds, Income

A possible factor in the downgrading of our route has been delay in the approval of the Bath Transport Package (BTP) and threat to its funding. The BTP formed the basis of a Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) bid to the Department for Transport in 2006. “Programme Entry” for the BTP was conﬁrmed in October 2007, meaning that government funding for the scheme was provisionally secured through its Major Transport Scheme funding process. If the BTP is approved, we hope a small amount could fund a “de minimus” arrangement with First to make up any shortfall they incur with a returned bus, rather than the full £80,000 … but this remains to be negotiated. “Nonetheless, it is important to remember that it is reductions to funding from central Government that are the root of the vast majority of bus cuts facing the country”. (Campaign for Better Transport website, Buses blog, 8 March 2011)

9. Fuel Costs & Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG): The Bigger Picture

BSOG reimburses 67% of the £.5895 per litre excise duty on fuel for registered bus operators. It is being cut by 20% in phases between 2012 and 2015. Combined with any changes over funding pensioners’ free travel, there will be a big impact on bus companies, in spite of the optimistic tone of Jeff Carr, First’s Finance Director, in his “Pre-close trading update” Friday 11 March 2011. “…we expect to manage the impact of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, in particular the reduction of Bus Service Operators Grant from April 2012, through mitigating actions including increased efficiencies.” Exactly what these efficiencies entail is spelled out in First’s UK half-yearly interim report to Sept 2010 by Tim O’Toole, First’s Chief Executive: “In this lower revenue growth environment, we continue to prioritise cost reductions and network management on a route by route basis. Where we have seen changes in passenger demand we have responded promptly with targeted frequency or mileage reductions which will enable the business to deliver an improved operating margin.” (Page 5). He observes how the company’s performance supports the board’s policy of delivering at least 7% per annum increase on dividends to shareholders and says: “We have continued to take advantage of the flexible operating model in UK Bus which we can adjust to match supply with demand and during the period we reduced mileage year on year by approximately 6%.” (Page 7) So it is clear that any reduction in BSOG will convert straight into cuts to less profitable routes, leaving millions of people stranded, impairing local economies, detracting from quality of life and increasing carbon emissions from cars. “The industry has been hit by a series of issues: increased fuel duty, increasing fuel pump prices and a reduction in concessionary fare reimbursements.” Mr Pickford of Faresaver Buses, a local rival of First, (Bath Chronicle, 10 March 2011.) 54 Bath and North East Somerset Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment Consultation Document, 27 October, 2010, pub. by B&NES and Bath and North East Somerset NHS, chart p.14 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w152 Transport Committee: Evidence

10. First’s Response Locally In our meetings last year with First’s managing directors, it became clear that the UK’s “flexible operating model” was being utilised and that the reason given for cutting our service was not “to improve punctuality and reliability,” as originally stated in the service change registered with the Traffic Commission or in the minimal local publicity before the cut, but was instead due to the company’s perception that our route was not sufficiently profitable.

11. The People’s Response Over 10 days recently, we distributed a questionnaire based on your committee’s areas of interest, speciﬁcally to gain data for this submission. Questionnaire 9–19 April 2011, 235 returned, not all answered all questions, many Yes No included comments 1. Is the No 6 & 7 bus service important to you? 221 1 2. Have you been affected adversely by the cut from 20 minutes to 40 minutes in the 220 1 frequency of the 6/7 bus? 3.55 Would you be in favour of free bus pass holders being asked to pay something 10956 115 towards bus tickets if this would generate funds for improved services? 4. Do you think the views of bus users are taken into account when companies such 557 225 as First Bus plan changes to services?

We staffed a stall in the shopping area for the busiest four hours on Saturday 16 April. We invited 18 local council candidates to attend from the three affected wards and nine attended, as well as a press photographer for the article in the local paper.

12. Recommendations for Action Our primary recommendation is that central government approves transport funding for the Bath region and stipulates—or strongly recommends—that one of the two buses taken off be returned to serve the 6–7 route, to approximate a 30 minute service. Since we have shown that our route is affected by problems in the larger context such as central government cuts leading to cuts elsewhere which impact on our council budget and First, we recommend that: 1. That no urban area should provide a bus frequency below 30 minutes. 2. That the Department of Transport should issue clear guidance to local authorities to ring fence moneys for buses. 3. That local authorities be instructed to allocate parking ﬁnes to local transport. 4. That any bus service reductions or improvements be subject to full consultation with all users. 5. That West of England Partnership with Somerset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Swindon and Greater Bristol be made to work together in an Integrated Transport Authority or transport partnership with powers to regulate fares and frequencies, tender and improve bus, rail and ferry services. 6. That there should be no cuts in budgets to improve bus shelters, real time information, bus stations, interchanges with rail and investment in bus priority measures or new low ﬂoor vehicles.

