A G E N D a Please Address Any General Enquiries on This Agenda to Graham Warrington on Oxford 815321

Public Transport, 31/08/00, Agenda

Meeting PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE

Date Thursday 31 August 2000 Time 2.00 pm

Place County Hall, Oxford

A G E N D A Please address any general enquiries on this agenda to Graham Warrington on Oxford 815321. Media enquiries should be directed to the Press Office on Oxford 815266. This agenda can also be viewed on the Council's web site, oxfordshireonline (www.oxfordshire.gov.uk).

1. Election to Chair (Labour Group)

2. Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments

3. Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

4. Minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2000 (PT4).

5. Matters arising from the Minutes

6. Petitions and Public Address

OPERATIONAL ITEMS

7. RURAL BUS CHALLENGE

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT7).

Government grant totalling £1,002,000, ring-fenced for four specified rural taxibus services, has been won by the County Council. Formal authorisation is required before the projects can be implemented. Officers will report back to members in the event that details of any project change from those in Annex 1 to the officers report, or controversial issues arise.

Controversy has already arisen over the proposed taxibus feeder to the existing Oxford-London coach stop at M40 junction 6 (Lewknor). Lewknor Parish Council oppose the existing coach stop and associated parking, and have expressed opposition to the taxibus. However, unsolicited letters have now been received from 4 other local Councils and the Lewknor Transport Representative in support of the stop. One objective of the taxibus is to offer an alternative to driving to and parking near the coach stop, and the Government grant includes some funds for minor traffic management measures to improve safety at the interchange.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) approve:

Page 1 (i) the project appraisal for the Bicester Taxibus Service;

(ii) implementation of four Rural Bus Challenge Schemes as outlined in Annex 1 of the report;

(b) authorise officers to introduce a taxibus link to the existing coach stop at M40 junction 6 (which will continue to be served by coaches in the short-term), whilst continuing to explore alternative locations for a formal Park & Ride site in the vicinity, to which the taxibus service would then be transferred; and

(c) in view of staff constraints, not to submit any Rural Bus Challenge bids in 2000, on the basis that submission of further bids will be considered for 2001 and subsequently, once the previous successful bids have been implemented.

8. COTSWOLD LINE STUDY

Report by the Director of Environmental Services (PT8).

At the end of last year the Sub-Committee set aside up to £5,000 towards further work by consultants on preparing a Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) bid for the Cotswold Line and a strategy for the four Oxfordshire halts on the line (Combe, Finstock, Ascott-under-Wychwood and Shipton).

The Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership – the rail industry/local authority consortium for the line – expects to commission consultants next month to prepare the RPP bid for the line as a whole. This is now expected to cost up to £30,000, and it is suggested that Oxfordshire contributes up to £5,000 towards this work.

Thames Trains are keen to pursue a separate fast-track RPP bid to fund lengthening of the platforms at the four Oxfordshire halts so that they can accommodate three-car (instead of two-car) trains, thus increasing peak hour capacity on the line. Thames Trains may seek a contribution towards preperation of this bid. If a significant contribution is needed, the Partnership will be approached to share the cost in view of the wider benefits from increasing overalll capacity on the line. If the halts are improved to three car standard on this basis, a further small study is suggested (funded by Oxfordshire) to examine the case for more trains calling at each of the halts. A firmer estimate of the cost of this work should be possible by the time of the meeting.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to increase the sum set aside for further work on the Oxfordshire halts and preparation of Rail Passenger Partnership bids for the Cotswold Line to be carried out under the auspices of the Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership (suggested amount to be advised at the meeting in the light of information expected from Thames Trains).

9. PROVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFORMATION BY COUNTY COUNCIL

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT9).

The County Council do not currently publish any printed timetable information and regularly receive calls and written requests for guides or leaflets.

Progress made with the proposal by the Government for a national telephone enquiry line resulted in the service being implemented on 31 July. Oxfordshire joined with Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes and formed partnerships with the bus operators to enable the service to come to fruition.

Implications of the Transport Bill and Best Value Performance Indicators will involve the County

Page 2 Council providing some sort of printed timetable information. This could be in the form of guides or books but will depend on the finance available.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) welcome the introduction of the telephone inquiry line which fills a gap in the provision of public transport information;

(b) note that officers will report to future meeting on information standards in the light of the proposed Transport Act 2000;

(c) consider, taking account of the financial position to be reported orally, whether to fund publication of public transport guides and if so what form and on which distribution basis.

10. UNMET REQUESTS FOR SERVICES

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT10).

The Sub-Committee maintains a waiting list of services and other items which it has been unable to fund. This includes requests received for new or improved services as well as for reinstatement of services that have been cut back or withdrawn. It is open to members to ask for any of the outstanding items on the waiting list to be pursued.

Prices for some items will be reported under the exempt part of the agenda – see separate report on 'Tenders for New Bus Services'.

Any other requests, or protests about service withdrawals, that are received in the meantime will be reported orally.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) consider what priority should be given to any new requests, or protests about service withdrawals, which may be received before the meeting and reported orally;

(b) consider whether they wish officers to take forward any other items on the waiting list immediately (besides those to be considered under the exempt part of the agenda); and

11. PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT11).

This report presents a number of new applications made for shelter grants since the Sub-Committee's last meeting. Information is also provided on developments concerning grants already awarded.

Continuing funding from the Rural Transport Development Fund (RTDF) has been agreed for financial year 2000/2001.

Page 3 The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED:

(a) to agree payment of grant in the sums quoted in Annex 1 to the report for Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor, Langford, Mapledurham, North Aston and Souldern Parish Councils, and any other applications which may be reported orally;

(b) subject to any further information which may be received from Oxford City Council and reported orally, to decline Oxford City Council's application for a replacement shelter for Littlemore on the grounds that the application does not appear to be in accordance with the Sub-Committee's policy;

(c) to agree to consider an application from Finmere Parish Council for grant for a shelter serving their village and situated in Buckinghamshire, if such an application is made;

(d) to note the position set out in the report regarding the confirmed roll-forward of funding from the Rural Transport Development Fund, and the progress of the scheme generally; and

(e) to authorise the Director of Environmental Services to determine future applications for shelter grants under this scheme within the terms of the Sub-Committee's established policy and the available financial provision.

12. PUNCTUALITY STANDARDS FOR SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES

The Director of Environmental Services reports as follows:

On 27 April 2000 the Sub-Committee agreed revised punctuality standards for subsidised bus services. These higher standards reflect those actually achieved over the last two years, and arose from a suggestion made at the Operators' Forum. They were agreed subject to any adverse comments made by operators. Officers consulted operators on them. Separate comments have so far been received from two Stagecoach subsidiaries and are reproduced herewith (PT12). Any further operator comments received will be reported orally.

The comments by both Stagecoach subsidiaries in favour of restricted timetable change dates and by Stagecoach Cheltenham & Gloucester about their aspirations for high punctuality and reliability standards are to be welcomed. The only response which might be taken as objection to the revised standards is the paragraph numbered 2 from Stagecoach Oxford. I have responded to Stagecoach Oxford drawing attention to the existing "let out" clause in all subsidy contracts:

"The Contractor shall not be held to be in default of his obligations hereunder if he is prevented from complying therewith by reason of extraordinary weather or traffic conditions, or other cause not within the Contractor's reasonable control."

I have told them that, under this clause, officers suspend monitoring if there is known cause of disruption on the route – and would discard any monitoring results if the operator "appealed" on the grounds of some extraordinary delay which officers did not know about at the time, but had confirmed, upon enquiry, later. I shall report orally any response, and any further action I consider appropriate.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

Page 4 (a) welcome the positive comments from the two Stagecoach subsidiaries; and

(b) take such action as may be recommended orally in the light of ongoing correspondence with Stagecoach Oxford on the effect of traffic delays on service punctuality.

13. CONSULTATION ON RAIL FRANCHISE BOUNDARIES

Report by the Director of Environmental Services (PT13).

The report considers a renegotiation by the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority of the franchise under which the privately-owned Train Operating Companies run passenger rail services.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to: -

(a) endorse the officers response on the proposed 'Wessex' Franchise; and

(b) advise the Shadow Strategy Rail Authority that the County Council has no strong view on the boundaries of the rail franchises serving Oxfordshire, subject to their being specified in a way which best encourages development of services in line with the County Council's aspirations as agreed at the Sub-Committee's 27 April 2000 meeting; and

REVIEW ITEMS

14. FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT14).

Expenditure from the public transport main budget has continued to rise – and further increases may well occur due to higher tender prices (to be reported orally) and/or commercial service withdrawals. However, thanks to a significant increase in the budget this year, spending remains somewhat below budget. This leaves some limited headroom for (for example) reintroduction of timetable guides.

Rural Bus Subsidy Grant services now cost slightly more than the grant available, due to inflation allowances applied to the subsidy contracts but not to the grant received from central Government. Services are being reviewed to allow savings to take effect (if necessary) in 2001/2. Officers suggest that any outturn overspend in the current year be made up from the main budget.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) note that there is likely to be an underspend on the main budget and small overspend in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant; and

(b) authorise officers to fund any RBSG overspend from the main budget, should this prove necessary at the end of the financial year.

EXEMPT ITEMS

The Sub-Committee will be invited to resolve to exclude the public for the consideration of the following exempt items (marked E) by passing a resolution in relation to each such item in the following terms:

Page 5 "that the public be excluded during the consideration of the following items in the Agenda since it is likely that if they were present during those items there would be a disclosure of "exempt" information as described in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 and specified below each item in the Agenda".

NOTE: With the exception of agenda item 22E, the reports themselves do not contain exempt information and are thus available to the public. The exempt information is contained either in a confidential annex and has been circulated only to members and officers entitled to receive it, or will be reported orally at the meeting. In relation to agenda item 22E the report itself does contain exempt information and has been circulated only to members and officers entitled to receive it.

MEMBERS AND OFFICERS ARE REMINDED IN PARTICULAR THAT FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS REPORTED AT THE MEETING IN THE EXEMPT PART OF THE AGENDA (WHETHER IN WRITING OR ORALLY) MUST NOT BE DIVULGED TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

15.E REVIEW OF SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES

Report by the Director of Environmental Services (PT15E ).

This report deals with the existing subsidised bus services, mainly in the Cumnor, Faringdon and Wantage areas, which are under routine review. Tenders have been invited for these services and the prices obtained, together with any 'de minimis' propositions received will be reported orally to the meeting.

(Information Exempt in that it relates to the amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services.)

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) make their decisions on the services currently under review in the light of the overall financial position relative to the tenders and 'de minimis' prices to be reported orally to the meeting; and

(b) agree the extension of contracts PT/S 1 and PT/S 11 until April 2001.

16.E COMMERCIAL WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SERVICES

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT16E).

This report deals with two services which were withdrawn on a commercial basis at the end of April 2000. These are the service from John Radcliffe Hospital to Oxford City Centre via Marston Village; and the service between Oxford City Centre and High Wycombe via Stokenchurch. Short-term contracts have been arranged to cover both of these pending consideration of longer-term replacements.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to make their decisions in respect of contracts PT/08 and PT/S2 in the light of tender prices to be reported orally at the meeting.

Page 6 17.E TENDERS FOR NEW BUS SERVICES

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT17E).

Tenders have been invited for several new or improved services (which are on the Sub-Committee's waiting list). Prices received will be reported orally. A 'de minimis' price has also been obtained for a service enhancement in the Wallingford area, requested by Councillor Bill Bradshaw.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to make their decision on whether to introduce those services on the waiting list which have been taken forward in this report (and the new request for enhancement of services in the Wallingford area) in the light of tender prices to be reported at the meeting and the overall financial position.

18.E RURAL BUS CHALLENGE – CHARLBURY TAXI-BUS

Report by the Director of Environmental Services (PT18E).

A separate report on this agenda outlines progress on developing the four taxi-bus feeder services for which Government funding has been offered under the Rural Bus Challenge.

This report deals specifically with the proposed taxi-bus service to be based on Charlbury Station on the Cotswold Line, and invites members to authorise the award of the contract for this service following a tendering exercise undertaken in July 2000.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to make their decision on the award of a contract for the Charlbury Taxi-bus service in the light of the prices and options to be reported orally at the meeting.

19.E CHANGES IN ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

Report by the Director of Environmental Services (PT19E).

This report deals with some changes within the life of ongoing subsidy contracts, caused by premature surrender of the contract by the existing operator in all but one case, which was a contract terminated by the County Council. In most cases I have invited tenders for replacement services at the existing levels.

Grayline Coaches have surrendered three subsidy contracts, two in Bicester (Southwold (PT/C40) and Langford Village (PT/C42)) and one in Kidlington (Kidlington, Yarnton and Begbroke local service (PT/C60)), all of which were originall awarded until 27 October 2001. Grayline Coaches also operate developer funded services in the Bure Park area of Bicester and I gave notice on this contract (originally awarded until 27 October 2001) to allow for the possible "re-casting" of all contracted bus services in Bicester to allow for a more coherent network and possible service enhancements. Tenders have slos been invited for replacement services on a "like for Like" basis.

Page 7 This report also deals with contract PT/S29 which was awarded until April 2003. The present operators of this service, Red Rose Travel, have given notice on this contract and I have accordingly invited tenders for a replacement service on similar lines to the present one – a shoppers' service on Thursday and Saturday from Watlington to Henley. There has been no opportunity to consult the Parishes on the line of the route or the form any replacement service should take. Therefore I have specified a service closely similar to the one being surrendered. However, I have made certain adjustments to the specification for the Watlington-Henley service so that the operator of the Watlington-Thame service could if desired operate the two services as a through link.

I will make my recommendations orally in the light of tenders and propositions still to be received, and the overall financial position.

20.E EXTRA BUS SERVICES FUNDED FROM DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

The Director of Environmental Services reports as follows:

As I reported at the 2 September 1999 meeting of the Sub-Committee, financial contributions towards improved public transport have been secured from housing developers in north-west Bicester (Bure Park (formerly Slade Farm)), south-east Bicester (Bicester Fields) and at Upper Heyford (on the site of the former US Air Force base). The Sub-Committee agreed to authorise the Director of Environmental Services, following consultation with the group spokespersons, to agree the provision of extra developer funded bus services for new developments in Bicester and Upper Heyford.

A contract was subsequently awarded to Grayline Coaches in Bicester to operate a service between Bicester (Bure Place) and Bure Park from April 2000. This contract has now been terminated by the County Council with effect from 28 October 2000,to allow for the possible development of a more coherent network of services in Bicester following Grayline's termination of their contracts to operate services in the Southwold and Langford Village areas of Bicester (described in more detail on separate agenda item – "Changes in Arrangements for Contract Services"). If this network is introduced it will include services to Bicester Fields.

With regard to a service from Upper Heyford, tenders were invited for two possible services to commence in April. The first was for a taxibus linking Upper Heyford and Heyford rail station. The second was an hourly service between Oxford and Bicester via Upper Heyford to "in-fill" the RBSG funded Stagecoach Oxford service 25 which currently operates between Oxford and Bicester via Upper Heyford every two hours. No suitable tenders were received and I suggest that officers enter into negotiation with Stagecoach Oxford to try and secure this facility.

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to authorise the Director of Environmental Services to enter into a negotiated contract with Stagecoach Oxford to provide additional developer funded services between Oxford and Bicester via Upper Heyford.

With regard to the tendered services in Bicester, I will make my recommendation orally at the meeting in the light of tenders and propositions still to be received, and the overall financial position, and in conjunction with my recommendations for other contracts in the Bicester area ("Changes in Arrangements for Contract Services"). This will identify which services or parts of services will be funded by the County Council and which will be funded through developer contributions.

Page 8 21.E REVISIONS TO RAIL SERVICES

Report by Director of Environmental Services (PT21E).

Information has been received from Virgin Trains (proposed timetable for Summer 2001); First Great Western (advanced timetable for Winter 2000/2001 and 'aspirations' for Summer 2001 and Winter 2001/2002 (Sunday Services); and Thames Trains (advanced timetable for Winter 2000/2001).

The Winter 2000/2001 timetables from First Great Western and Thames Trains have already been reported to the Sub-Committee in outline, but further detail is now available.

I suggest that the proposals from all three companies be welcomed in general, subject to matters of detail.

(Information Exempt in that it relates to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority).)

The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to respond to the rail companies on the lines proposed in paragraphs 5 (Virgin Trains), 10 (First Great Western) and 12 (Thames Trains) of the report.

JOHN HARWOOD Chief Executive County Hall Oxford OX1 1ND

August 2000

Page 9 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT04

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT4

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 27 APRIL 2000 iMINUTES of the meeting commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 5.10 pm

Present:

Voting Members: Councillors Mrs Dee Bulley, Dhall, Neil Fawcett, Dave Green (in place of Councillor Nils R. Bartleet), Mrs J Heathcoat (in place of Councillor Brian L. Hook), Terry Joslin, Brian Law (in place of Councillor Kieron Mallon), Jim Moley (in place of Councillor Anne Purse), John Power (in place of Councillor Bob Langridge), Roy Tudor Hughes and David Turner.

Non-Voting Member:

Dr Geoffrey Newman.

Ex Officio:

Councillors Brian Hodgson, Colin Lamont (in place of Councillor Keith Mitchell), Tom Snow (in place of Councillor Dermot Roaf) and Harry Wyatt.

Officers:

Whole of meeting: J.C.D. Leverton (Chief Executive's Office); N. Newson, R. Helling and P. Challis (Environmental Services); M. Elliott (County Treasurer's Department).

By Invitation:

C. Bellanger (Rural Community Transport Worker).

The Sub-Committee considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with the following additional papers:

- Schedule of Addenda; - Supplementary report – Best Value Review (PT9 Supplement); - Supplementary report – Provision of Bus Shelters (PT17 Supplement); - Supplementary report – Unmet Requests for Services (PT20E Supplement); - Supplementary exempt report – Subsidised Bus Services (PT21E Supplement); - Supplementary exempt report – revisions to Rail Services (PT22E Supplement).

Copies of the agenda, reports and additional papers are attached to the signed Minutes, and in relation

Page 10 thereto the Sub-Committee determined as follows:-

20/00 ELECTION TO CHAIR

RESOLVED: that Councillor Tudor Hughes (Conservative) be elected to chair the meeting.