13. Comments from the Questionnaires A small selection “Our bus service is now the worst in Bath. Government policy should be to increase bus services in our attempt to lessen carbon emissions.” “I am a non car user so the 6/7 bus is very important.” “Try standing at the bus stops with a hyper five year old and a screaming baby for 40 mins to see how users feel about the service!” “As a student living in Fairfield Park area the bus service has proved detrimental to my schedule and I would nor recommend students moving to that area.” From Fairfield Park Health Centre: “The service changes were implemented without any consultation with local residents or service users, and with no consideration for the impact on the local community, businesses and residents. For example, a large number of the patients of Fairfield Park Health Centre are elderly and/or have limited mobility, therefore they rely on the 6/7 service to get to the surgery from Larkhall. The journey from Larkhall to Fairfield Park includes a significant incline which many elderly 55 The campaign team feels strongly that the free travel for over 60’s is a socially inclusive measure and we would not like to see it eroded. It is also one giant step towards getting people out of cars and onto public transport. 56 Most favourable comments included a proviso that the contribution should be small and affordable (30–50p) and that there was a danger that this might be the “thin end of the wedge” 57 These five commented that first responded after the campaign persuaded First to reinstate the route on August 1st. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w153

patients would not be able to manage on foot. Having a regular, reliable service that operates between Larkhall and Fairfield Park is essential for the continued success and future development of these thriving communities.” “It is crucial that local communities have good public transport links.” “Because the service is less regular I am far more likely to use the car and hence the roads are more congested.” “This bus is useless if you have an appointment or need to catch a specific train, just too irregular and unpredictable, so I have to use a taxi or persuade someone to drive in, which is crazy when we are trying to get traffic down. Need more regular service.” “The reduced service has made it very difficult for Larkhall residents. The timing (every 40 mins) makes the timetable difficult to relate to—even a half hour service would be more understandable.” “By cutting the buses it damages the community—it damages local shops.” “As a very elderly disabled pensioner I am in a constant state of anxiety when going into town for the return journey: Will the bus come—I can’t stand & wait for the next one Will I be able to get on it room-wise When or where can I sit as I travel with a 3 wheeler walking aid and I am very limited that way. I never had this problem when the service was every 20 mins.” “It’s a long wait when the bus is every 40 mins. I use the car more—which goes against my principles. Bus fares are wicked in Bath—much higher than elsewhere.” “A reduced bus service leads to even less passengers making it less and less viable. A better service should encourage more bus use.” “The worst sort of publicity for First is to have the bus sail past at the bus stop. Do they realise this?” “This service is grossly inefficient; the buses never appear to run when scheduled and 40 minutes is too long to wait for a bus.” April 2011

Written evidence from J Raggett and A lock (BUS 137) The diagram in the annex58 has been devised by Jenny Raggett of Campaign for Better Transport (Bristol/ Bath Travel to Work Area) to illustrate the severity of the cutbacks to bus services across the Bristol/Bath Travel to Work Area. This work has been done to complement the evidence to be given by David Redgewell to today’s Transport Select Committee Inquiry into the funding of Bus Services in England following the Comprehensive Spending Review. Jenny would have forwarded this information to you herself had she not been on the point of leaving for a short holiday on the Continent and the time available did not permit her to search for the address to which to send this evidence. Indeed, I notice that in her haste, Bath has not been named or indicated on the pink circle to the right (east) of Bristol! I should be grateful if this could be made available to David Redgewell when he arrives to give evidence at the Inquiry—and circulated with his evidence to the Members of the Select Committee. Further to my earlier email enclosing the diagrammatic illustration of bus cuts in the Bristol/Bath travel to work area drawn up by Jenny Raggett—I have just heard from David Redgewell that my colleague may not have forwarded the following written information to you. Very brieﬂy these were described to me as follows: 126—Weston/Cheddar/Wells services are cancelled in the evenings and a very limited service available on Sundays. 173—Wells/Bath—service cut backs on Sunday evenings, apart from between Radstock and Midsomer Norton. 376/5—Bristol/Bridgewater—service withdrawn on Sundays and no services in the evenings. 376/7 -Yeovil/Bristol—evening cuts and Sunday cuts with no Bank Holiday services beyond Wells. 21/22—Wellington/Taunton/Bridgewater/Burnham—evening services cancelled apart from Friday and Saturday—and a limited Sunday service: — Bridport/Yeovil/Bristol via Wells—all services withdrawn except two on Sundays. — Dorset Services via Sherborne—withdrawn on Sundays and no evening services.

Investment Funding for the construction of Bus Stations has been withdrawn. These include Bridgewater, Yeovil, Ilfracombe, Exeter, Plymouth, Stroud and Gloucester. 58 Sent to Parliamentary Archives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w154 Transport Committee: Evidence

Rail Connections All of the above cuts to bus services (and the withdrawal of funding for modern bus station facilities) will impact on rail travellers. They will no longer be able to return to their homes due to the lack of suitable bus services from Bristol or Bath Spa Stations. This is an added deterrent for passengers seeking to choose a greener travel pattern. Members should bear in mind that the wider Bristol/SW area already suffers from an acute shortage of rolling stock to adequately transport passengers on local rail journeys. This was temporarily overcome to an extent by a loan of carriages from other regions, but remains a very real problem and cause of aggravation to passengers. In addition it precludes the on-board staff from passing through the carriage to check the validity of tickets, thereby undermining the ﬁnancial beneﬁts to the operating company. It is local rail services which have the ability to persuade drivers out of their cars, thereby avoiding severe road congestion and rising parking charges. May 2011

Written evidence from L Huntington (BUS 138) I am writing to you as a resident of Dalton Piercy, Hartlepool to express my concern at the cuts to the bus services which serves our village along with other outlying villages in the Hartlepool area. As a mother with two young children who doesn’t always have access to a car, this bus service is a vital link with the town. Whilst currently I have access to a car, this is not always the case and indeed, when our car broke down recently and my child was at nursery, I relied on the bus service to be able to collect him from school. The presence of this bus service was the reason that my child is now at that particular nursery. At the time of requesting a nursery place we did not have access to a car, so our choice was limited to the nursery which was on our local bus route. In addition to my own concerns at the loss of a bus service, I worry for my neighbours and the effect it is having on them. On the one side my neighbours are elderly and have no transport of their own. They used the bus service daily to go into town. The bus service not only provided them with a means of transport, enabling them to continue independent living, but also allowed them to meet up with their friends who travelled on the same bus route. Indeed, when I used the bus it was quite clear that it was a community in itself! My other neighbours have a teenage child who was able to be independent through the use of the bus. My concern for her and other teenagers in the village, including my own future teenagers, is that they now have no means of independently getting themselves into town for college or work, thus risking the slow demise of the villages as living communities as families take the decision to relocate to areas which prove more accessible for them. It is for these reasons that I am writing to ask you to raise and consider if in any way it is possible to bring about a change in the decision to end this essential bus service. May 2011

Written evidence from K Beacham (BUS 139) I live in a village with a bus link to Taunton and Yeovil. Our service has been cut recently as the County Council withdrew its subsidy and we have no night buses or Sunday service which affects several people who live in the village and need to go to work as they have no other means of transport. I don’t think passengers views are taken into account this is all about proﬁt. Free travel for the elderly and disabled is important when you rely on public transport. May 2011

Written evidence from Bridget Phillipson MP (BUS 140) 1.0 Foreword 1.1 During my campaign and since election as Member of Parliament for Houghton and Sunderland South I continue to receive regular concerns from constituents about the price of fares, the routes of buses and the frequency of service. I share the concerns of constituents; I do not believe that the bus service available is adequate, especially as we are not served by a rail or light rail link. 1.2 In January this year I launched “The Big Bus Survey” (www.thebigbussurvey.co.uk) to help gather more information about the level of service in my constituency. In the ﬁve months since its launch, I have received almost 1,000 responses, and they continue to come in.i On 5 April 2011, I was pleased that “The Big Bus Survey” received government backing in a reply to representations I had made during a backbench business debate.ii cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w155

1.3 Later, on 24 April I was contacted by the Transport Select Committee Clerks who requested I contact those constituents who had previously answered “The Big Bus Survey” and ask them to submit written evidence to the Committee’s inquiry. To ensure the views of my constituents were heard my ofﬁce created a special “online” edition of “The Big Bus Survey” with questions tailored to the speciﬁc terms of reference laid down by the Committee for their inquiry. Forty people completed the survey within the 10 days it was open for people to participate. 1.4 Finally, I wish to thank my constituents for taking part in “The Big Bus Survey”, without their support this submission would not have been possible. I hope the end result will honour their efforts and help deliver a bus network, which is accountable and supports the demands and needs of local people.