21/00 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS

Apologies for absence, temporary appointments and Group Leader substitutions were reported as follows:-

Apology from Temporary Appointment/Substitute

Councillor Bartleet Councillor Green Councillor Hook Councillor Mrs Heathcoat Councillor Langridge Councillor Power Councillor Mitchell Councillor Lamont Councillor Mallon Councillor Law Councillor Purse Councillor Moley Councillor Roaf Councillor Snow

22/00 DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Councillor Turner declared an indirect pecuniary interest in that part of the Public Transport Elements of the Local Transport Plan report (PT8) which dealt with "Real Time Bus Information", namely paragraphs 6 and 12, paragraph 13 of Annex 1 and recommendation (b), in that he was under contract to a company whose business included real time information display systems.

23/00 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 10 February 2000 were approved and signed.

24/00 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

Minute 5/00 (Previous Minute 86/99) – Unmet Requests for Services

Mr Helling reported that the Traffic Commissioner had now accepted Stagecoach Oxford's application for registration of an extra commercial journey between Oxford and Abingdon via Peachcroft Estate.

Minute 5/00 (Previous Minute 91/99(a)) – Rural Bus Subsidy Grant Services

Mr Helling reported that a price for continuation in 2000 of the Ridgeway Explorer had been negotiated with the previous year's joint operators within the sum authorised by the Sub-Committee. The service had started on Good Friday. Mr Challis reported that 20,000 leaflets were being distributed via the usual outlets, and that press coverage was being sought in the media, including leisure publications.

Minute 7/00 – Capital Projects

Mr Newson reported that the Hanborough bus layby proposal was now expected to be incorporated

Page 11 in the Cycle Route to Hanborough Station scheme as part of the Cycle and Rail to Oxford project, on which a report was to be submitted to the 11 May Highways & Road Safety Sub-Committee. It was likely that some elements of the project would be implemented later in the current year.

Minute 9/00 – Public Transport Information

Mr Helling reported that arrangements were being finalised with Pindar for the commissioning of the new timetable database, and with Babtie for coding bus stops to enable identification of journey start and finish points.

Minute 16/00 – Review of Subsidised Bus Services

Mr Helling reported that the Health Authority had advised that in their view the existing Chalgrove/Watlington/Wallingford services were adequate to cater for the needs of health service users. Following comments made by members he undertook to seek the agreement of the Health Authority and Thames Travel to introduce a stopping place for the services immediately outside Wallingford Hospital, using funds understood to be available to the Health Authority to meet any costs involved.

Mr Helling also reported that a 6 months' contract had been negotiated for the provision of a West Hagbourne-Didcot service at a marginally higher cost than the existing level of subsidy.

25/00 ORDER OF BUSINESS

RESOLVED: to consider agenda items 20E-22E immediately after agenda item 7.

26/00 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS

The following request to address the meeting had been agreed:

Request from Agenda Item Mr K Montgomery, of 1 High Street, 20E. Unmet Requests for Services – Cuddesdon Service to Cuddesdon

Mr Montgomery presented a petition from residents of Cuddesdon requesting diversion of Stagecoach service 103 to serve Cuddesdon. He suggested that 3 morning and 3 afternoon journeys would be appropriate, and undertook to help promote local use of the service if introduced.

27/00 FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT (Agenda Item 7)

The Sub-Committee had before them a report (PT7) which set out the Sub-Committee's financial position. Mr Helling asked the Sub-Committee to note two items of expenditure additional to those specified in the report, namely contributions in respect of the East-West Rail Partnership (£3,000) and the Cotswold Line Study (£5,000).

RESOLVED: to note the financial position.

28/00 UNMET REQUESTS FOR SERVICES* (Agenda Item 20E)

Page 12 The Sub-Committee considered reports (PT20E and 20E Supplement) on the unmet requests for new or improved services and for reinstatement of services that had been cut back or withdrawn.

In response to comments raised by members, Mr Helling undertook to:

 take advantage, in the context of the proposed study of services in the Wantage/Didcot area, of the reported eagerness on the part of the Milton Park Estate to enter into discussions on possible transport opportunities;  ensure that the outstanding requests for Coxwell-Faringdon-Witney (shoppers) and Faringdon-Appleton–Oxford (evenings) services were considered in the context of the forthcoming review of Faringdon area services;  explore the prospects for utilising an existing Steve's Travel route as a means of providing a local service for the St Thomas area, in addition to the possibility already being explored of diversion of the Jericho bus service for that purpose; and  explore a complaint by a resident of Ewelme about travel to and from the European School.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) advise North Moreton Parish Council that their request for a suitably-timed peak service to Didcot was already on the (lower-priority) waiting list;

(b) take no further action on North Moreton Parish Council's requests for reinstatement of the peak service to Wallingford (in view of the County Council's current policy of not catering for non-entitled schoolchildren) and the direct Wednesday service to Oxford (in view of the alternative services available, albeit with a change of bus);

(c) refer the requests for extra services for Hensington (Woodstock) and Cornwell to the Rural Community Transport Worker;

(d) ask officers to explore further with Stagecoach Oxford the possibility of diverting service 103 to serve Cuddesdon in the light of the survey of residents of the village and report back to the next meeting;

(e) note that Stagecoach Oxford were unable to provide the Faringdon-Appleton-Oxford evening service and retain this service on the high priority waiting list;

(f) note that a half-hourly service had now been reinstated for the Glory Farm area of Bicester (as agreed at the previous meeting) and to delete this item from the waiting list;

(g) add the request for reinstatement of services for the Kingspool area of Ewelme, and from Ewelme to Benson, to the high priority waiting list; and

(h) allow the commercial Cumnor-Abingdon service to fall from the current half-hourly to an hourly frequency (should the Oxford Bus Company go ahead with this proposal).

29/00 EXEMPT ITEMS

RESOLVED: that the public be excluded during the consideration of the remainder of item 20E and items 21E and 22E in the Agenda since it was likely that if they were present during those items there would be a disclosure of "exempt" information as described in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972 and specified below each item in the Agenda, i.e. information relating to:-

Page 13 (a) the amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services (Agenda Items PT20E and PT21E);

(b) the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority (Agenda Item PT22E).

PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THE WITHDRAWAL OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

30/00 UNMET REQUESTS FOR SERVICES* (Agenda Item 20E - continued)

The Sub-Committee considered a price quoted for enhancement of the Chipping Norton-Kingham Bus-Rail Link service.

RESOLVED: to pay the amount specified in Annex 3 to the report (PT20E) to provide the extra midday journeys on the Chipping Norton-Kingham Bus-Rail Link service requested by the Cotswold Line Promotion Group.

31/00 SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES* (Agenda Item 21E)

The Sub-Committee had before them reports (PT21E and 21E Supplement) which considered the future of the Wallingford-Abingdon bus service and an evening service between Bicester, Langford Village and Arncott.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) pay Thames Travel the amount shown in Annex 1 to the supplementary report to provide the service described in that Annex on the Wallingford-Abingdon route;

(b) instruct officers to include options in tenders for services at "Interlink" standard, as appropriate in future, specifying a "clockface" hourly pattern of service but not for the time being to make high quality vehicles compulsory on such services pending a full review of Interlink service policy as part of the Council's Bus Strategy;

(c) note that Grayline Coaches – and others – were unwilling at present to provide evening services in the Bicester area.

32/00 REVISIONS TO RAIL SERVICES* (Agenda Item 22E)

The Sub-Committee had before them reports (PT22E and 22E Supplement) on timetable information received from First Great Western, Thames Trains and Cross Country Trains.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) respond to the rail companies on the lines proposed in paragraphs 9 (First Great Western) and 13 (as amended by paragraph 6 of the supplementary report) (Thames Trains) of the original report;

Page 14 (b) convey to Great Western concerns about rail-bus interchange at Didcot and poor information about services and ticket availability; and

(c) respond, when requested, to the Rail Regulator concerning the proposed Cross Country services on the lines proposed in paragraph 19 of the original report.

ITEMS FOLLOWING THE RE-ADMISSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

33/00 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN (Agenda Item 8)

(Councillor Turner withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item.)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT8) setting out existing and proposed public transport capital projects and aspirations for possible incorporation in the full Local Transport Plan.

RESOLVED: to RECOMMEND the Environmental Committee to incorporate in the Full Local Transport Plan submission the capital spending aspirations and expenditure indications shown in Annex 1 to the report, and advise them that the Sub-Committee's priorities for general public transport capital spending over the period 2001-2006 total £6.5 million, as summarised in the table set out in the Schedule of Addenda.

34/00 BEST VALUE REVIEW (Agenda Item 9)

The Sub-Committee considered the outcome of Phase 1 of the Transport Best Value Review, covering mainstream school and public transport services, which had been reported to and endorsed by the Best Value & Audit Sub-Committee, together with a supplementary report on consequential changes to tender arrangements (PT9 and PT9 Supplement).

RESOLVED: to:

(a) instruct officers to implement the preferred options as described in the BV4 forms;

(b) agree in principle the following changes to permit the adoption of the dates outlined in paragraph 5 of report PT9 Supplement:

(i) agree the proposed change to the dates of bus service retendering, and consequently when tenders would be reported to the Sub-Committee;

(ii) authorise extension of all bus subsidy contracts with a current end date in April, to end instead in early July of the same year;

(iii) amend the authorised change dates for timetables of subsidised bus services, to be mid February, early July and late October; and

(iv) authorise the Urgency Sub-Committee to determine the tenders received in respect of contracts subject to change in Summer 2001 and any other service/contract change issues that might arise in the period leading up to the May 2001 election;

(c) authorise officers, following consultation with Public Transport Spokespersons and taking account of the principles in the report, to implement amended dates, and consequent amendments to the arrangements set out in (c) (i) – (iii) above, if this were to appear

Page 15 necessary in the light of further work.

35/00 RURAL TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP (Agenda Item 10)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT10) on progress of the Rural Transport Partnership funding scheme.

Councillor Turner reported that South Oxfordshire District Council were actively considering participation in the scheme.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) welcome and endorse the Rural Transport Partnership Action Plans submitted to the Countryside Agency on behalf of Cherwell, Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire District Councils; and

(b) agree to contribute £10,000 to Rural Transport Partnership schemes in Oxfordshire, subject to Countryside Agency approval of the Action Plans and subject to the funding being divided equally between the four District Councils, on the basis that this might secure participation by South Oxfordshire District Council within an agreed timescale, but that otherwise the funding should be divided equally among the remaining three rural District Councils.

36/00 REVIEW OF RURAL COMMUNITY TRANSPORT WORKER POST (Agenda Item 11)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT11) reviewing this post and the progress made by the present incumbent.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) endorse the work done by the Rural Community Transport Worker and agree that the focus of the role should remain unchanged from its current "hands on" approach;

(b) pay Oxfordshire Rural Community Council up to £15,000 per annum for the two year period 1 October 2000 until 30 September 2002 (with an annual adjustment to take into account the effects of inflation) to fund the post of Rural Community Transport Worker, subject to:

(i) this sum representing no more than 40% of the total cost of the post; and

(ii) agreement of West Oxfordshire District Council and the Countryside Agency to enter into further agreements to part fund this post for the same period, for a similar proportion in place under the current funding agreement.

37/00 REVIEW OF WATCHFIELD–SWINDON DIAL-A-RIDE (Agenda Item 12)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT12) reviewing the accessible transport service provided by Thamesdown Dial-a-Ride and Community Transport (TDARCT).

Page 16

RESOLVED: to:

(a) pay TDARCT £3,800 a year for three years until 31 March 2003 (with an annual adjustment to take into account the effects of inflation) to secure continuation of the Friday villages Shopperbus service from Watchfield, Shrivenham, Ashbury, Bourton and South Marston to Swindon Town Centre; and

(b) ask officers to explore with TDARCT ways in which the service could be further publicised.

38/00 DISABILITY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR BUS DRIVERS (Agenda Item 13)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT13 reviewing progress with Disability Awareness Training for Oxfordshire bus drivers.

Mr Helling undertook to:

 Act upon suggestions made by members on the employment where practicable of terminology (such as "customer care") which would be likely to be familiar to, and elicit a positive response from, bus operators & drivers;  explore with operators means of ensuring that drivers would see the training pack video;  convey to Ms Whelan members' appreciation of her work on Disability Awareness Training.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) note the difficulties operators face in recruiting and retaining sufficient bus drivers to operate all bus services in Oxfordshire;

(b) urge the Department of Environment, Transport & the Regions to adopt a nation-wide Disability Awareness Training standard, and ask Oxfordshire MP's for their support in this approach;

(c) extend the date for compulsory Disability Awareness Training in Oxfordshire from 1 January 2001 to 1 January 2005 and review progress in three years' time;

(d) continue to offer Disability Awareness Training to accredited standards on a rolling programme until 2005; and

(e) continue to provide training packs (including video) for operators of commercial bus services.

39/00 COTSWOLD LINE RAIL STUDY (Agenda Item 14)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT14) on Railtrack's advice to the Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership on the cost of upgrading the line.

RESOLVED: to:

Page 17 (a) agree that bids for funding the development of improved services on the Cotswold Line should be taken forward (under the auspices of the Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership) through the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme and the Local Transport Plan (and other avenues as appropriate); and

(b) express to Gloucestershire County Council the Sub-Committee's satisfaction with progress and their appreciation of the extra efforts on that Council's part towards bringing this about.

40/00 RAILTRACK NETWORK MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Agenda Item 15)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT15) on Railtrack's 2000 Network Management Statement (NMS) setting out their proposals for both renewals and enhancements of the rail infrastructure.

Resolved: to:

(a) welcome the clear distinction between maintenance/renewals and enhancements in this year's NMS; the improvement in performance achieved by Railtrack especially in their Great Western zone; and the further budgeted increase in renewal/maintenance spending;

(b) welcome the positive approach to network enhancement now presented by Railtrack, and the development of procedures (such as Incremental Output Statements) to secure such enhancements; and press all concerned in the rail industry to continue proactively to seek ways of funding enhancements;

(c) welcome the wide range of enhancements proposed locally, in particular the Incremental Output Statements for Oxford-Bristol and Oxford-Bicester, whilst drawing firmly to Railtrack's attention the need for a clear proposal to increase platform capacity at Oxford for trains to/from the south, and ask Oxfordshire MP's for their support in this regard;

(d) ask officers to seek clarification of the distinction between the £50m and £100m upgrades of the Cotswold Line, mentioned in the NMS and the Cotswold Line Study respectively;

(e) draw Railtrack's attention to the list of County Council aspirations now being produced and seek their enthusiastic participation in implementing them.

41/00 COUNTY COUNCIL RAIL ASPIRATIONS (Agenda Item 16)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT16) proposing a list of passenger rail enhancements which might be sought in connection with the replacement franchise process.

RESOLVED: to ask officers to encourage rail passenger franchise bidders to include in their bids, and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to give preference to bids which included, the relevant features in Annex 2 to the report.

42/00 PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS

Page 18 (Agenda Item 17)

The Sub-Committee considered reports (PT17 and PT17 Supplement) on possible revisions to the existing grant scheme and on current applications from local councils.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) agree payment of grant in the sum quoted in Annex 1 to the report for Wallingford Town Council;

(b) adopt the suggested method of adjusting the grant level to benefit smaller Councils as set out in Annex 2;

(c) note the positions set out in the report regarding the possibility of funding roll-forward from the Rural Transport Development Fund, and the progress of the scheme generally; and

(d) instruct officers to advise Burford Town Council that their application was not in accordance with the policy laid down by the Sub-Committee and that grant could not therefore be awarded; but to point out that it was open to the Town Council to submit fresh applications, either offering enhanced facilities at the existing sites, or new shelters at any other site where they were not provided at present.

43/00 TRANSPORT OPERATORS FORUM (Agenda Item 18)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT18) on the outcome of the Transport Operators Forum's consideration of bus contract procedures. Mr Helling advised that the proposed changes in tender procedures would save an estimated 15 kg of paper per annum for public transport tenders and probably a similar amount for education transport tenders.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) note the outcome of the Transport Operators Forum and procedural changes proposed as a result;

(b) agree to base bus subsidy contract inflation payments on Government indices one month "older" than were used at present; and

(c) agree to adopt in local bus subsidy contracts the revised punctuality standards shown in paragraph 13 of the report, if no adverse comments were received from operators.

44/00 RESCHEDULING OF CONTRACT CHANGES (Agenda Item 19)

The Sub-Committee considered a report (PT19) which proposed extending a number of bus subsidy contracts so that a comprehensive, two-stage review of services funded from Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) could be carried out later this year.

RESOLVED: to:

(a) extend the contracts listed in Annex 1 to the report until 7 April 2001 to enable

Page 19 them to be included in a comprehensive review of all RBSG-funded services;

(b) agree that a comprehensive two-stage review of all RBSG-funded services be undertaken following the timetable outlined in the report;

in the Chair

Date of signing 2000

* Except for report PT22E, the whole of which was exempt, the reports themselves do not contain exempt information and were thus available to the public. The exempt information was contained either in a confidential annex and had been circulated only to the members and officers entitled to receive it, or were reported orally at the meeting.

Page 20 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT07

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT7

RURAL BUS CHALLENGE Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

2. As I have reported previously, the Government have awarded Oxfordshire County Council £1,002,000 under their Rural Bus Challenge (RBC) initiative to introduce four specific taxibus services. This report seeks formal authority to implement these schemes. It seeks member guidance on controversy which has arisen over the proposed taxibus interchange at M40 junction 6 at Lewknor. There is a separate report, on the exempt part of the Agenda, on tenders for the taxibus service in Charlbury. Finally, members have the opportunity to consider whether to bid for further scheme funding for 2001/2.

Scheme Implementation

3. Following Oxfordshire's total lack of success with bids to Government for RBC funding submitted in 1998, officers expected at best one or two to be successful from the 1999 bid. In-house staff resources are inadequate to implement the four awarded. The Council's term consultants, Babtie, have accordingly now been tasked with implementing three of the projects. The costs of their doing so will have to be charged against the overall budgets for the projects, leaving less for other aspects.

4. One project, the Charlbury station taxibus, has been taken forward by the Rural Community Transport Worker of Oxfordshire Rural Community Council, in conjunction with a group of local councillors, county officers and others. This post is part-funded by the County Council specifically to develop such alternative transport schemes in rural areas. This scheme has progressed to the stage of being planned for implementation in autumn this year. Implementation schedules for the others are still in preparation but they are likely to be introduced early in 2001.

5. Formal authority is now needed to implement these schemes. Details of each are shown in Annex 1 to this report. In the case of one, the total capital spend is in excess of £200,000, so a project appraisal is included. Members are invited to authorise officers to implement the projects, on the basis of the details given in Annex 1, and on the understanding that officers will seek further member guidance in the event that there has to be a significant change from the details in the Annex, or other potentially controversial issues arise.

Vehicle Ownership

6. Much of the capital grant is for vehicle purchase. Government rules on use of the funds require that all capital grants must be used for capital expenditure (although revenue grants can be used for either revenue or capital spending). This rules out the usual arrangement for subsidised bus services, whereby the operator receives a single revenue payment to cover all expenses, including vehicle ownership. It is proposed that, in each case, tenderers are offered two alternatives:

Page 21 (a) Vehicles owned by the County Council, and used by the contractor only for the duration of the contract. In the event of the service ceasing, vehicles would either be sold, or used for Social Services transport. (b) Vehicles purchased by the contractor under an agreement, separate from the (revenue) subsidy agreement, whereby upon contract termination the vehicle reverts to the Council, or its residual value is paid to the Council; this being guaranteed by a bond.

7. The RBC capital grant may in some cases prove insufficient to cover the full purchase price of appropriate new minibuses. This arises from a variety of causes:

(i) inflation since bids were first prepared 2 years ago; (ii) a specification suitable for use both as a taxibus, and subsequently for Social Services transport should the service prove unsuccessful; (iii) in one case, the fact that the bid was submitted on the basis of the net cost, assuming resale after 2 years, rather than the full purchase price.

8. One solution may be to acquire "nearly new" vehicles. This may be preferred if the contractor makes the initial purchase. Alternatively, the fund could be topped up from other Council sources; officers are exploring possibilities, and hope to report orally. Any such "top-up" would be repaid later if the vehicles ceased to be used on the service - whereas continued use would indicate a successful scheme, worthy of investment.

Taxibus Service from M40 Junction 6

9. Stagecoach Oxford operate a high frequency express coach service – the Oxford Tube – between Oxford and London, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. All of these coaches leave the M40 at junction 6 (Lewknor) to set down and pick up passengers before rejoining the M40 to complete their journey.

10. The decision to serve Lewknor was made by Stagecoach Oxford for financial reasons as it allows them to claim fuel duty rebate although I believe that subsequently the market from this site has become commercially attractive in its own right. As this service is operated on an entirely commercial basis (i.e. without subsidy) we cannot, under current legislation, instruct Stagecoach Oxford where they stop their services.

11. Some controversy has arisen in recent years about the Oxford Tube service stopping at Lewknor. Until fairly recently people driving to Lewknor for onward connections were able to park on a piece of land under the M40 flyover in that area. This practice was stopped by the police in response to a possible increase in mainland terrorist activities. Drivers now park their cars on the verges around the M40 slip road and, occasionally, in Lewknor village itself.

12. This informal park and ride is far from ideal – officers have identified a potential site off junction 5 of the M40 (Stokenchurch) for the development of an alternative, permanent facility. However this is, at best, a long-term project as the site in question is in Buckinghamshire. It therefore seems sensible that our immediate priority should be improving the environment at Lewknor until such time as an alternative can be provided. The taxibus scheme (described in detail in the Annex) addresses the immediate concerns by providing a viable alternative to the car for people travelling to Lewknor for onward connections and also contains a significant element of funding for improved traffic management and personal safety at the site.

13. It is important to remember that the development of a taxibus feeder service will not have an impact on the number of coaches stopping at Lewknor – Stagecoach Oxford will continue to stop here as long as it is commercially attractive and until such a time as an equally attractive alternative is available to them.

14. Lewknor Parish Council does, however, oppose the development of a taxibus feeder service to the Oxford Tube and this has delayed its implementation. However, the Lewknor Parish Transport

Page 22 Representative strongly opposes any proposals to withdraw the Lewknor stop from the Oxford Tube as he says it is well supported and a vital transport link for the village. It is the view of officers that Lewknor Parish Council's opposition to the scheme is in fact opposition to the Oxford Tube stopping at Lewknor, not the taxibus scheme itself. Several other parish councils in South Oxfordshire have recently written unsolicited letters to the County Council expressing their support for the Oxford Tube stop at Lewknor. They are Cuxham with Easington, Watlington, Pishill with Stonor and Benson.

15. I suggest that the best way forward is to implement the taxibus feeder service as soon as possible and on the basis that it should serve Stokenchurch if and when a permanent interchange facility is introduced there. I also propose that consultation is undertaken not on "whether" there should be a service but the form that this service should take in terms of route etc.

Future Rural Bus Challenge bids

16. Bids have been invited again this year for further Rural Bus Challenge funds. The criteria are the same as before – broadly, innovative bus-style transport schemes serving rural areas – and the amount available this year is £20m, of which at least £10m is explicitly for capital expenditure. The deadline for submission is 6 October 2000.

17. Last year the County Council submitted three unsuccessful bids as well as the four successful ones. One of these, the A40 bus lane, was distinctly speculative as an RBC bid and is now to be funded in other ways. The other two were "Rural Bus serving Wallingford: an imaginative provision of real-time information", and "Bicycle/Bus Interchange at Bus Stop Locations to be Selected by Rural Communities."

18. I understand that – even before introduction of the taxibus schemes for which funds are available – other communities may be developing ideas for taxibus schemes to form RBC bids. In my view it would be advisable to test the workability of the concept with the initial schemes, before bidding for more.

19. Members might wish to consider resubmitting previous bids, or making some new bids. However, as mentioned above, difficulty is already being experienced with lack of appropriately skilled staff to implement last year's successful bids. Diverting staff to preparation and submission of new bids will further delay implementation of those schemes for which funds are already available. The staff resource issue would also affect the ability to implement any further schemes for which funds are obtained (although this could be reduced by ensuring that all future bids include funding for implementation staff).

20. In my view it would be best not to submit any bids in the current year. Once the current crop of projects is up and running, submission in 2001 should be a practical proposition. By that time, too, account can be taken of experience in implementing the initial schemes in future bids; and the possibility can be considered of bidding for ongoing funding for the initial schemes.

Environmental Implications

21. One of the objectives of the proposed taxibus schemes is to provide an alternative to the private car to access rail and long distance bus services, thus mitigating the environmental impact of car use and parking.

Financial and Staff Implications

22. Rural Bus Challenge schemes are to be introduced using a specific Government grant, which is ring-fenced and not available for any other purpose. There should thus be no initial impact on

Page 23 Council budgets. However, if the schemes are moderately successful, ongoing revenue funding may be required after the initial Government grant expires.

23. Staff availability has delayed implementation of the successful bids. Any further extra pressures placed on staff can be expected to lead to further delay. Availability of extra funds for public transport has boosted staff morale.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

24. One of the objectives of the proposed taxibus schemes is to improve public transport availability for people who are unable to afford private car ownership.

Recommendations

25. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) approve:

(1) the project appraisal for the Bicester Taxibus Service;

(2) implementation of far Rural Bus Challenge Schemes as outlined in Annex 1 of the report;

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Rural Bus Challenge bid 1999

Contact Officer: Dick Helling - Tel : Oxford 815859

August 2000

Page 24 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT07, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT7

RURAL BUS CHALLENGE

Annex 1

Outline of Successful Rural Bus Challenge Bids

Cotswold Line Taxibus Interchange

This proposal increases journey opportunities from a rural part of West Oxfordshire by providing both interchange with Cotswold line rail services at Charlbury during the morning and evening peak and a fully accessible shoppers' service using the same vehicle at off peak times. The feeder service encourages a transfer to public transport for those who currently drive to Charlbury to catch the train or make their entire journey by car (principally to Oxford though potentially further afield) and provides journey opportunities for people without access to private transport. The provision of a wheelchair accessible vehicle on this route offers greater independence to the less physically able allowing them access to facilities that would otherwise be unavailable.

Annual Expenditure Programme

2000/1 2001/2 £ £ Capital Costs

One suitably equipped easy access minibus 30,000

Two-way radio equipment for taxi and control centre 1,500

Station forecourt markings and notice board 600

Production of a leaflet dedicated to advertising the dual Cotswold line feeder 2,765 service and off-peak shoppers' service for distribution within the service catchment area (10,000 @ approx 25p per leaflet and £250 for delivery). Fifteen posters for village noticeboards @ £1 each.

Monitoring: 3 surveys = 15 hours @ £11 per survey 495

Total capital 35,360

Revenue costs

Revenue support at approximately £86 per day to cover tax, insurance, 13,400 13,400 vehicle maintenance, drivers' wages, fuel and fare shortfall. Taxibus runs six

Page 25 days a week for an initial 12 month trial period with a view to a longer term service if proved viable at the end of the trial period

48,760 13,400

Wheelchair Accessible Express Coach Feeder and Dial-a-Ride Service in South Oxfordshire

This proposal increases journey opportunities from the rural part of South Oxfordshire by providing both interchange with Stagecoach Oxford's Tube express coach service at Junction 6 of the M40 (Lewknor) during the morning and evening peak and a Dial-a-Ride service for mobility impaired people using the same vehicles during off peak times. The feeder service encourages a transfer to public transport for those who currently drive to Lewknor to catch a coach to Oxford or London or make the entire journey by car and provides journey opportunities for people without access to private transport living in rural areas without a regular bus service.

The provision of a Dial-a-Ride service offers greater independence to the less physically able allowing them access to shops and facilities that would otherwise be unavailable. The dual use of the vehicles ensures that greater value for money is achieved when providing a solution to the transport needs of two distinct groups of people. This proposal also seeks to increase the attractiveness of public transport by improving the facilities at Lewknor, including waiting facilities and security measures.

Annual Expenditure Programme

Capital Costs 2000/1 2001/2 £ £

Suitably equipped easy access new Mercedes 16 seat minibuses. 77,000 Stagecoach Oxford have made a commitment to fund the costs of equipping the vehicles with radios, as an add on to their current GPS system

Two bus shelters with integral lighting, information boards, freephone links to 24,000 Stagecoach Oxford depot and Kassel Kerbs

Traffic management measures at the interchange to ensure the safe arrival, 23,500 departure and waiting of the wheelchair accessible minibus feeder service

Production of an A4 leaflet dedicated to advertising the dual Oxford Tube 3,750 feeder service and the Dial-a-Ride service for distribution within the service catchment area. This is in addition to the provision of timetable publicity already committed by Stagecoach Oxford.

Cost of three passenger surveys to establish modal shift as detailed in 1,000 "Monitoring and Dissemination"

Implementation Cost (Babtie) 12,000

Total capital 141,250

Revenue Costs Revenue support is required for the running of the service in order that fares are set at a level that is attractive to potential users. This covers tax, insurance, vehicle maintenance, drivers' wages, fuel and fare shortfall. Each minibus will run six days a week for an initial 12 month trial period with a view to a longer term service if proved viable at the end of the trial period

Page 26 88,000

141,250 88,000

Cherwell Valley Taxibus Scheme

This project proposes a taxibus feeder network in conjunction with bus service X59 (Banbury-Deddington-Kidlington-Oxford) operated by Stagecoach Midland Red. The network would use 16-seater PSV to link villages to nodal points. There would be timed connections, with high quality shelters and other facilities, with the X59 service. During the evenings and on Sundays, when no X59 service is provided, the taxibuses would offer a limited service on the main A4260 route between Banbury and Oxford.

The costed bid submitted was on the basis of a service running every 1½ hours, using three buses. It was mentioned in the text of the bid that it could alternatively run every two hours with two vehicles. The grant awarded is only 71% of that bid for, on the basis that it is the less frequent service which is being funded. This is reflected in the costings below.

Annual Expenditure Programme

Capital Costs 2000/1 2001/2 2002/3 £ £ £

2 MPV type vehicles for leasing to taxibus operator 48,000 LESS depreciated resale value at end of project 28,800

TOTAL VEHICLE COST 19,200

5 sets of vehicle-mounted GPS equipment 4,800 6 sets of vehicle-mounted ticket equipment 14,500 (1 ETM and 1 canceller per vehicle, plus 1 spare) 6 high specification bus shelters fitted with seats etc 35,000 6 real-time information displays for the above 17,500 Equipment for vehicle location and communication 2,900

Implementation Cost 14,000 Total capital 107,900

Revenue Costs Publicity information (14,500 leaflets @ 40p each including 5,800 delivery) Revenue support required for initial operation for 2 years (assuming commencement Apr 2001) Financial year 2001/2002 (12 months) 158,000 Financial year 2002/2003 (12 months) 158,000 TOTAL REVENUE COSTS 163,800 Less contribution for publicity from bus ( 5,800) Operator partner NETT REVENUE COSTS 158,000

Page 27 107,900 158,000 158,000

DETAILED PROJECT APPRAISAL APPRAISAL NO. H158

NAME OF SCHEME: Integrated Rural Taxibus Links to Bicester North Station

COMMITTEE(S): Environmental Start Year: 2000/01

BASIS OF ESTIMATE:

1. Description of Project

A series of 6 Rural RAIL LINK Taxibus in the form of a high quality "People Carrier" (e.g., Renault Scenic or equivalent with seating capacity optimised at 8) acting as a Taxibus, to each of the six routes running to a timetable service (5 in the morning from 06.00 to 8.30 and five in the evening from 17.30 until 20.00) with an "ad-hoc" call and ride facility available outside of the timetable.

The main timetable will operate in the early mornings and evenings and will be designed to link to train service departures and arrivals from the major railhead of Bicester North station.

The "taxibus" will provide timetabled links to the villages of:

 Hethe & Fringford  Stratton Audley  Ardley & Bucknell  Middleton Stoney  Chesterton  Lower Arncott and Ambrosden

2. Need for the Project

Bus services from the villages concerned are limited, and in most cases do not operate in the early morning and early evening which are peak times for travel to and from Bicester North railway station. None directly serves the station. Market research on behalf of Chiltern Railways has identified that over 60% of travel from rural origins to Bicester North station comes from the villages listed. The taxibus could potentially save an estimated 60,000 existing car journeys to the station per year, reducing congestion and environmental impact on the highways network. The taxibus service is also expected to attract to rail some people presently making longer journeys by car throughout, either through their use of the taxibus service itself, or through use of parking spaces at Bicester North released by taxibus users. The taxibus will also make longer-distance travel more easily accessible to non-car owners in the villages.

3. Consistency with Policy

Page 28 The LTP states that the Council will "pay particular attention to improving access to railway stations by other modes" (p80 "Links to Stations".) The bus strategy (p69, "Developing a Bus Strategy") identifies a hierarchy of services, including "Feeder services, to link those areas which are more remote".

4. Analysis of Options

The main alternatives to the proposed taxibus service would be (a) to encourage the existing taxi trade to provide a more attractive service, or (b) provide improved conventional bus services.

(a) Use of taxis would mean fewer passengers on each vehicle than a taxibus; there would be little if any reduction in traffic flow compared to private car use (although it would reduce car park congestion). Taxis would have to be heavily subsidised to produce a cost to the user comparable to the perceived cost of private car use

(b) In principle, services for people travelling to the rail station and for people making local trips to Bicester for work, shopping or other purposes could be combined into a single bus route. In practice, demand for local trips, especially at the times of peak demand for rail access, from small villages is likely to be low – even in combination, probably insufficient to justify a full bus service. There are also practical difficulties in ensuring rail connections with a bus which also serves other purposes – especially when something is running late. A journey made slower and more indirect through serving other passengers might also deter some potential rail users as might a longer walk to/from more limited bus stops.

5. Justification of Preferred Option

Experience suggests limited willingness amongst rural-dwelling car owners to use a conventional bus service to access rail services. The proposed taxibus service will provide a service dedicated to connect with trains, using vehicles small enough to limit the number of calling points and allow each user a relatively direct journey. It represents an experiment as to whether such a service can attract passengers in a reasonably cost-effective way. Options for serving other places, and operating in other ways, will be considered if appropriate in the light of early experience.

6. Funding Available

Ring-fenced Government grant is available as follows: -

Capital: £255,000

Revenue or capital: £30,000

Chiltern Railways have undertaken to pay a subsidy of up to £60,000 in the first year of operation. They will also provide day-to-day control expertise, publicity, marketing and a contribution towards infrastructure costs at the rail station.

DAVID YOUNG CHRIS GRAY Director of Environmental Services County Treasurer

Page 29 Date: September 2000 Resource Appraisal Status: Detailed

Capital Project: Bicester North Taxibus Appraisal Ref: H158

Price Base: 2000/1

Capital Expenditure and Financing Cost of Project 2000/1 2001/2 Total £'000 £'000 £'000 Land & Buildings Construction Furniture/Equipment: Vehicle Purchase 125 125 Vehicle detection & control system, bus 120 120 stop infrastructure at station and elsewhere, publicity

Other - - Fees 10 10

Total Estimated Payments 255 255

The Construction Cost per square metre is n/a gross/net Funding of Project 2000/1 2000/2 Total £'000 £'000 £'000 Credit Approval (Borrowing) Capital Receipt(s) Contribution From Third Party Government Grant 255 255 Revenue Contributions (s) Other Total Financing 255 255

Revenue Implications Corporate Cost

Capital financing (Cost of borrowing) Service Committee Implications

2000/1 2000/2 Full Yr. Effect £'000 £'000 £'000 Employees Operating Subsidy 18 72 90 Government Grant (6) (24) (30)

Page 30 Chiltern Railways Grant (12) (48) (60)

Net Cost/(Saving) to Service Committee 0 0 0

2000/1 2000/2 Full Yr. Effect

Staffing F.T.E F.T.E F.T.E Additions/(Savings) resulting

From the project 0 0 0

Page 31 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT08

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT8

COTSWOLD LINE STUDY Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Background

1. The County Council is a member of the Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership which was formed two years ago with the aim of developing the Cotswold railway line between Oxford, Worcester and Hereford.

2. Consultants were engaged by the Partnership last year to help develop an improvement strategy for the line. They concluded that the most promising strategy would be to improve service frequencies (to half-hourly in the peak and hourly in the off-peak) and to cut journey times. A parallel Railtrack study estimated that it would cost around £100m to upgrade the line to accommodate this improved level of service.

3. At their meeting on 18 November 1999 the Sub-Committee agreed to "set aside up to £5,000 for further work by consultants on preparing a Rail Passenger Partnership bid for the line as a whole and a strategy for the Oxfordshire halts" (minute 92/99).

4. This report updates the Sub-Committee on the latest developments in progressing the strategy for improvement of the line as a whole (and the four Oxfordshire halts at Combe, Finstock, Ascott-Under Wychwood and Shipton in particular), and the likely financial implications.

Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) Bid

5. The Partnership intends to make a RPP bid in early 2001 to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (sSRA) for Government funding towards the overall cost of improving the Cotswold Line.

6. Consultants will be engaged to work up the detail of the RPP bid and phasing of the line development strategy. A brief is currently being prepared for this work, and it is hoped to appoint consultants at the Partnership's Steering Group meeting in mid-September.

7. It is now estimated that this extra work will cost up to £30,000, and I would suggest that Oxfordshire should contribute a maximum of £5,000 towards it.