2.0 Submission Summary 2.1 Rather than discuss the various policy options and economic benefits of an effective local bus network, which I am already on record as discussing, this submission is driven by the response of local people.iii It is their concerns I have tried to reflect in this submission. 2.2 Broadly, local people want to see lower bus fares and a more frequent service. They expressed frustration with bus operators for changing routes or pulling services with minimal notice and consultation. Specifically, the survey addressed three of the Committee’s terms of reference: — Reductions in the level of service; — Communication with bus companies and local government about services; — Participation in transport surveys from “Passenger Focus”. 2.3 Below, “Chart 1.0: Survey summary” clearly illustrates the answers for each of the three survey questions, whilst Tables 1.0–3.0 break down each questions response to include percentage totals. Chart 1.0 SURVEY SUMMARY cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w156 Transport Committee: Evidence

3.0 Reductions in the Level of Service Table 1.0 Q1 SUMMARY RESPONSES Q1: Have you been affected by reductions/changes to local bus services? Answer Yes No Number 25/40 15/40 Percentage 62.5% 37.5% 3.1 62.5% of respondents stated they had been affected by reductions/changes to local bus services. Out of the 25 people who stated they had been affected all 25 commented on their experience. Below is a representative sample of their comments. 3.2 Kathy Dobson: “We now do not have a direct route to Newcastle, which affects a lot of people in this area. Yes.... we can board a bus to Houghton-le-Spring, Washington or Chester-le-Street and get a bus to Newcastle, but why go ‘round the world’ and add another 40mins to your journey when one bus would do? We always had a direct line until last year when it was deemed to change and give us transport running through the village every 10 minutes during the day (not asked for or required) but an evening bus is a different thing, very little available and after nine o’clock retire!” 3.3 Rosalyn Meadows: “Buses are less frequent. They are not covering the areas they used to. You cannot get buses direct to local towns/cities. The bus service is much less reliable than it used to be.” 3.4 Ann Owen: “The local bus service which gets me to the shops has been reduced from three times an hour to hourly and the rising fare has made it extremely expensive to use. It is ﬁne for the people with bus passes but as it is a short journey the fare of £1.20 is quite prohibitive. My concern is if people don’t use this service due to cost we will lose the service completely so we have a swings and roundabouts situation.”

4.0 Communication with Bus Companies and Local Government about Services Table 2.0 Q2 SUMMARY RESPONSES Q2: Other than “The Big Bus Survey”, have you ever been asked directly by the bus companies, by Nexus or by Sunderland City Council for your views on local buses? Answer Yes No Number 8/40 32/40 Percentage 20% 80% 4.1 80% of respondents stated they had not been asked for their views on local bus services by either operators or local government/regional bodies. Out of the remaining 20 per cent who conﬁrmed they had been asked for their view, the majority expressed concern that their view would not be represented in the end result. Below is a representative sample of their comments. 4.2 Susan Thomas: “Go North East did a survey and the changes being made are the opposite to what I wanted. Survey included information on safety as well.” 4.3 Julie Coxon: “With Go North East—ages ago. Some people completed a survey/consultation and it bore no relation to the changes brought into effect.” 4.4 Kevin Parnacott: “The bus company and Nexus have asked for my opinions. The bus company consulted on only certain aspects of the changes.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w157

5.0 Participation in Transport Surveys from “Passenger Focus” Table 3.0 Q3 SUMMARY RESPONSES Q3: Have you ever been asked to take part in a transport survey from “Passenger focus”? Answer Yes No Number 1/40 39/40 Percentage 2.5% 97.5% 5.1 39 out of the 40 respondents stated they had not been asked to take part in a transport survey from “passenger focus”. May 2011

References i As of 13 May 2011 a total of 870 completed responses to “The Big Bus Survey” have been received. ii “The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) talked about buses. I was intrigued to hear about her big bus survey-a very snappy name for a survey-which, I gathered, was obtaining very useful results. I think that unless we recognise the value of public transport in this country we will be missing a trick, and will not achieve some of our objectives. I hope that she will maintain pressure on local authorities in her area to support bus services where that is appropriate.” David Heath MP, Hansard, 5 April 201 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110405/debtext/110405–0004.htm iii Bridget Phillipson, House Magazine, April 2011

Written evidence from S Long, the Fairer Fares campaign (BUS 141) Brief Outline The Fairer Fares campaign was established by Me Stuart Long in October 2010 with an aim and goal of assisting the members of the public in Leeds & West Yorkshire in receiving a cheaper fare on public transport. The reason for this was and has arisen from the fact that in the last two to three years the area has seen a 40% increase in fares, many people were seen at bus stops complaining that they were paying more and actually receiving less. Speaking to a few friends and listening to the weight of thought on this topic, we launched www.fairerfares.co.uk calling for the change, which we have received a very large response on this topic.