Oxfordshire Halts

8. One peak train in each direction must serve the Oxfordshire halts under the "Passenger Service Requirement" (minimum service level) for the Cotswold Line – currently these are the 06.57 Worcester-Oxford (arriving in Oxford at 08.18) and the 16.18 London-Worcester (which leaves Oxford at 17.22). At present these trains can only be operated with two-car units because of the short platforms at the four halts. This is leading to overcrowding, particularly on the 17.22 from

Page 32 Oxford.

9. When a delegation from the Partnership met with the sSRA in March this year, the sSRA strongly advised hiving off smaller discrete items within the overall line improvement package for fast-track RPP funding. They suggested that lengthening the platforms at the four Oxfordshire halts would be a suitable candidate for the fast-track process.

10. The fast-track RPP scheme is specifically designed for smaller scale initiatives (costing less than £1m with a ceiling of £100,000 on RPP support). They will be judged by the sSRA using simplified criteria. The sSRA hopes to make decisions, where the fast-track process is appropriate, within six weeks of bids being submitted.

11. Officers met with Thames Trains and Railtrack at the beginning of the month to discuss taking forward a fast-track bid for the halts. Thames Trains and Railtrack have agreed to carry out the initial work to assess the merits of the scheme. If it can be justified on the basis of the extra peak capacity that would be gained (which would alleviate overcrowding and encourage more potential users), Thames Trains have agreed to put a fast-track bid forward together with the County Council and the Partnership. The aim would be to upgrade the existing two-car services serving the halts to three-car services in the Summer 2001 timetable.

12. Thames Trains may need a contribution to help with the cost of preparing a fast-track bid if their initial work shows that the scheme can be justified by the extra line capacity gained in the peaks. This extra peak capacity would benefit the line as a whole. In the event that Thames Trains require a substantial contribution towards preparation of the fast-track bid, I shall explore sharing the cost with other members of the Partnership in view of the wider benefits of this scheme.

13. If a fast-track bid was successful on this basis, I would suggest that a small follow-on study is commissioned to examine whether there is a case for more trains calling at one or more of the halts throughout the day. As this would exclusively benefit Oxfordshire, it would be appropriate for the Sub-Committee to fund the full cost of this work.

14. I expect to be able to make a better estimate of the above costs by the time of the Sub-Committee meeting, when Thames Trains aim to have completed their initial investigations.

Environmental Implications

15. The consultants' study (carried out last year) found that enhancing services on the Cotswold Line (through improving service frequencies and reducing journey times) would be likely to divert trips presently made by car on to the railways, thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems.

Financial and Staff Implications

16. The Sub-Committee originally set aside £5,000 for further work on the Oxfordshire halts and preparation of a RPP bid for the line as a whole. This sum is now likely to be consumed as Oxfordshire's contribution to preparing the overall RPP bid. The additional work on the halts will incur further costs as outlined above. I should be able to give a firmer estimate at the meeting in the light of information expected from Thames Trains.

17. Some staff time will be taken up in attending meetings of the Partnership (and its steering group) – maybe six meetings over the next year. Extra staff resources may be needed to help prepare the Oxfordshire elements of bids for funding of the agreed service improvements through the Rail

Page 33 Passenger Partnership scheme.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

18. Improved rail services on the Cotswold Line would also benefit people living in poverty who are less likely to own or use cars and more likely to be reliant on public transport than those on average incomes or above.

Recommendations

19. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to increase the sum set aside for further work on the Oxfordshire halts and preparation of Rail Passenger Partnership bids for the Cotswold Line to be carried out under the auspices of the Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership (suggested amount to be advised at the meeting in the light of information expected from Thames Trains).

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers : Notes of Partnership meetings and related correspondence on Environmental Services PT file 9412/1

Contact Officer: Peter Challis - Tel : Oxford 815585

August 2000

Page 34 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT09

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT9

PROVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT INFORMATION BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. The County Council currently have a contract with Pindar plc for the inputting of bus and train timetables into a database held by Pindar at Preston. This information is used to produce Wayside timetables for bus stops and Parish Council timetables for those councils who have requested them. The software used for this database is now out of date and incapable of developing further.

2. The County Council also pays Pindar to update the County Bus and Rail map every six months. Only a limited number are printed and it is not widely distributed as before.

3. No general timetable information has been provided since 1999 following the Environmental Committee decision to cease publication by the County Council of timetable information. A limited number of timetable leaflets have been printed but only for services connected with Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. Timetables have also been published for significant commercial service enhancements or where an operator has replaced, without subsidy, a service withdrawn by another. In return for County Council assistance with publicity, operators agreed to run the service for at least nine months.

4. The current situation is that the County Council provides virtually no printed timetable information to members of the public. Written requests for timetables, guides or leaflets are regularly made from a variety of sources to the Public Transport team by members of the public, tourist information centres, etc, including some from overseas. Members of the team spend a great deal of time dealing with these requests and often have difficulty fulfilling them due to the lack of printed information.

National Public Transport Information System

5. The Government, through the Department of the Environmental Transport & the Regions (DETR) has aimed for a public transport information system to be systematically extended across the country by 2000. It was expected that partnerships would be formed to develop the service which was to include a telephone information line, enquiry bureau, teletext and the Internet. The DETR made funding available but for capital items only and not for the day to day costs of running the telephone inquiry line which is to be met by the bus operators.

6. The original intention for local implementation of the national-system was for the Pindar Routel database for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes to be extended to cover Oxfordshire. However problems were foreseen over joint management of the database and it has been decided that Oxfordshire should have its own database managed by the County Council, under the overall umbrella of the contracts arranged through the original partnership.

Page 35 7. An order was raised from the DETR for funding to populate the new database but this was overtaken by the decision that, due to the tight timescales and uncertainties at the time over the Routel database, other arrangements need to be made. Accordingly Pindar contracted with Southern Vectis to use their Xephos system as the basis for the call centre and Internet enquiry system and called it JP2000. Pindar have taken the timetable information from our existing database electronically into JP2000. This is an interim step only and once the call centre is fully operational the intention is to populate a new Routel database for ourselves as originally planned. The new database is a more powerful and flexible system and will permit various options not possible with the old database including an internet application. It will also allow wayside displays to be produced more economically.

8. DETR funding through Supplementary Credit Approval is also being used to locate, number and code all the bus stops in the county. Babtie are doing this work which is still underway and some of the coding is being done by Southern Vectis as their Xephos system is geographically based and can geo-code the stops automatically. The stops also need grouping together into places and interchanges. Our database is initially at timing point level but will ultimately be at bus stop level for the use of the call centre.

Telephone Enquiry Line

9. The national telephone enquiry line 'Traveline' was implemented at 0700 on Monday 31 July virtually throughout the country, using telephone number 0870 608 2 608. The service is open from 0700 to 2000 every day of the week.

10. There has been little publicity at present as the service is still developing and several call centres have still to come 'on line'. Once all are up and running and any difficulties overcome there will be ongoing publicity. The centre for the South East is being run by Green Line, initially for a period of two years, after which the market will be tested.

11. It is intended that there will be an internet site for the South East before the end of the year. This is an integral part of the system and will deflect a proportion of enquiries away from the call centre thereby saving costs. The precise form and function of the site is still subject to discussion. For the time being the Oxfordshire County Council web site should provide a link to the regional site, once this is available, for public transport information. This may need to be reconsidered once the regional site is in operation, depending on how effective it is on providing detailed public transport information for Oxfordshire.

12. The responsibility for managing the call centre contract lies with PTI South East Limited, a company formed to act as the client. Discussions with the bus operators resulted in their agreement to pay for the running of the centre worked out on the basis of the number of calls for each operator's service. The Chairman for PTI South East Limited is Philip Kirk, Operations Director of the Oxford Bus Company. County Council contributions for subsidised services may be required and estimates are about £22,000, although how much is still unclear. The capital cost of setting up the transport information system has been met by the DETR.

Possible Further Provision for Oxfordshire

13. The Transport Bill contains provision to require local authorities to ensure that information about bus services is available in their areas. The onus is being put on the bus operators to produce timetable information and will give the local authorities new powers to secure the availability of passenger information where necessary and to recover the costs from the bus operators. We will report on the publicity standards once the Bill becomes law.

14. In the main the large operators are quite good at producing their own publicity, in some cases

Page 36 complete with maps showing all their routes. But there is no overall publicity which gives an idea of the full range of services available.

15. Stagecoach Oxford have already proposed that those operators who run services in the city should meet and explore the possibility of combining, with the County Council, in joint publicity. A meeting has been arranged with the operators in October to discuss the issue.

Best Value

16. The Government have set Best Value Performance Indicators for the County Council. One indicator (BVP104) asks what percentage of users are satisfied with the local provision of public transport information. A postal ballot is to be undertaken in late Autumn this year, probably October/November to gauge public opinion.

17. The results of the Best Value Legislation and the Transport Act will almost certainly involve the County Council in providing some sort of timetable provision. Although the new telephone inquiry line will help to eliminate day to day enquiries, members of the public still request paper information. There is a need for a comprehensive guide showing all operators routes to give an overall picture of what services are available.

Public Transport Guides

18. There are several options:

(a) Re-introduce the Public Transport Guide. These consist of single sheet folded leaflets with, on one side, the county bus and rail map and on the other summarised timetables for one of the twelve areas of the county. They were distributed door to door. The timetable detail was difficult to work out and led to many complaints. There may be scope for improvement in layout, however space limitations will always prevent the ideal presentation. Members may like to be reminded of the Guides we published and an example for the Faringdon and Wantage area is attached for Members of the Sub-Committee.

(b) One guide to cover the county giving frequency information plus possibly a list of services for each town and village with the bus and rail map on the reverse. It is unlikely that there would be enough room to cover Oxford City in adequate detail and this could have its own guide, perhaps produced under the Stagecoach proposal mentioned earlier in the report.

(c) A book or series of books based on various market towns and containing full timetable information similar to the earlier Travel Times books published by the County Council in 1992-96. The disadvantage with books is that they are costly to produce and tend to be out of date in a short time. However if the proposed Transport Act limits the number of dates when bus operators can change timetables the latter problem may be avoided. Conversely it could also mean that we would need to publish the books more often if more than two dates are proposed (we published them twice a year on contract change dates)

19. The previous guides were delivered door to door. If we were not able to afford this they could be distributed free to members of the public and to libraries, Tourist Information Centres, and Post Offices, etc who would be willing to display them. The books or booklets could be distributed in the same manner as the guides but with a cover price to encourage retail outlets to take them. If they sold any they would keep the money. We would also need to print much smaller quantities for this system.

Page 37 20. The amount of staff time needed to find outlets, pack and dispatch guides or books, would be very high and we would probably need to pay someone to do the work for us. It would therefore be more economical and advisable to retain door to door distribution. The Post Office impose a weight limit and we need to note this if we decided to publish books instead of guides.

21. The concept of the guide is that it shows what bus services are available in outline. Members of the public can then use the telephone inquiry line once it is widely recognised to obtain details of the journey they wish to use. In addition to the options given above Members may wish to propose alternative solutions.

22. Approximate costs have been obtained for a 96 page A5 book which worked out at about £15,000 for 20,000 copies. To distribute this door to door would be prohibitive. The cost for a 48 page A5 book is £6500 for 20,00 copies or £10,500 for 50,000 copies. The figures quoted are estimates and I will report orally at the meeting on what finance is available for timetables taking into account tender prices.

Environmental Implications

23. Research shows that the availability of timetable information to the general public is a major factor in encouraging the use of public transport in preference to more environmentally damaging private cars.

Financial and Staff Implications

24. The cost to produce 10,000 copies of one Transport Guide is £1855. If two Guides are printed at the same time the cost is £2535. Further copies cost £72 per 1000 copies for one guide or £133 per 1000 copies for two guides (prices at March 2000). Distribution costs are £48.30 per 1000 plus £75 arrangement fee. If a full set of guides were produced and at the same quantities as before (280,000 copies) the cost is likely to be £80,000 for two issues plus door to door distribution.

25. Most of the telephone enquiries which currently find their way to the Public Transport team will go to the advertised Traveline enquiry line so that the net effect of the new service will be a saving of staff time. The production of the guides would result in extra work at certain times of the year. Lack of door to door distribution would result in more staff time being used to pack, despatch and find outlets or extra cost to get this task done through an outside agency. However, the lack of printed timetable information has resulted in many adverse comments to the Public Transport Team. The assumption of some form of printed information will therefore help raise morale and end these comments.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

26. People living in poverty are less likely to own or use cars and more likely to be reliant upon public transport information and thus have more need for public transport information – than those on average or above average incomes. They are therefore more likely to depend on public transport information either in printed form or through a telephone enquiry line.

Recommendations

27. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(d) welcome the introduction of the telephone inquiry line which fills a gap in the provision of public transport information;

Page 38 (e) note that officers will report to future meeting on information standards in the light of the proposed Transport Act 2000;

(f) consider, taking account of the financial position to be reported orally, whether to fund publication of public transport guides and if so what form and on which distribution basis.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Nil Contact Officer: Martin Shaw Tel : Oxford 810405 18 August 2000

Page 39 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT10

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT10

UNMET REQUESTS FOR SERVICES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

How the System Works

2. The Sub-Committee maintains a high priority waiting list (attached at Annex 1) of public transport services and other items which it has been unable to fund. This list has recently been expanded so that it now includes requests made by local councils for new or improved services – and for reinstatement of services that have been withdrawn – as well as other items, such as extra public transport information.

3. Officers also maintain for reference a lower priority waiting list, a list of items referred to Oxfordshire Rural Community Council for investigation as possible non-conventional local transport schemes, and a list of services which could be developed into bids for Rural Bus Challenge funding. (These lists may be consulted in the Members' Resource Centre). Opportunities are taken to pursue these items as they arise.

Outstanding Requests

4. Members have the opportunity to consider whether anything should be added to, or deleted from, the high priority waiting list – or whether any of the items on the list should be investigated now. They also have the option of inviting tenders straight away for any of the services on the list. Those services that are eligible for Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) are marked with an asterisk in Annex 1. The cost (where known) of each service when it was last considered is also shown. These costs may have changed, of course, in the meantime.

5. Tenders have been invited for a number of services already on the waiting list. Prices received for these services will be reported orally under the exempt part of the agenda. (See report on 'Tenders for New Bus Services').

New Requests and Protests about Service Withdrawals

6. A new request has been received from Councillor Bill Bradshaw, for additional services in the Wallingford area. A price has been obtained for this service enhancement, and this is also reported under the exempt item, 'Tenders for New Bus Services', along with full details of Councillor Bradshaw's request.

7. Any further requests, or protests about service withdrawals, that are received after this report has gone to press will be reported orally at meeting.

Environmental Implications

Page 40 8. Improved public transport services should encourage more people to travel by public transport instead of private vehicles thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems from road traffic.

Financial and Staff Implications

9. Decisions to take forward requests to reinstate or improve services may result in future expenditure. This report gives the Sub-Committee the opportunity to allocate staff time to pursuing the most important requests in the most productive ways.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

10. Improved public transport services may also benefit people living in poverty, who are less likely to own or use private vehicles, and more likely to be reliant upon public transport.

Recommendations

11. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(a) consider what priority should be given to any new requests, or protests about service withdrawals, which may be received before the meeting and reported orally;

(b) consider whether they wish officers to take forward any other items on the waiting list immediately (besides those to be considered under the exempt part of the agenda); and

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Requests and protests from local councils and others on Environmental Services files PT9366 and 9495

Contact Officer: Peter Challis - Tel : Oxford 815585

August 2000

Page 41 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT10, Annex 1

ANNEX 1

WAITING LIST (HIGHER PRIORITY ITEMS) DATE LAST COST WHEN LAST CONSIDERED CONSIDERED Public transport information boards (initial pilot set of 6) 03.03.94 £9,000 one off plus £2,000/year Area co-ordinators of transport for mobility-impaired 19.05.94 £5,000/year per people (where local demand) co-ordinator "DPTAC" grants 02.03.95 £11,000/year Enhancement of Ring-a-Ride using Social Services 02.03.95 £5,000/year vehicles' spare time Additional bus stop timetable displays 02.03.95 £4,000/year Mon-Thurs evening service to suburbs north and south of 25.03.96 £14,000/year Banbury Reintroduction of public access Journey Planner facility 13.11.97 £11,000 one-off then on OXCIS terminals and introduction on the internet saving of £7,000/year Service to Marston Estate (Arlington Drive) 19.02.98 £60,000/year Rose Hill to Cowley Centre Service 19.02.98 £9,000/year More buses West Hanney-Wantage/Oxford* 07.09.98 £16,800/year Direct Ducklington-Oxford (Mon-Fri) peak and (Wed) 07.09.98 £11,600/year shoppers' services* Wantage – Didcot via Milton Park a.m. peak service* 23.10.98 £36,500/year Great Coxwell-Faringdon-Witney shoppers service* 23.10.98 At least £30,500/year Witney – Standlake – Abingdon service* 23.10.98 At least £35,100/year Bicester – Banbury peak service* 19.11.98 £27,800/year basic-£40,000 quality vehicle Fulbrook-Burford-Witney evening service on 6 / 2 days a 19.11.98 At least £8,700/year week* Wychwoods-Leafield-Witney peak/shopping service on 6 19.11.98 At least £27,100/year days a week* Improved service Stanford-in-the-Vale – Oxford/Swindon* 19.11.98 At least £31,000/year Oxford – Hinton Waldrist late afternoon service* 19.11.98 £29,600/year Witney – Long Hanboro'-Oxford evening and Sunday 19.11.98 At least £15,600/year service* Sunday service for Faringdon* 29.04.99 Not costed Service for St Thomas area of Oxford 02.09.99 Not costed Increased (half-hourly) daytime service, plus evening 18.11.99 Not costed-daytime service, Arncott – Bicester £36,000/year-evening Wantage – Stanford-in-the-Vale evening peak journey* 18.11.99 £29,400/year Improved service, Peachcroft Estate, Abingdon 18.11.99 Not costed South Leigh – Standlake – Witney Saturday service* 18.11.99 £1,900/year Faringdon – Appleton – Oxford evening service* 18.11.99 £42,700/year Increased service for Kingspool area of Ewelme and link 27.04.00 Not costed from Ewelme to Benson Village*

Page 42 * service would be eligible for Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG)

Page 43 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT11

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT11

PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

2. This report details further applications for shelter grants received from Parishes in response to the 2000/2001 invitation, and seeks the Sub-Committee's rulings on a number of issues raised. In view of the Sub-Committee's decision at their last meeting to increase the grant percentage available to smaller Parishes, a number of applications have been received from such smaller settlements. A further application has been made to draw down grant already agreed by the Rural Transport Development Fund (RTDF).

Agreed in 1999/2000

3. I understand that the following shelters were in place by early August 2000 (numbers of shelters in each Parish are shown in brackets): Chinnor (2), Cumnor (2), Eynsham (3), Kidlington (5), St Helen Without (2), Stanford in the Vale (1), Stoke Row (2), Stonesfield (1), Tiddington with Albury (1) and Wootton (nr Abingdon) (1), a total of 20 shelters. A further 10 shelters agreed in 1999/2000 are yet to be erected. One applicant, whose grant was previously agreed, has decided not to proceed at this stage. Total spend agreed in 1999/2000 was £47,124; this is being funded from £38,047 of 1999/2000 Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) plus £9,077 from the RTDF grant. A total of 30 shelters has thus been agreed from 1999/2000 funding.

Progress so far in 2000/1

4. A total of £45,000 SCA has been allocated for shelter grant application in 2000/1. In addition, the Countryside Agency has now agreed that the unspent balance of the £25,000 RTDF grant agreed in 1999/2000 can be rolled forward to 2000/1. So far, one application, for two shelters, is all that has been agreed from the 2000/1 funding.

New Applications

5. Since those accepted at the last meeting I have received further applications for grant from 6 local Councils, covering 7 shelters. They are for Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor (1 shelter), Langford (1 shelter), Mapledurham (2 shelters), North Aston (1 shelter), Littlemore (1 shelter) and Souldern (1 shelter). Details of these are shown in Annex 1. I recommend payment of grant subject to consideration of special factors in two cases:-

(i) The application from Langford is for a replacement shelter to be built as part of the structure of their new Village Hall, the old Village Hall having been demolished. The old hall and shelter were of wood, whereas the new hall is to be of stone and the new shelter is to be of wooden framing with a slate roof. As the new structure is going to be more durable and vandal-resistant than the old, I am satisfied that the Sub-Committee's policy is met by this application, and I therefore recommend payment of grant.

Page 44 (ii) The application from Oxford City Council is to replace an old shelter stated to be "derelict". The application as received does not state in what ways the design of the new shelter will be superior to the design of the old one. I have therefore written to Oxford City Council asking for further information and will report any further developments orally.

6. An enquiry has been received from Finmere Parish Council, right on the boundary between Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. They want to know whether grant is available for a shelter built to serve an Oxfordshire parish, but situated in a neighbouring county. I have already established that Buckinghamshire County Council has no similar scheme and therefore would be unable to contribute, but would be unlikely to object to Oxfordshire awarding grant (subject of course to consulting Buckinghamshire on the design and location of the shelter). I feel that we ought to agree to extend the shelter grant scheme to a borderline Parish in this situation, even though the actual shelter site is in a neighbouring County. The other County concerned should only be called upon for a contribution if they also have a significant community who would use the stop in question. In the example of Finmere, that would not be the case. This situation is very much a "one-off", as there are few other villages so close to the County boundary that they are separated by it from their local bus stop. I therefore recommend that the Sub-Committee should agree to consider an application from Finmere Parish Council if one is made.

Environmental Implications

7. The provision of additional bus shelters already proposed, and to be proposed in the future, will enhance the overall travel experience for bus passengers, and will therefore encourage more people to use public transport. This in turn will help to reduce pollution, congestion and safety problems from the use of private cars. The visual impact of a shelter will vary according to design, and may have either a positive or a negative influence on the local environment. Officers will ensure that local views on design, and planning requirements (including RTDF and Conservation Area requirements where these apply) are taken fully into account.

Financial and Staff Implications

8. The funding required has been derived from funds allocated to this purpose by Environmental Committee and from a grant by the Rural Transport Development Fund and has no impact on the Sub-Committee's main budget. It is already clear that the scheme changes agreed by the Sub-Committee at their last meeting are having the desired effect of encouraging applications from smaller Parishes. The grants agreed by the Sub-Committee in the last financial year were defrayed from funds available in that year, so do not affect the funds available in the present year. I have summarised the cost of grants awarded/recommended so far this year, and the total financial resources available in financial year 2000/2001, in Annex 1.

9. There has been some additional workload in the Public Transport Team in issuing scheme guidelines, receiving and evaluating applications and consulting on them with other authorities. This workload will continue as long as the scheme continues. However, the opportunity to spend money on improving conditions for passengers waiting for buses is undoubtedly improving staff morale.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

10. People living in poverty are less likely to own or use cars, and more likely to be reliant upon public transport (particularly buses) than those on average or above-average incomes. The provision of additional or enhanced shelters will directly benefit such people.

Recommendations

Page 45 11. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED:

(c) to agree to consider an application from Finmere Parish Council for grant for a shelter serving their village and situated in Buckinghamshire, if such an application is made;

(d) to note the position set out in the report regarding the confirmed roll-forward of funding from the Rural Transport Development Fund, and the progress of the scheme generally; and

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: None

Contact Officer: Alan Witton Tel : Oxford 815683

24 August 2000

Page 46 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT11, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT11

PROVISION OF BUS SHELTERS ANNEX 1 SUMMARY OF GRANTS AWARDED/RECOMMENDED TO DATE

Table 1 – Grants already awarded, April 2000

Name of Parish No.of Shelters likely to be erected in financial year 2000/2001 shelters Grant (quantity) Wallingford (*) 2 £4500 (2) TOTALS 2 £4500 (2) (*) = Eligible for support from the Rural Transport Development Fund.

Table 2 – Grants proposed for award at this meeting

Name of Parish No.of shelters Grant requested Facilities to be provided £ Kingston Bagpuize with 1 1,415 ABCX Southmoor (*) (Telephone adjacent) Langford (*) 1 922 BCST Mapledurham (*) 2 8,340 AESWX (Parish notice boards inside) North Aston (*) 1 739 AESW Souldern (*) 1 3,229 AES TOTAL 6 14,645 Codes for facilities provided – A = Access for mobility-impaired, B = Bus stop attached, C = Cantilever shelter, E = Enclosed shelter, S = Seating inside shelter, T = Timetable case visible from within shelter, W = Windows, X = Other facilities as described. (*) = Eligible for support from the Rural Transport Development Fund.

Table 3 – Funding available in 2000/2001

Funding derived from LTP SCA £45,000 Grant awarded by Rural Transport Development Fund, 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 £25,000 LESS grant claimed in respect of 1999/2000 shelters 0 £9,077 RTDF grant available for use in 2000/2001 £15,923 TOTAL £60,923

Page 47 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT13

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT13

CONSULTATION ON RAIL FRANCHISE BOUNDARIES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

1 As I have reported previously, the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) is currently 'renegotiating' – in practice, retendering – the franchise under which the privately-owned Train Operating Companies (TOC) run passengers rail services. The main objective of this is said to be to provide a basis for investment in and expansion of rail services, rather than the cost cutting to which most existing franchises committed themselves in their bids.

2. As part of the process, SSRA are considering regrouping some franchises to cover different geographical areas. For example, a new 'Walesrail' is proposed, combining the Welsh services of (probably) 4 existing TOCs, 3 of which operate in both England and Wales. The SSRA have issued a consultation on these proposals. With one exception, the changes proposed to franchises serving Oxfordshire are trivial. They are described in the schedule included with these papers at Annex 1. The one potentially significant change is the proposal that the new 'Wessex' franchise might also include some Thames services.

3. A study into the proposed 'Wessex' franchise by consultants Gibb Rail is being undertaken, and your officers have already responded to a (relatively short notice) invitation from SSRA to give views on it which the Council wishes the study to consider. The officer's response is also included in Annex 2. Members are invited to consider whether they wish to add to this response, or make any other comments on the proposed redrawing of franchise boundaries.

4. As this report was completed, SSRA announced the award of the Chiltern franchise to M40Trains – the present operator – on the basis of a £370 million investment package. An outline of the benefit likely to be included in the final franchise agreement is included in the papers (Annex 3). However, I understand that the detail of the agreement is still to be negotiated, and the County Council will be consulted on it. I shall report any consultation orally.

RECOMMENDATION

5. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to: -

(a) endorse the officers response on the proposed 'Wessex' Franchise; and

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background Papers: Nil Contact Officer: Dick Helling, Tel (01865) 815859 9 August 2000

Page 48 Page 49 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT13, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT13

CONSULTATION ON RAIL FRANCHISE BOUNDARIES

ANNEX 1

Consultation on Rail Franchise Boundaries

Summary of Suggested Changes Affecting Oxfordshire Rail Franchises

Chiltern

Currently being renegotiated on existing boundaries; the only possible change suggested is extension beyond Birmingham to Stourbridge, replacing services presently operated by Central.

Cross-Country

Virgin Trains hold this on a long franchise, not currently proposed for renegotiation. The only possible change mentioned is take-over of branch lines in Cornwall and Devon.

Great Western

No change is proposed to this franchise save for possible take-over of branch lines in Cornwall and Devon.

Thames/Wessex

The 'core' proposal for the Thames franchise is to leave it unchanged. The map showing the proposed Thames franchise includes the Didcot to Bristol line. The only Thames service over that line at present is the Bristol-Oxford run jointly with Great Western. This recently introduced service is not part of the basic specification (the 'PSR') for the current Thames franchise; but it is to be hoped that it will be included in a future franchise.

A suggested alternative for the Thames franchise is inclusion, in whole or part, in the proposed Wessex franchise. The core 'Wessex' proposal consists of those parts of the current Wales & West franchise which will not fall into 'Walesrail', and as such does not affect Oxfordshire. However, SSRA describe their proposal as follows: -

'The Wessex Rail proposition could be based on the important network of interurban routes serving the area between Worcestershire, Bristol and the South Coast. It could also include the line between Exeter and Waterloo and local services around Bristol. It might also include longer distance services currently operated by Thames Trains from Paddington to Worcester, Hereford and Stratford upon Avon. Such a Wessex franchise would establish an integrated network of local and interurban diesel services with many common commercial and operational features. It is possible that other Thames Trains suburban services out of Paddington might also be included within the Wessex franchise'.

Page 50 The letter of response to the study into this proposal has been circulated at Annex 2.

Central

This franchise does not currently serve Oxfordshire, but hopefully will from May 2001 when it is intended to extend Central Trains' Nottingham-Coventry service to Banbury and Oxford. This franchise is proposed to lose its Welsh services and possibly also those in Lincolnshire and East Anglia; the Nottingham to Coventry service would remain within the truncated Central franchise, but the current extension to Skegness of some journeys on that service could become part of an extended Anglia Franchise.

Page 51 Public Transport,l 31/08/00, PT13, Annex 2

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT13

CONSULTATION ON RAIL FRANCHISE BOUNDARIES ANNEX 2

Mr John Gilbert Franchise Team Manager Shadow Strategic Rail Authority 55 Victoria St London SW1H OEU

RH/RJW/9428/2 24 August 2000

Dick Helling 5859

Dear Mr Gilbert

Wessex Rail Study

Thank you for your letter of 11th July 2000, and for consulting this Council on the proposed Wessex Rail Study. The 'core' of the proposed Wessex franchise, as shown on the map enclosed with your letter, does not directly affect Oxfordshire. Our comments therefore relate only to the suggestion that longer-distance Thames Trains might also be included in the franchise.

This Council's aim is to ensure both effective delivery and effective development of rail services in the area. I note that the study criteria clearly cover service delivery. I trust that the study will also look at the effect of the franchise 'map' on the ability and propensity of the franchise to develop and improve services in this area, in partnership with local authorities and others.

In this context, there are a number of specific issues which we feel the study should take into account, as follows: - a) The extent to which the market for the rail services in the Thames area is similar to that in the proposed Wessex area; b) Whether, in the Thames market, local management is important; c) The extent of interdependence between local and long-distance Thames Trains services; d) The effect of adding a further franchise to the three already contracted to provide services between Oxford and Reading ; and

Page 52 e) The effect on the Cotswold line, where services are currently shared between two franchise and there is an active local partnership proposing route development.

This Council's key concern is to ensure the best possible services provided to Oxfordshire rail users. The Council has no prior view on whether, for the services in question, this should be done by a Wessex Franchise, a Thames franchise or in some other way. We trust that the study will take into account all relevant factors, including those mentioned above, in recommending the most appropriate franchise structure to achieve this.

One final point concerns the Oxford-Bristol service. We are pleased to see that this route is included in the 'Thames' map in 'Building a Better Railway – The New Franchise Map', which I assume indicates an intention to include it in the specification for which bids are invited. This Council is particularly keen to ensure retention and development of the service, and we would ask that the effect on it of the Wessex franchise proposal be particularly taken into account.

Please get in touch with me if you have any questions about or would like further information on anything in this letter. I would be happy to speak to Gibb Consulting about these matters if you feel this would be helpful.

Finally I would point out that there has not been the opportunity prior to your deadline, to consult Council Members on this issue. This letter therefore represents an officer view. I shall let you know of any further Member views after the next relevant meeting on 31st August 2000.

Yours sincerely

Dick Helling Public Transport Officer

Page 53 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT13, Annex 3

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT13

CONSULTATION ON RAIL FRANCHISE BOUNDARIES annex 3

Benefits Likely to be Included in Chiltern Franchise

Early Benefits (First Four Years)

 Additional capacity by investing in two additional platforms at Marylebone by October 2003, and in extra tracks (using existing railway land) between South and West Ruislip, at Beaconsfield and between Bicester and Aynho Junction by October 2002.

 50% more train miles overall on the Chiltern network, including doubling the frequency of service between London Marylebone and Birmingham Snow Hill from the current hourly level to half-hourly from October 2002.

 Off-peak frequency between Marylebone and High Wycombe will increase from four to six trains per hour.  London to Birmingham trains will be extended to Stourbridge (by 2001) and Kidderminster (by 2002).  Journey time reductions of 12 minutes between London and Birmingham by 2003.

 Reopening the terminus at Moor Street, Birmingham to provide extra capacity.  More capacity through additional signalling between Banbury and Leamington Spa, a freight route of growing future importance as well as for passengers.

 Improvements in operational performance – M40 Trains to commit to meeting the SSRA's objective of 15 out of 16 trains running on time from April 2004, underpinned with a doubling of the incentive payment and penalty regime.  Passengers Charter – The 'trigger' at which season ticket holders are compensated for poor reliability is to be raised to 99% at the start of the new franchise (98% at present). The trigger at which passengers are compensated for poor punctuality is to be 92% from April 2004 (compared to 90% at present).

 By 2004, all Chiltern trains to be new or completely refurbished. New rolling stock will be leased to meet growth in demand.

 Station improvements – M40 Trains is to invest £27 million in station improvements and transport integration including additional car parking, and security during the first five years of the franchise. Accessibility for disabled passengers is to be improved significantly, with level access being provided

Page 54 at all stations managed by Chiltern. M40 Trains is to invest up to an additional £28million in station improvements over the remainder of the franchise, depending on the final term of the franchise.

Long Term Improvements if Franchise Runs to 20 Years

 An interchange station at West Hampstead.  New services over the route between Aylesbury/Oxford and Bletchley/Milton Keynes (closed in the 1960s).  A new route serving an M40 Parkway station and Oxford.  Examination of an extension north of Aylesbury, to a new Parkway station for the M1 and M6.  Extra tracks between Tyseley and Dorridge on the approach to Birmingham via Solihull.

Page 55 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT14

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT14

FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. In accordance with usual practice, this report deals separately with the Sub-Committee's main budget (in paragraphs 2-11) and the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (in paragraphs 12-16). The Sub-Committee are reminded that there is also £50,000 vired from Environmental Committee for the Premium Routes Study, £20,000 for patronage data analysis software; £1,002,000 Government grant for specific Rural Bus Challenge taxibus projects, and capital sums of £400,000 for rail stations and £100,000 for other public transport capital projects, none of which is included in the figures in this report.

Performance of Main Budget in Previous, 1999/2000, Financial Year

2. The base budget for 1999/2000 was the same in real terms as in the previous year (but 38% less in real terms than in 1993/94). Service reductions implemented early in the year resulted in spending being below budget level in the first half of the year. However, for the second year running there was a series of commercial service withdrawals, subsidy contract surrenders and contract price rises part way through the year. This resulted in spending being £174,000 above base budget level by the end of the year.

3. An additional virement by Environmental Committee to avoid bus service withdrawals kept the final outturn in 1999/2000 to an overspend of £35,000. This has been carried forward to the current year.

Finance Available in 2000/01

4. In recognition of the steeply rising cost of bus subsidy in Oxfordshire – mainly due to operator difficulties in recruiting drivers – Council agreed a Policy and Budget Plans increase of £428,000 for 2000/01. This has greatly eased the Sub-Committee's budget pressures. It should however be noted that continuation of the extra sum beyond the end of 2000/01 is agreed, but on a provisional basis only.

5. The sums available in the main budget are as follows:

£000s Base Budget 1999/2000 1054 Inflation allowance 27 Policy & Budget Plans increase 428 Carried forward from 1999/2000 -35

Sum available, 2000/01 1474

Page 56 Current Expenditure

6. The current expenditure from the main budget is as follows:

Annual Rate of Variation from Variation from Expenditure Annual Rate at Total Spend Apr 1999 Aug 2000 1999/00 £000s £000s £000s Bus subsidies 1143 +92 +214 Information 71 +35 +33 Transport for People with Disabilities 131 +1 -13 Other 38 +19 +21 +147 Total 1383 +255

Total spend to 6 Aug 2000: £302,000 Percent of budget spent: 21% Percent of year to date: 35%

7. Bus subsidy expenditure has risen since the last meeting, due to withdrawal of several commercial services and their replacement by newly subsidised services. These services are reviewed elsewhere on the Agenda. The rise compared to the total spend in 1999/2000 arises partly from this cause, and partly because bus subsidy expenditure was relatively low in the first part of that year, as described in paragraph 2.

8. Information expenditure has risen because the enhanced database of bus services in Oxfordshire is now in operation, and is supplying information to the South-East regional telephone enquiry line, which commenced on 31 July 2000. The increased cost of maintaining that database, and of the County Council's contribution towards the costs of the (mainly operator-funded) telephone enquiry line, have therefore been added. It should be noted that these extra costs are estimates only at this stage – it is too early yet to gain an accurate picture of actual costs, which depend on a number of variables; in particular the number of telephone enquiries made by the public.

9. There has been no significant change in the costs of transport for people with disabilities. A review of major ring-a-ride and other services is now underway, for report to the Sub-Committee's November meeting, but any consequent cost changes are unlikely to take effect until the start of the next financial year.