Achieving the Goals The campaign first started by receiving large numbers of signatures from members of the public as well as local councillors on asking for cheaper fares across the city, something that the main operator did not take to well to, with all the media conversation on this quiet topic across the city, we then took to lobbying the members of the house of commons for the city of Leeds and currently hold the signature base of six out of the eight members representing the people of Leeds. With this and maintaining our drive we took to arranging a “Boycott A Bus Day” which we first arranged back in December 2010 and asked members of the public if they could, remember at this time we had just had a large supply of Snow to Leeds and ask where the public felt safe to skip a bus journey or a day of journeys and donate that saved fare(s) to a good cause which we spoke to nine of the main charities across the city and sought permission to place them on the Boycott page, to which I believe from speaking to many people across the city they took part, a voice to which we heard very soon after that First Bus West Yorkshire released a £50,000 (Fifty Thousand Pound) Pot of money for local good causes to apply and also agreeing to freeze bus fares from January for an on-going basis on all there buses. We felt at this point that some good work had been achieved but the three magical goals that stand for Fairer Fares, Cheaper Fares, Regular Services and better local regulation had not been achieved, and we were in conversation with West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and have since met them twice on the topic of Quality Contracts. Could we add at this point that in October/November 2010 we welcomed what was publicised as the Public consultation on quality contracts from WYPTE but felt a little let down when after it was over to be told it was the “informal” and not “Formal” review, upon further provision and conversation were actually told it would be happening very shortly, many months later and with the publication of the Competition commission on Public Transport we are now finally being told that WYPTE are looking to do the formal review in the autumn of 2011. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-08-2011 10:26] Job: 010663 Unit: PG01

Ev w158 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Petition that was laid before the house of commons on 8 march 2011 was and took place in Leeds on our day of action in joint progress with the Leeds Student Bus campaign, ﬁghting for similar values, was done over a four hour period standing and meeting members of the public during that period and asking them for their thoughts and if they supported a cheaper fare across the city. Not surprising to this 711 signatures were taken in this short four hour window showing that the people of Leeds were not happy with the service and shown to the main operator First Bus at a meeting between the Student Bus Campaign and First, a point that they took on board and have reduced the fare on the 95 service between the headingley area of Leeds and Leeds City Centre from £1.90 to just £1 to which we welcome but still wonder why this cannot be rolled out across the city if it can be achieved just because of one survey on one route in the metropolitan area. It was felt that we needed to seek further assistance and help on this and with assistance from the Honourable Greg Mulholland MP the petition was served to the house of commons seeking help from the secretary of state for the local transport investment and delivery to which we are very happy to hear the comments returned to the house in Hansard on 27 April 2011 We have this year started to see investment in parts of Leeds with new eco-friendly buses that are starting to increase frequency, and delivery of the second target set out by the campaign but still welcome further development across the rest of the city is needed.

Condition of Public Transport Service As many have come to see across Leeds & West Yorkshire with the increase in fares has been the decrease in the level of service that has been provided, many a driver pulling away from a bus stops after watching you run but not allowing you on the bus, the condition on the actual bus which in rush hour traffic can look like a landfill site. Many people in rush hour in what can only be described as and to bring your mind back to old fashioned cattle or sheep trucks taking animals to market, this has also been seen on a daily basis on the trains into and out of the city with many people fainting or receiving minor injuries due to the lack of space. With some extra provision this could be resolved and with the train network the campaign welcomed the new 20 carriages from the Department for Transport but not till December 2011 which is going part way only to resolving this problem. Leeds and many cities across the UK needs to see investment from the operators and not just in there pension pots, profits at First last year in the excess of £100 Million show that it is just a profit exercise and nothing to do with social investment, the happier the customer the more they stay or comeback and spend more, we need a service that is welcoming, that we can use easily and oyster card systems would benefit all to make access quicker and less of a burden on the driver for change. If we the paying public could actually sit down on a journey we might feel that we are getting a return for our investment which in the end of the day we are doing by paying for the service and not being ripped off to line someone elses pockets, Leeds needs investment such as NGT light rail project to make a balance across the city. May 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 08/2011 010663 19585