10. Three extra items have been added to the other category; the Council's contribution to the East-West Rail Consortium (£3,000), the agreed contribution towards further studies on the Cotswold Line (£5,000) and the County Council contribution towards the transport projects to be implemented under the Rural Transport Partnership (£10,000).

Overall Financial Position – Main Budget

11. Thanks to the Policy and Budget Plans increase, current expenditure is significantly below the finance available. Members will wish to be mindful that tender prices for subsidised services under review at this meeting are likely, on recent trends, to rise; especially those for which contracts were surrendered prematurely by operators because they say current prices are far too low. There also

Page 57 remains the possibility of further withdrawals of commercial services – which, so far this year, have been on a much smaller scale than in the two previous years. Nevertheless, it looks increasingly likely that the additional funds made available this year will not be called upon in full, and that, for example, extra spending on republishing public timetable guides could now be agreed (see Information report elsewhere on the Agenda). I shall report further on these possibilities orally, in the light of tender prices.

Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

12. Government announced in the Spring that this extra grant for new rural bus services will continue until at least 2004, at the same absolute levels as before (ie without allowance for inflation). This gives Oxfordshire £927,000 a year. Further extra Government funding for transport was announced in July 2000. There have been hints that this will include further extra funds for bus subsidy, but no firm proposals. I shall report orally if there is further news before the meeting.

13. The current RBSG spend is £951,000 a year.

14. The current spend is somewhat above the budget because of the effects of standard inflation payments within existing subsidy contracts. It includes an estimate for administration and publicity which is based on last year and is probably too high for this year, since, for example, the need for publications to show revised timetables is likely to be lower. Nevertheless, members are advised to avoid committing any further RBSG expenditure at this stage. Any further new services would be better funded from the main budget.

15. RBSG services will be reviewed in the latter part of the year. It is hoped that savings can be made from the start of next financial year on existing services. This will allow some limited new services to be introduced next year from the existing £927,000 budget.

16. An overspend now looks likely in the current year. Although a limited number of RBSG services are included with other services under review at the current meeting, I shall not recommend making the necessary savings to balance the RBSG budget from these services alone. I consider it more appropriate to fund any overspend this year in the RBSG budget from likely underspend in the main budget.

Environmental Implications

17. The Council's policy is to encourage increased use of public transport as preferable to private car use in environmental terms. The funding available for public transport services has a significant effect on the extent to which this policy can be implemented.

Financial and Staff Implications

18. The availability of extra government funds for new rural bus services, and of extra main budget funding to avoid cuts in pre-existing services, has boosted staff morale. However, staff constraints are increasingly causing difficulties in spending the extra funds effectively. Should further Government funds become available for public transport, extra staff resources will be required.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

19. People living in poverty are less likely to own or use cars and are more likely to be reliant upon public transport than those on average incomes or above. The funding available for public transport

Page 58 services affects the mobility of these people.

Recommendations

20. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(b) authorise officers to fund any RBSG overspend from the main budget, should this prove necessary at the end of the financial year.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers : List of subsidy agreements and prices – refer to Andrew Truscott, Environmental Services, tel. Oxford (01865) 810404

Contact Officer: Dick Helling -Tel : Oxford (01865) 815859

August 2000

Page 59 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT15E

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT15E

REVIEW OF SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

2. This report deals with the existing subsidised bus services, mainly in the Cumnor, Faringdon and Wantage areas, which are under routine review.

3. Details and current prices of the services concerned are set out in Annex 1. This Annex also gives details of passenger loadings, any alternative services that are available, together with any specific comments received during the consultation process. Services under review are shown on the maps in the Public Transport Guides held in the Members' Resource Centre, although it should be noted that the following alterations have taken place since the area 10 Faringdon & Wantage guide was published;

Service T38 is now H38, Services TW1 and TW2 are now H1 and H2 whilst TW3 and TW4 have been discontinued; Service T68 does not serve Letcombe Regis but operates direct to Childrey via BS85 route.

(Detailed usage information on the services is available on request from the contact officer.)

Reasons Why this Item is Exempt

4. Tenders have been invited for these services but these will not be returned until after this report has been finalised. All the tenders and propositions, will therefore be reported orally at the meeting.

5. All the financial information associated with this report is exempt because its discussion in public might lead to the disclosure to members of the public present, of the amount of expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Council under particular contracts for the supply of services.

6. All prices must be treated as strictly confidential until such time as the Sub-Committee decide whether or not to provide financial support for each service, because revelation of operators' prices before then would prejudice their position in the event that tenders or propositions had to be sought again for any of these services.

Joint Contracts with Buckinghamshire County Council

7. PT/S1 and PT/S 11 PT/S 1 (£6,600 per annum) covers the provision of local journeys in the Thame Town area on Wycombe Bus service 331/332 and is wholly supported by Oxfordshire County Council. PT/S 11 covers certain journeys on the same service (on four days per week) between Thame, Chinnor and High Wycombe and is supported jointly with Buckinghamshire County Council. The Oxfordshire contribution is £9,700 per annum. Bucks C.C. who act as prime contractor for this service are proposing to extend their subsidy contracts for this service, due to end in October 2000, until April 2001. The Wycombe Bus Company is agreeable to this course of action. Contracts

Page 60 must then be put out to open tender at this time as they will then have been in force for the maximum period of five years.

8. It is therefore suggested that this Council should continue to wholly support contract PT/S 1, and continue their contribution to the Buckinghamshire contract (in respect of contract PT/S 11) until April 2001, at the prices currently applicable.

Services Under Review

9. The network under review can be divided in to a number of categories:-

(a) Five contracts for 'market day' only type services operating on one or two days per week radiating from Faringdon and Wantage and to adjacent centres such as Abingdon and Newbury. (PT/V 35, PT/V 38, PT/V 64, PT/V 66 and PT/V 72)

(b) The contract for the Wantage town service (Mondays to Saturdays) and a circular service from Wantage to Childrey via East Challow and Letcombe Regis both currently operating under a one-year contract following their premature surrender by Stagecoach Oxford in October 1999. The Childrey service includes an element of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) funding for additonal peak hour journeys inaugurated in October 1998. (PT/V 36 and PT/V 144)

(c) Three contracts for the Oxford – Faringdon – Swindon (via the villages) service (Mondays to Saturdays). This currently operates as Stagecoach Oxford service 63 between Oxford and Faringdon via Cumnor, Appleton, Southmoor, Longworth and Hinton Waldrist. Stagecoach Oxford service 65 covers the western section of route between Faringdon and Swindon via Fernham, Longcot, Watchfield, Bourton and South Marston (the latter diversion receiving a financial contribution from Swindon Borough Council). Certain journeys continue at present eastwards from Faringdon to Wantage and/or Abingdon as service 65A. In practice, Stagecoach Oxford has chosen to operate the two contracts at present as a through service with buses changing route numbers at Faringdon. One contract provides for an early morning journey at 06.40 from Faringdon to Oxford (Mondays to Fridays) that offers a significantly earlier arrival time in Oxford than the commercially operated direct 66 sevice. (PT/V 60, PT/V 63 and PT/V 73)

(d) The hourly trunk service (Mondays to Saturdays), mainly via the A420 between Oxford and Swindon except for diversions into Southmoor, Faringdon and Watchfield, is operated commercially by Stagecoach Swindon & District (as their service 66) and is not therefore part of this review. The County Council does however presently support four separate contracts that cover a number of peak hour diversions to villages such as Longcot and Appleton that are otherwise covered by the existing Stagecoach Oxford contracts during the off-peak period. A further contract, funded from the RBSG provides for an early morning journey (Mondays to Fridays) at 06.32 from Faringdon to Swindon. (PT/V 59, PT/V 68, PT/V 71, PT/V 77 and PT/V 174).

(e) Financial support for the Stanford in the Vale community minibus which links several villages with Faringdon and Wantage on four days per week. (PT/V 65)

10. For ease of comprehension the figures contained in the confidential financial summary have also been set out on the basis of the groupings outlined above rather than strict order of PT contract numbers as used previously. Members may like to comment on this method of presentation.

Stagecoach Oxford Contracts

Page 61 11. Five of the contracts listed above are currently held by Stagecoach Oxford and comprise two of the 'market day type' operations on one or two days per week, whilst the other three cover the Oxford – Faringdon – Swindon 'via the villages' route. Stagecoach Oxford has already advised the County Council that they will not be submitting tenders for continuation of all the above contracts.

Unmet Requests for Services

12. Where possible, outstanding requests for additional journeys or services within the review area that are included as items on the Sub-Committee's 'waiting list' have been incorporated in the specifications for this tender round. In most cases operators have been requested to quote the additional costs involved in meeting this requirement as an 'add-on' to the base specification. Some are, however the subject of completely new contracts such as one option for the restoration of the late night facility from Oxford to Appleton and Southmoor (and beyond), and the introduction of a limited Sunday service on route 66 between Oxford, Faringdon and Swindon. A limited service over a completely new link between Faringdon and Witney has also been specified (via Radcot Bridge, Bampton then an option of two routes via either Lew or Standlake). Prices were sought for this service in the Autumn 1998 following suggestions received as part of the consultation exercise on possible spend of the initial RBSG: this new proposal service will still qualify for funding from the RBSG. It was rejected in 1998 as being poorer value for money than other services that were subsequently introduced. Full details of those services on the waiting list for which tenders have been invited are shown in a separate report on this agenda – see 'Tenders for New Bus Services'.

Inter-link Services

13. Following the Sub-Committee's previous policy decision on the tendering of 'inter-link' type frequencies as part of an area review where this was considered appropriate, officers reviewed the existing network in the Faringdon and Wantage area. Stagecoach Oxford already runs the prime links from Wantage to Didcot and Abingdon (generally) on half-hourly or hourly daytime frequencies, on a commercial basis, (with additional express buses to/from Oxford that run 24 hours per day at weekends). Similarly the trunk Oxford – Swindon service provided commercially by Stagecoach Swindon and District is generally on an hourly frequency, Monday to Saturday daytime. Officers did however conclude that some enhancement might be justified along the Faringdon –Swindon corridor and this is discussed further in paragraph 15 below.

14. Consideration was also given to the level of service over the Wantage – Stanford in the Vale – Faringdon corridor. This is currently provided on a limited basis by Stagecoach Oxford service 65A (Wantage - Swindon) on Mondays to Saturdays enhanced on four days per week by journeys over all or part of the route, off-peak and evenings run by the Stanford in the Vale Community minibus. An extra peak journey suitable for workers in Wantage was introduced in October 1998 (under RBSG funding) but this was withdrawn in October 1999 following the review of funded services. Whilst patronage was slowly increasing, it was considered that this did not justify the level of support incurred. Requests do however continue to be received to reinstate the PM peak journey and it may be possible to consider this again under various options that were specified in this tender round. Officers therefore concluded that whilst there might considered to be a case for an inter-link standard type of service between Wantage and Faringdon this was not born out by the level of usage made of the limited service currently provided. Any enhancement could also, of course, have a detrimental effect on the viability of the community minibus operation. No specifications were therefore put out for an enhanced level of service over this link at this time but it is hoped that all existing journeys can be maintained.

Response to Consultation

15. Extensive consultations have taken place with the 49 Parish and two District Councils concerned. Many supported the continuation or enhancement of the present level of service, although some, such as Ashbury Parish Council, took a more pragmatic approach and accepted

Page 62 that the one day per week service from Faringdon to/from their village could be discontinued as no use appeared to be made of the facility (Ashbury does have other more regular public bus services, to/from Swindon, daily, and a community minibus service, but neither are part of this review). Others suggested possible enhancements or improvements or reiterated requests that already are included in the Sub-Committee's waiting list. There was considerable support expressed for the restoration of the late night journey from Oxford to Appleton and Southmoor, if only on Fridays and Saturdays.

16. Comments were also received regarding the extensive new developments in Watchfield together with the expansion of the military staff college, and that this may justify an enhanced level of service. Stagecoach Swindon & District have already diverted their commercial 66 service to double-run into the college to serve the main entrance. The 65 does take a different and slightly longer route and serves Watchfield High Street, which is not served by route 66. Swindon Borough Council has indicated that it may be prepared to consider a small increase in its financial contribution towards this service. Officers have therefore put out a specification for a higher level of service between Faringdon and Swindon, via the 65 route, as well as for the existing level. The outcome of this exercise will be reported at the meeting.

17. During the consultation period of this review the County Council also became aware of two independent reports into bus usage that were being undertaken, and which could provide further comments and suggestions regarding the bus network in this area. The Vale Housing Association has been awarded an Innovation and Good Practice Grant by the Housing Corporation to investigate rural transport needs and to explore ways in which housing associations can play a role in making local transport policy more responsive to customers' needs. Their survey included a questionnaire to tenants, and 6 focus groups held in May 2000 in Abingdon, Wantage and Faringdon. The Wantage Grove and District Community Information Centre, under a grant from the Oxford, Swindon and Gloucester Co-operative Society, undertook the second survey. Attempts were made to send 9000 survey forms to all the households in Wantage, Grove and the surrounding villages although it appears that coverage was less than complete. The County Council has received pre-publication copies of both these reports (although after the end of the consultation period) and the points raised have been considered in conjunction with those received from the Parishes and incorporated in the specifications where possible and appropriate.

Usage of Services

18. Surveys undertaken by County Council staff of a number of the contracts under review show very low usage (particularly over certain sections of the 'market day only' services), and therefore justification for continuing these services must be carefully considered. Swindon Borough Council has also indicated that it no longer wishes to financially support the diversion of the Friday only Faringdon – Coleshill – Highworth – Swindon service via Stanton Fitzwarren. Officers have therefore only sought tenders for a replacement service between Faringdon and Highworth. This will offer connections with a 15-minute frequency daytime service between Highworth and Swindon operated by Stagecoach Swindon & District, which has a journey time of 21 minutes.

Tender Prices

19. Tender prices will not be available until shortly before the meeting of the Sub-Committee, and they will therefore be reported orally to the meeting. A number of 'De Minimis' propositions are expected to be received, and these will also be available for oral report at this meeting. Until all tender prices received have been analysed, I will not know what the overall impact on the Sub-Committee's budget is likely to be.

20. If further support for any contract is not agreed at the meeting on 31 August 2000 (except where they have been replaced by alternative arrangements/contracts), then the service or journey concerned will cease after Saturday 28 October 2000.

Page 63 Co-ordination with Education Contracts

21. This review coincided with the pilot study undertaken into the procurement of Public Transport and Education contracts under the Best Value criteria by a team of senior council officers. The recommendations arising from this pilot study were incorporated within this review process where possible although the review was already being undertaken before the Best Value team had reached its final conclusions. This therefore made it impractical to undertake some of the recommendations in this round. All the proposals will be adopted as part of the next review.

22. Officers from both departments have checked thoroughly for any opportunity to carry schoolchildren on public bus services, and one or two possibilities were considered. Additionally as part of the consultation process Parish Councils were asked about either those specific possibilities that had been identified or if they were aware of any flows of non-entitled children (possibly using parent paid-for coaches) that might transfer to existing services if suitable.

23. A particular problem within the Vale of White Horse area is that there are a number of Education contracts to small village primary schools (some using vehicles as small as 4 seats for example), where access for full sized buses is difficult. This precluded one of the possibilities for the use of service buses, which involved an existing education transport contract from Letcombe Regis to Childrey School, where the bus would have to reverse up a narrow lane to drop off the children near to the school. Additionally Parish Councils also raised the issue of seat belts (generally provided on education contract coaches but not on buses), and concerns over the mix of ordinary passengers and schoolchildren. This point also arose in comments in the Vale Housing report where parents of (non-entitled) pupils who presently use the commercial Stagecoach Oxford service to travel between Wantage and Didcot Girls School complained of irregularity, failure to operate and overcrowding. No further opportunities were therefore found within the time-scale of this review to investigate the possible transfer of pupils to public bus services, but this matter will be considered in greater detail in future reviews.

Environmental Implications

24. Maintaining or improving these services may lead to people travelling by public transport instead of private vehicles, thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems from road traffic. Enhancing and maintaining rural services is in line with Government objectives, which have now raised the awareness and aspirations of people living in rural areas. This point was made in many of the responses received from parish councils.

Financial Implications

25. 'De minimis' propositions are expected to be received for certain services/journeys, and these, together with the prices obtained through the tendering exercise will be reported to the Sub-Committee. I will also report orally to the meeting on the overall implications of this review and give my recommendations.

Staff Implications

26. In general, the more subsidised services there are, the more staff resources are needed to manage and monitor them. However, discontinuing or curtailing an individual subsidy contract (except on clear evidence that it is not used at all) frequently leads to staff having to deal with complaints from aggrieved members of the public and their representatives, with a corresponding increase in stress as well as a short-term increase in workload.

Page 64 Implications for People Living in Poverty

27. People living in poverty, particularly in rural areas, are less likely to own or use cars, and more likely to be reliant on public transport (particularly buses) than those on average or above-average incomes. Maintaining or improving these services in the longer term will, therefore, be of particular benefit to such people. In some cases they may be encouraged to avoid the substantial costs involved in car ownership and/or use, leaving more of their limited disposable income for other purposes.

Recommendations

28. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to:

(b) agree the extension of contracts PT/S 1 and PT/S 11 until April 2001.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Correspondence with Local Councils, Public Transport Representatives and Transport operators on PT file 9356/00B (refer to contact Officer).

Contact Officer: John Wood Tel: Oxford 815802

August 2000

Page 65 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT15E, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT15E

REVIEW OF SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES ANNEX 1

CUMNOR, FARINGDON & WANTAGE Area Review (and Thame – High Wycombe services)

List of services for which support has been agreed until October 2000.

Current Contra Current Days of Cont Price per ct Contractor Service Operation Type Operating note Numbe Day r

PT/S Wycombe Bus Thame Town service Mon-Sat LC £21.76 1 Wycombe Bus Thame – High Wycombe. M/W/Th/Sa T £47.79 a. PT/S 11

PT/V Bennett's Grove/Wantage – Newbury. Thur T £45.34 35 Coaches

PT/V Heyfordian Travel Wantage & Grove Local service Mon-Sat T £275.00 b. 36 Heyfordian Travel Wantage – Childrey Circular Mon-Sat T b. PT/V 144

Stagecoach Diversion of route 66 to serve PT/V Swindon & Appleton: AM Peak to Oxford Mon-Sat LC £11.67 59 District PM Peak from Oxford. Mon-Sat LC £17.76 PT/V 71

PT/V Faringdon – Wantage Wed/Fri T £1774.49 c. 38 Stagecoach Faringdon – Oxford (via Villages) Mon-Sat per week c. PT/V Oxford Faringdon – Oxford (AM jny) Mon-Fri c. 60 Faringdon – Swindon (Via Mon-Sat c. PT/V 63 Villages) certain jnys to/from PT/V Wantage. 73 Faringdon – Abingdon. Mon T £42.43

Page 66 PT/V 64

PT/V Thamesdown Ashbury – Faringdon Fri T £90.15 d. 66 Transport Faringdon – Highworth – Fri d. PT/V Swindon 72

Diversion of route 66 to serve: PT/V Stagecoach Bourton Village (AM, PM Peak) Mon-Fri LC £1.67 68 Swindon & Fernham & Longcot (AM & PM Mon-Sat LC £7.54 M-F PT/V District Peak) £8.07 Sat 77

Faringdon – Swindon (Early AM) Mon-Fri T £11.67

PT/V 174

PT/V Stanford in the Faringdon – Stanford – Wantage Tu/W/Th/F/S CL £3057.50 e. 65 Vale Community per annum Transport

Contract Type: CL = Cost limited Notes: (a) Bucks C.C. joint contract: extension to April 2001. LC = Low cost (b) Combined price for PT/V 36 and PT/V 144 T = Tendered (c) Combined price for V38, V60, V63, and V73 (d) Combined price for V66 and V72 Contracts with 1XX numbers are wholly or (e) General contribution towards operating costs. partly funded from the Government Rural Bus Subsidy Grant.

INFORMATION ON SERVICES

Cumnor, Wantage and Faringdon Area review: (also Thame – High Wycombe services)

Contracts: PT/S 1, and PT/S 11

Service description: These cover the regular Thame – Chinnor – High Wycombe service, and incorporates a town service routing within Thame (shown in the Public Transport Guide as W331/W332)

Service 331 in Oxfordshire operates via Thame Town, Sydenham, Kingston Stert, Kingston Blount, Crowell, Chinnor (Estover Way and Red Lion), and Chinnor Hill to the county boundary. Thence via Bledlow Ridge to High Wycombe.

Page 67 Service 332 in Oxfordshire operates via Thame Town, Towersey, Chinnor (Black Boy and Red Lion), and the Henton turn to the county boundary. Thence via Princes Risborough and Saunderton to High Wycombe

Specific contracts are:

PT/S 1 Diversion of most journeys to serve Towersey Road in Thame and extension from the Town Hall to Cromwell Ave (Mon-Sat). (Wholly funded by Oxfordshire C.C.)

PT/S 11 Support for the main daytime service between Thame, Chinnor and High Wycombe on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays only. Commercial operation by bus company on Tuesdays and Fridays. (Funded jointly by Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire C.C.)

Operated by: The Wycombe Bus Company, services 331/2.

Current Subsidy: PT/S 1 - £6,635 per annum PT/S 11 - £9,792 per annum (Oxfordshire contribution)

Last Reviewed: PT/S 1 - 28 February 1997 PT/S 11 - 26 February 1996

Av. Passengers PT/S 1 - 42 (to/from Cromwell Ave or Towersey Drive) per day: PT/S 11 - 218 (within or to/from points in Oxfordshire)

Cost/passenger jny: PT/S 1 - £0.52 PT/S 11 - £0.22

Local Councils served: 6

It is proposed to extend these contracts under April 2001, at the present prices. Buckinghamshire County Council are proposing to extend their support for PT/S 11 until this date.

Contract PT/V 35

Service Description: A market day service on Thursdays only comprising of one journey in each direction between Grove/Wantage and Newbury (shown in the Public Transport Guide as BSN1)

Route serves Grove, Wantage, East Hendred, Rowstock, Harwell Business Park, and Chilton. Alternative commercial services provided by Stagecoach Oxford operate generally hourly (daily) between Wantage and Rowstock Corner/Didcot, whilst a West Berkshire Council contracted service (also operated by Stagecoach Oxford) runs every two hours Mondays to Saturdays daytime between Didcot/Rowstock Corner and Newbury. It is therefore possible to make this journey, with one change on six days per week (see below).

Page 68 Operated by: Bennetts Coaches, service N1.

Current Subsidy: £2346 p.a.

Last reviewed: 31 August 1995

Av. Passengers per day: 40

Cost/passenger jny: £1.13

Local Councils served: 8 of which 4 replied. All felt that passengers would not travel if they had to change, or they would use their cars instead.

Proposed change: Divert service to pick-up in the village of Ardington

Prices Sought: PT/V 35 Existing level of service

Contract: PT/V 36

Service description: A local service operating Mondays to Saturdays via a circular route, linking Grove and areas of Wantage with Wantage, Market Place. Journeys operate hourly, in alternate directions. (shown in the Public Transport Guide as TW1/TW2/TW3/TW4)

This is the only Wantage local service although inter-urban buses serve the main radial routes from surrounding towns such as Abingdon and Didcot, including linking the centre of Grove with the centre of Wantage. This is the only bus service to Larkdown, Brereton Drive and Denchworth Road areas.

Operated by: Heyfordian, service W1 (Anticlockwise) and W2 (Clockwise).

Current Subsidy: £84,770 per annum (combined with PT/V 144) Note: Contract commenced 31 October 1999 following surrender of previous contract by Stagecoach Oxford (which had operated at an enhanced service level)

Last Reviewed: 2 September 1999

Av. passengers per day: 108 (this service only)

Cost/passenger jny: £1.59 (V36 & V144 combined)

Local Councils served: 2, of which Wantage Town Council wished to see the service extended to other areas. An independent report by the Wantage Grove & District Community Information Centre was also received

Page 69 Prices Sought: PT/V 36A – higher level of service – every 30 minutes. PT/V 36B – existing level of service – every 60 minutes.

Contract: PT/V 38

Service description: A 'shoppers' service between Faringdon and Wantage consisting of one morning journey in each direction on Wednesdays and Fridays only (Shown on the public transport guide as T68).

Route serves Fernham, Uffington, Kingston Lisle, Westcot, Sparsholt and Childrey. Fernham has regular services (Mon-Sat) to Faringdon and Swindon and Uffington has additional shoppers' service on Friday afternoons to Faringdon plus its own community minibus service. Uffington and Kingston Lisle have three journeys on a Saturday direct to Swindon via Ashbury. This is the only public bus service to Westcot and Sparsholt, but Childrey has an hourly service to Wantage (Mon-Sat)(see V144 below).

Operated by: Stagecoach Oxford, service 68.

Current Subsidy: £85,992 per annum (combined with PT/V 60, V63 and V73)

Last Reviewed: 4 September 1997

Av. passengers per day: 14 (this service only)

Cost/passenger jny: £2.19 (estimated)

Local Councils served: 10 of which 5 replied. No response from either Sparsholt or Westcot for which this is the only public bus service (surveys show some, but limited, usage from these villages). Prices Sought: PT/V 38A - Existing level of service (Wed/Fri) PT/V 38B - Operation on Wednesdays only

Alternative option: Eastern part of route between Wantage and Kingston Lisle/Uffington could be covered by PT/V 144A

Contract: PT/V 144

Service description: A Monday to Saturdays circular service between Wantage and Childrey operating via Letcombe Regis or East Challow. Buses generally operate hourly in alternate directions round the loop (outward via Challow and return via Letcombe Regis, reverse direction in the following hour). (Shown in the Public Transport Guide as T38)

Route serves Letcombe Bassett, Letcombe Regis, Childrey, East Challow, Wantage (Hamfields). Childrey has a market day service to Wantage on Wednesday and Friday (which is part of this review – see V38 above), whilst

Page 70 East Challow has irregular journeys (Mondays to Saturdays) on the Stanford in the Vale minibus route and the Wantage - Faringdon - Swindon service (also part of this review – see V73).

Operated by: Heyfordian, service 38.

Current Subsidy: £84,770 per annum (combined with PT/V 36) Note: Contract commenced 31 October 1999 following surrender of previous contract by Stagecoach Oxford.

Last Reviewed: 2 September 1999 (RBSG review).

Av. passengers per day: 65 (this service only)

Cost/passenger jny: £1.59 (V36 & V144 combined).

Local Councils served: 6, of which three replied seeking to retain or improve the service. Childrey P.C. specifically sought continuation of the peak hour RBSG funded journeys

Prices sought. PT/V 44 - A reduced level of service with no peak journeys. PT/V 144A - An enhanced service, extended to include parts of current PT/V 38 route PT/V 144B - Existing level of service (including peak journeys).

Contracts: PT/V 59, PT/V 71

Service description: A diversion of one journey during the AM (PT/V 59) and PM (PT/V 71) peaks on Mondays to Saturdays of the main Swindon – Faringdon – Oxford service to serve the villages of Fyfield, Appleton and Cumnor(Cutts End) (Shown in the Public Transport guide as SD66).

Route serves Cumnor, Eaton, Appleton and rejoins normal route at Fyfield (A420). Journeys are PT/V 59, 07.58 from Fyfield to Oxford (arr 08.28) PT/V 71, 17.50 from Oxford to Fyfield Contract PT/V 60 provides the regular off-peak service to these villages.

Operated by: Stagecoach Swindon & District, service 66.

Current Subsidy: PT/V 59 - £3,558 per annum PT/V 71 - £5,415 per annum

Last Reviewed: PT/V 59 - 29 May 1997 PT/V 71 - 5 September 1996

Av. passengers per day: PT/V 59 - 8 (on diverted section) PT/V 71 - 3 (on diverted section)

Page 71 Cost/passenger jny: PT/V 59 - £1.46 PT/V 71 - £5.92

Local Councils served: 3 of which two replied. All sought continuation of a peak facility although not necessarily by the above contracts.

Prices Sought:: 'De Minimis' prices from the current operator to continue this arrangement

Alternative option – Prices have also been sought for the peak hour journeys as part of contract PT/V 60A

Contracts: PT/V 60, PT/V 63

Service description: PT/V 60 - A regular service (Mon-Sat) off-peak service between Oxford and Faringdon serving intermediate villages off the main A420, and providing four journeys in each direction at broadly 2-hourly intervals. PT/V 63 - One early am peak journey (Mon- Fri) from Faringdon to Oxford via the same route as PT/V 60, departing Faringdon at 06.40 (Shown in the Public Transport Guide as T63)

Route serves Cumnor, Eaton, Appleton, Fyfield, Southmoor, Longworth, Hinton Waldrist, Buckland turn and Littleworth turn. One journey each way operates via Pusey and Stanford in the Vale. This contract provides the main service to the villages of off the A420, most of which are too distant from the main road to be able to use the 66 service as an alternative. Appleton, Eaton, Longworth and Southmoor have a Monday and Friday market bus to Abingdon.

Operated by: Stagecoach Oxford, service 63.

Current Subsidy: PT/V 60/63 – £85, 992 per annum (combined with PT/V 38 and V73)

Last Reviewed: 4 September 1997

Av. passengers per day: PT/V 60 - 76 PT/V 63 - 20

Cost/passenger jny: PT/V 60 - £1.87 (estimated) PT/V 63 - £4.50 (estimated)

Local Councils served: 11, of which 8 replied. This service generated the greatest response with all parishes seeking to generally maintain or improve the service provided. Strong requests for retention of early morning service and reinstatement of late night bus from Oxford (on waiting list) either on two or six nights per week. Suggestion of diversion of more journeys to serve Stanford in the Vale generally acceptable. Tenders have been invited for at least 3-4 journeys each way via Stanford in the Vale – see agenda report 'Tenders for New services' Prices Sought: PT/V 60A Peak and off-peak service (incorporating PT/V 59 and V 71), with the additional cost of journeys to Wantage and a late night journey from Oxford also requested. PT/V 60B Off-peak service only (existing level of service but mainly Oxford-Stanford in the Vale only) with additional costs for Wantage/late night operation requested. PT/V 60C Off-peak service (reduced level of service but retains link Oxford – Faringdon (Via Stanford)

Page 72 plus additional costs of Wantage/late night service. PT/V 63 Early AM journey only (existing) PT/V 162 Late evening journey Oxford – Faringdon (either 6 nights or Fri/Sat only)

Contract: PT/V 64

Service description: A 'shoppers' service between Faringdon and Abingdon consisting of one morning journey in each direction on Mondays only. (Shown in Public Transport Guide as T88)

Route serves Shellingford, Hatford, Stanford in the Vale, Goosey, Charney Bassett, Lyford, and Garford. Apart from Garford village (for which this is the only service, although there are regular services from Garford Turn about ½ mile distant) all other places are served by the Stanford in the Vale minibus to Wantage or Faringdon. Stanford and Shellingford also have a limited six-day per week service to Oxford and Swindon.

Operated by: Stagecoach Oxford, service 88.

Current Subsidy: £2008 per annum

Last Reviewed: 20 February 1997

Av. passengers per day: 20

Cost/passenger jny: £2.18

Local Councils served: 11, only 3 replied. None of the smaller villages responded. However the Council's surveys show that passengers only originate from Faringdon and Stanford in the Vale. Officers explored the possibility of this route being provided by other means (in particular the Stanford Community minibus - although this does not operate on Mondays (Abingdon Market Day) at present. Prices Sought PT/V 64 - existing service, Mondays only

Contract: PT/V 66

Service description: A 'shoppers' service between Ashbury and Faringdon consisting of two afternoon journeys in each direction on Fridays only. (Shown in Public Transport Guide as TD67)

Route serves Great Coxwell, Fernham, Baulking, Uffington, Woolstone and Ashbury. Fernham has a regular service (Mon-Sat) to Faringdon and Swindon, whilst Uffington has a shoppers service to Wantage on Wednesdays and Fridays. Ashbury has direct service to Swindon (daily), which also has journeys from Uffington and Woolstone on a Saturday.

Operated by: Thamesdown Transport , service 67.

Page 73 Current Subsidy: £4,575 per annum (combined with PT/V 72)

Last Reviewed: 20 February 1997

Av. passengers per day: 24 (this service only)

Cost/passenger jny: £2.91(combined figure with PT/V 72)

Local Councils served: 8, of which 5 responded. Great Coxwell are concerned to retain a service (despite nil usage recorded during the County Councils surveys) but Ashbury Parish accepted that this service could be discontinued as there appeared to be no desire to travel to Faringdon (Ashbury also has a ring a- ride facility).

Proposed change: To re-route in a loop working from Uffington via Kingston Lisle and Woolstone rather than operating to/from Ashbury

Prices sought: PT/V 66A Three round trips Friday AM and PM (could be partial replacement for PT/V 38) PT/V 66B Two round trips, Friday PM (existing level)

Contract: PT/V 72

Service description: A 'shoppers' service between Faringdon and Highworth/Swindon consisting of a morning link to Swindon, and an afternoon return facility to Coleshill on Fridays only (Shown in the Public Transport guide as TD67).

Route serves Faringdon, Eaton Hastings, Buscot, Coleshill, Highworth and Swindon. This is the only service to Eaton Hastings, Buscot and Coleshill. There is an Hourly direct service between Faringdon and Swindon operated by Stagecoach Swindon & District.

Operated by: Thamesdown Transport , service 67.

Current Subsidy: £4,575 per annum (combined with PT/V 66) Swindon Borough contribute £254 per annum to divert service via Stanton Fitzwarren. They have indicated that this facility will not be required after October 2000.

Last Reviewed: 20 February 1997

Av. passengers per day: 7 (this service only - journeys only available on this service).

Cost/passenger jny: £2.91 (combined with PT/V 66)

Local Councils served: 5, of which four responded. A petition containing 44 signatures from Coleshill and 17 from Buscot was received against the possible loss of bus service. It was suggested that a service to Swindon on Saturdays.

Page 74 Proposed changes: It is difficult to justify operation between Highworth and Swindon in view of the withdrawal of Swindon Borough support and the frequent commercial service over this section. Tenders have been invited for service that provides connections at Highworth Prices sought: PT/V 72 - Three trips each way (existing level of service), Fridays only, but only between Faringdon and Highworth (with connections to Swindon). Options for an alternative Saturday service will be investigated for report at the meeting, although this could have an effect on contract PT/V 66 which is currently operated jointly with this service.

Contract: PT/V 73

Service description: An off-peak service of four journeys in each direction (Mon-Fri) and five on Saturdays between Faringdon and Swindon via various intermediate villages. One journey each way Mon-Fri) and two on Saturdays are projected eastwards from Faringdon to/from Wantage/Grove via Stanford in the Vale.

Route serves Swindon, South Marston, then (in Oxfordshire) Bourton, Shrivenham, Watchfield, Longcot, Fernham, and Faringdon. Certain journeys continue via Stanford in the Vale, Challow, East Challow to Wantage/Grove. A slightly different route is followed in Watchfield to the main 66 service.

Stagecoach Swindon & District commercial service 66 provides a regular service (Mon-Sat) between Faringdon, Watchfield, Shrivenham and Swindon, and certain peak hour journeys divert to serve Fernham, Longcot and Bourton when this contract does not apply. Fernham has shoppers' service to Wantage on Wednesday and Fridays. This is the main service to South Marston village for which Swindon Borough make a financial contribution of £5383.75per annum.

Operated by: Stagecoach Oxford, services 65, 65A. Note: The Saturday X65 journeys between Abingdon, Southmoor, Faringdon and Swindon are nominally operated 'commercially' by Stagecoach Oxford as they were not part of the previous service specification. They are however positioning trips for journeys that are part of the specification and therefore were offered by Stagecoach Oxford as part of the timetable at no extra cost.

Current Subsidy: £85,992 per annum (combined with PT/V 38, PT/V 60 and PT/V 63)

Last Reviewed: 4 September 1997

Av. passengers per day: 72.5

Cost/passenger jny: £1.97 (estimated)

Local Councils served: 7, of which 5 responded. With new development in Watchfield, the Parish Council is keen to see an enhanced service to/from Swindon including late evening and Sunday services. Prices sought: PT/V 73A - Hourly service (peak and off-peak) (incorporating PT/V 68, V 77 and V 174) with additional cost requested for late evening journey from Swindon. PT/V 73B - Existing level of service (off-peak only) with additional cost of journeys to/from Wantage.

Page 75 PT/V 178 - Limited Sunday service on 66 route (Oxford – Faringdon - Swindon) via direct daytime routing.

Contracts: PT/V 68, PT/V 77 and PT/V 174

Service description: These cover peak hour diversions of the regular Oxford - Faringdon – Swindon route to serve various villages south of the main road otherwise covered by the off-peak service provided under contract PT/V 73 (Shown in the Public Transport Guide as SD66)

Specific contracts are:

PT/V 68 Diversion to serve the village of Bourton on the 07.30 Faringdon-Swindon journey (Mon-Fri) and the 18.05 from Swindon (Mon-Sat)

PT/V 77 Diversion to serve Fernham and Longcot on the 07.30 (Mon-Fri) and 07.45 (Sat) Faringdon- Swindon journeys and 18.05 from Swindon (Mon-Sat)

PT/V 174 Covers throughout the operation of the 06.32 Faringdon – Swindon journey (Mon-Fri) including operation via Fernham & Longcot.

NOTE: all other journeys on route 66 between Swindon and Faringdon are presently operated commercially by Stagecoach Swindon & District.

Operated by: Stagecoach Swindon & District, service 66.

Current Subsidy: PT/V 68 -£422 per annum PT/V 77 -£2,325 per annum Swindon Borough make a contribution of £610 per annum to this contract for the diversion of the AM journeys via South Marston. PT/V 174 - £2954 per annum – funded from the Rural Bus Subsidy

Last Reviewed: PT/V 68 - 5 September 1996 PT/V 77 - 4 September 1997 PT/V 174 - 7 September 1998 and 24 June 1999.

Av. passengers per day: PT/V 68 - None to Swindon AM. 2 from Swindon P.M. 1 from Bourton to a point eastwards PT/V 77 - 3 (From Fernham & Longcot) 1 (to Longcot) PT/V 174 - 4

Cost/passenger jny: PT/V 68 - £0.56 (estimated) PT/V 77 - £1.88 PT/V 174 - £2.91

Local Councils served: 4 of which 2 replied. Longcot Parish Council wished to retain existing services

Page 76 whilst there was general support for the existing early journey operated under contract PT/V 174.

Prices Sought: - 'De Minimis' prices from the current operator to continue these arrangements

Alternative option – Prices have also been sought for these journeys as part of contract PT/V 73A

PT/V 65 – STANFORD IN THE VALE COMMUNITY BUS (Services SM 83 and SM 84)

Current cost: = £3057.50 per annum Current contract commenced 30.04.97

1. The Stanford in the Vale Community Minibus Service provides a network of public bus services based on Stanford that link nine villages with Faringdon and Wantage. The timetabled services mainly operate in the mornings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays but there is also a Tuesday evening service to Faringdon Sports Centre and a Thursday evening service to Wantage Sports Centre. The bus is also used for private hire and excursions as well as monthly trips to Oxford and other surrounding centres. A free bus is operated within the village on Thursdays to get pensioners to/from the Post Office and village shop.

Background

2. This service was last reviewed at an Urgency Sub-Committee meeting on 28 February 1997. The County Council has provided financial support for this operation since 1986, initially at the rate of £5,000 per annum up to May 1990, thereafter at £2,500 per annum until 1997. Continuation at the existing level of support was then agreed, but this became subject to an annual inflationary increase from the start of the new contract. This gave a base rate at the start of the contract of £2,754.06 per annum, and there have subsequently been three inflationary adjustments in April each year. Between 1990 and October 2000 there will have been three separate contracts with the Minibus Committee.

3. The Minibus Committee is not wholly dependent upon the County Council for financial support and has in the past also received funding from The Vale of the White Horse District Council as well as the Countryside Agency (formerly the Rural Development Commission). The service bus was replaced during the autumn of 1997 by a new Mercedes vehicle using contributions mainly from the above sources.

Usage

4. The Committee has supplied the County Council with the following loading figures. These show average passengers carried per day over a 13 week period during March – June 2000.

DAY LEVEL OF SERVICE AVE PASS PER DAY Tuesdays Three return trips to Faringdon, two to Wantage 38 Evening return to Faringdon Sports Centre 30 Wednesdays Five trips Stanford – Wantage via Villages 59 Thursdays Evening return trip to Wantage Sports Centre 1.7 Fridays Two return trips to both Faringdon and Wantage 26 Saturdays Four return trips Stanford to Wantage via Villages 43

5. This gives an average of 197.7 passengers per week at a subsidy cost of £0.30 per passenger journey. This compares with a cost of £0.28 per passenger journey at the previous review in 1997 and confirms the statement made by the Minibus Committee that their services continue to be well supported. The above continues to demonstrate very good value for money compared with the cost of provision of other rural bus networks within the County.

Consultation

Page 77 6. As part of the review, as well as consulting with all the Parishes served by the community minibus, the Minibus Committee was asked whether they wished to make any changes to their services. Other than withdrawal of the Thursday evening service to Wantage (and possible replacement by a journey to Faringdon Sports centre as the Tuesday bus to this destination has on occasions been oversubscribed), they indicated that they were not planning to make any changes. They cite the continuing difficulty of recruiting volunteer drivers together with a wish not to run little used services as this can demoralise those who have already volunteered.

7. Of the ten parish/town councils in the area covered by the Stanford in the Vale minibus network, only three responded and none had any specific comments regarding the service. Suggestions were however made regarding the overall level of service provided between Wantage and Faringdon of which the minibus forms only part, and these have been considered in the main report.

8. Apart from the Community minibus service to Wantage on Wednesdays and Saturdays there is also a market day bus from Faringdon to Abingdon (via Stanford) that provides an additional service on Monday mornings to Goosey, Charney Bassett and Lyford (contract PT/V 64, currently Stagecoach Oxford route 88). The only patronage recorded during the Council's surveys of this service originate from either Faringdon or Stanford in the Vale and the Minibus Committee were therefore asked if they were able to incorporate all or part of this service within their operations. They have so far declined, mainly because the minibus is normally maintained on a Monday.

Funding requirements.

9. The Minibus Committee has therefore submitted a 'De Minimis' bid to continue the current levels of operation at the existing price (subject to annual inflation increments). They feel that this will enable then to continue to keep fares at a reasonable level, provide a contingency against any unexpected maintenance costs as the bus gets older, as well as looking towards its eventual replacement. As this contract is proposed for award until October 2004, by which time the current vehicle will be about 7 years old, there is a possibility that the bus will have to be replaced during the lifetime of this contract.

10. It is reasonable to presume therefore, that if the Sub-Committee award this contract at the price suggested, then no further requests will be received by the County Council for extra funding to replace the present vehicle during the duration of this contract. The Minibus Committee may therefore have to use their own resources (of which they have built up a reserve primarily for vehicle replacement) or seek funding from other bodies (as they did in 1997), should they wish to renew the bus prior to October 2004.

Financial implications

11. As stated above, it will cost £3057.50 to continue this contract from October 2000 and the next inflationary increase will not thereafter fall due until October 2001. This figure will be considered alongside the other tender prices that I will present orally to the Sub-Committee at the meeting, following analysis of all the tenders and propositions we have received. I will make my recommendations accordingly.

JW/16.08.00

Page 78 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT16E

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT16E

COMMERCIAL WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SERVICES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. This report deals with two services which were withdrawn on a commercial basis in April 2000 between John Radcliffe Hospital, Marston Village and Oxford City Centre (contract PT/08) and Oxford City Centre, Stokenchurch and High Wycombe (contract PT/S2).

Reasons why this Item is Exempt

2. Tenders for continuation of these services have been invited, but will not have been received until after the deadline for this report. They will be reported orally at the meeting. Tender prices, and all financial information reported in Confidential Annex 2, are exempt because their discussion in public might lead to the disclosure to members of the public present, of the amounts of expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Council under particular contracts for the supply of services.

3. Tender prices must be treated as strictly confidential until such time as the Sub-Committee decides whether or not to provide financial support for each service, because revelation of operators' prices before then would prejudice operators' positions in the event that tenders had to be sought again for any of these services.

Services Affected

4. Each service is dealt with below in turn. Results of usage surveys and of consultations with local councils are summarised in Annex 1. Further, more detailed, information on patronage of each service can be supplied on request (please refer to contact officer).

Contract PT/08 – John Radcliffe Hospital, Marston Village and Oxford City Centre (Presently Operated by Oxford Bus Company, Service 13C) (Mondays to Saturdays, daytimes.)

5. This service was operated commercially as part of Oxford Bus Company's Marston Road network (services 13/13A/13B/13C). The company notified withdrawal of the commercial journeys via Marston Village, the last day of commercial operation being 29 April 2000. I accordingly exercised my delegated powers to conclude a short term agreement with Oxford Bus Company, at the price stated in Confidential Annex 2, to continue the existing service with an unchanged timetable. No other bus service exists in Marston Village or in Marsh Lane, New Marston. Other points on the route continue to be served by commercial services 13/13A/13B.

6. Two particular issues have had to be taken into account in consideration of tenders for replacement of this service: -

(i) The present timetable is designed to facilitate operation of afternoon school contract journeys using the same bus. One complete round trip is therefore missed on service 13C on

Page 79 school days only. The time of the missed journey varies according to the day of the week. In responding to my consultation on the future of this service, the Clerk to Old Marston Parish Council has made the reasonable comment that 'for intending passengers to need to know whether it is a school day or not before deciding to travel is nonsense and should not be accepted'. I have accordingly invited tenders for two versions of the service; one permitting a round trip to be omitted, the other requiring a continuous daytime service. Oxford Bus Company have assured me that the school journey could continue to operate if a continuous service was required for Marston Village; it would be provided by a different bus. (ii) A service to Marston Estate (Arlington Drive) has been on the 'waiting list' since 1998 when this service was withdrawn by Oxford Bus Company. When last costed, such a service would have cost £60,000 per annum; but it might be possible to offer such a service much more cheaply by incorporating it with the Marston Village service for which tenders are now being invited. I have accordingly invited bids for service to Marston Estate in conjunction with the Marston Village service. Operation via Marston Estate would require smaller vehicles (certainly not larger than 25 seats, and likely to be suitable for 'taxi-bus' operation with 8-16 seaters). Costs might be higher because of the inability of such vehicles to provide extra capacity on Marston Road.

7. Tenders have been invited for the following: -

(a) PT/08A – enhanced level of service providing one journey an hour, without a break, throughout the daytime (0730 to 1820 Mondays to Saturdays).

(b) PT/08B – existing level of service permitting one complete off-peak journey to be omitted during the afternoon.

(c) An option to divert all journeys via a circuit of Marston Estate. This may be offered in conjunction with either PT/08A or PT/08B.

Contract PT/S2 – Oxford and High Wycombe (presently operated by Wycombe Bus Company, Service 275) (Mondays to Saturdays, daytimes).

8. Arriva The Shires Ltd notified us of their proposal to withdraw their service 300 (Oxford-High Wycombe-Uxbridge), again after operation on 29 April 2000. This service provides the only daily bus for the Oxfordshire villages of Milton Common, Tetsworth and Postcombe. I discussed the future of this link with Buckinghamshire County Council. They did not consider it a priority to maintain the through service from Oxford to points east of High Wycombe; journeys to e.g. Beaconsfield and Uxbridge can still be made by changing buses at High Wycombe. We agreed that Buckinghamshire should invite tenders for an Oxford – High Wycombe service, with Oxfordshire contributing 70% of the cost. Buckinghamshire County Council accordingly concluded a contract with Wycombe Bus Company, who were the most advantageous tenderer, at the price stated in Confidential Annex 2.

9. During the course of this contract Wycombe Bus Company has added an extra round trip to the contracted timetable on a 'commercial basis'. I have subsequently agreed with Buckinghamshire County Council that Oxfordshire, in whose area the majority of the service now falls, should invite tenders for a longer-term replacement service, with Buckinghamshire contributing their share of the cost. I have accordingly invited tenders for the following variants: -

(a) PT/S2A – Higher (present) level of service, incorporating the extra journeys recently instituted by Wycombe Bus; six journeys per day in each direction, Mondays to Saturdays.

(b) PT/S2B – Lower level of service which could be operated with one bus; four journeys per day in each direction, Mondays to Saturdays. (Note – this variant also includes, at Buckinghamshire's request, a short journey wholly within Buckinghamshire, 1540 High Wycombe to Stokenchurch. This timing is covered by the main timetable in variant PT/S2A).

Page 80 Environmental Implications

10. Maintaining these services in the longer term may lead to people travelling by public transport instead of private vehicles, thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems from road traffic.

Financial and Staff Implications

11. In general, the more subsidised services there are, the more staff resources are needed to manage and monitor them. However, discontinuing or curtailing an individual subsidy contract (except on clear evidence that it is not used at all) is likely to lead to staff having to deal with complaints from aggrieved members of the public, with a corresponding drop in staff morale and a short-term increase in workload.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

12. People living in poverty are less likely to own or use cars, and are more likely to be reliant upon public transport (especially buses) than those on average or above average incomes. Maintaining these services in the longer term will therefore be of particular benefit to such people. In some cases they may be encouraged to avoid the substantial costs involved in car ownership and/or use, leaving more of their limited disposable income for other purposes.

Recommendations

13. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to make their decisions in respect of contracts PT/08 and PT/S2 in the light of tender prices to be reported orally at the meeting.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: Correspondence with local councils (refer to contact officer)

Contact Officer: Alan Witton, Tel: Oxford 815683.

24 August 2000

Page 81 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT16E, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT16E

COMMERCIAL WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SERVICES

ANNEX 1 COMMERCIAL WITHDRAWAL OF BUS SERVICES

INFORMATION ON SERVICES

Contract: PT/08

Service Description: An hourly Monday-Saturday daytime service between John Radcliffe Hospital, Marston Village, and Oxford City Centre. This is the only bus serving Marston Village and Marsh Lane, New Marston.

Operated by: Oxford Bus Company (Service 13C).

Current Subsidy: See Confidential Annex 2.

Average Passengers Per Day: 288 (total). 92 (passengers with no alternatives).

Cost/Passenger Journey: See Confidential Annex 2.

Local Councils Served: 2, of which 1 has written supporting continuation.

Special Comments: Old Marston Parish Council is strongly in support of continuation, and point out that it is unhelpful to have a timetable which changes according to school times.

Prices Sought For: (a) Higher level of service, continuous hourly service throughout day (PT/08A);

(b) existing (lower) level of service, permitting one break in service during day (PT/08B);

Contract: PT/S2

Service Description: An inter-urban service between Oxford and High Wycombe, offering 6 journeys each way on Monday to Saturday daytimes. This is the only daily bus service to Milton Common, Tetsworth, Postcombe and Aston Rowant. There are alternative services between Oxford, Wheatley and Waterstock Cross Roads; also an express service between Oxford, Stokenchurch and

Page 82 High Wycombe, not stopping at other intermediate points.

Operated by: Wycombe Bus Company (Service 275).

Current Subsidy: See Confidential Annex 2.

Average Passengers per Day: 181 (total); 37 (Oxfordshire passengers with no alternatives).

Cost/Passenger Journey: See Confidential Annex 2.

Local Councils Served: 10.

Special Comments: None.

Prices Sought For: (a) Existing level of service (6 journeys per day in each direction) (PT/S2A);

(b) Lower level of service (4 journeys per day in each direction) (PT/S2B).

Page 83 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT17E

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT17E

TENDERS FOR NEW BUS SERVICES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. Tenders have been invited for a number of new or improved bus services which are on the Sub-Committee's waiting list. The Sub-Committee has not had sufficient funds available to introduce these services in the past. (The full waiting list is reproduced earlier in the agenda, under 'Unmet Requests for Services'). A 'de minimis' price has also been obtained for a service enhancement in the Wallingford area.

2. The Sub-Committee will be asked which of these enhancements to fund in the light of tender prices received and the overall financial position.

Reason why this Item is Exempt

3. This financial information (prices for bus services) is exempt because its discussion in public might lead to the disclosure to members of the public present, of the amount of expenditure proposed to be incurred by the Council under particular contracts for the supply of services.

4. Prices must be treated as strictly confidential until such time as the Sub-Committee decides whether or not to provide financial support for each service, because revelation of operators' prices before then would prejudice their position in the event that tenders had to be sought again for any of these services.

New Requests

5. Councillor Bill Bradshaw has requested an enhancement to services between Goring, Moulsford, Cholsey and Wallingford so that they would run until later in the evening (and provide connections with later trains from London and Reading).

6. Full details of this request are given in Annex 1, and the 'de minimis' price obtained for this service enhancement is shown in confidential Annex 2.

Outstanding Requests

7. As mentioned earlier, tenders have also been invited for a number of services already on the waiting list, and these prices will be reported orally (in exempt session). The services involved are as follows: -

Contract No. Service Requested Comments

Page 84 C46 Arncott-Bicester (½ hourly Extra services for Arncott may be offered daytime and evening) as part of replacement contract(s) for Bicester area network which were prematurely terminated. V60 Stanford in the Vale-Oxford Service under review – tenders invited for at (improved services) least 3-4 journeys each way via SITV (instead of one each way at present.) V60 Oxford-Hinton Waldrist (late Service under review –included in V60A but p.m.) not V60B/C. V137 West Hanney-Wantage Tenders invited for at least 3 journeys each (improved service) way. V60/V162 Faringdon-Appleton-Oxford Tenders invited for evening service on (evening service) Mon-Sat or Fri and Sat only (V60A or V162A/B). V178 Sunday service for Faringdon Tenders invited for Oxford-Faringdon-Swindon Sunday service (at least 3 journeys each way) V180 (Great Tenders invited for Faringdon-Witney Coxwell)-Faringdon-Witney service (at least 3 journeys each way) on 6 (Shopper's Service) days (Variant A) or 3 days (Variant B) a week. (Great Coxwell-Faringdon link would be provided by contract V72, also under review). 08 Service for Marston Estate Tenders invited for hourly service as possible add-on to the Marston Village-Oxford service (longer-term replacement for this former commercial service under consideration at this meeting).

8. Several other services are under active investigation and any further developments (or prices obtained) before the meeting will also be reported orally. These services are as follows: -

Service Requested Comments Little Milton-Oxford evening Stagecoach Oxford may be able to provide this service by service varying an existing contract. Under consideration by company. Service for Cuddesdon Village Stagecoach Oxford asked whether they can serve Cuddesdon by diverting existing journeys on service 103 (Little Milton-Oxford) – awaiting response from company. Wantage-Stanford in the Vale Under investigation as possible add-on to other services (p.m. peak) under review. Service for St.Thomas area of Thames Travel unable to divert Jericho service via St. Oxford. Thomas area: officers seeking to cover by diversion of Steve's Travel service 18 (Clanfield-Oxford).

Environmental Implications

9. Improved public transport services should encourage more people to travel by public transport instead of private vehicles thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems from road traffic.

Financial and Staff Implications

Page 85 10. The financial implications of introducing the improved services discussed in this report will depend on tender prices received from operators. These prices will be reported orally at the meeting with the exception of the 'de minimis' price for enhancement of services in the Wallingford area. This price is already to hand (see confidential Annex 2).

11. If more subsidised services are introduced more staff resources will be taken up in managing and monitoring them. Improving bus services is likely to meet with a favourable public reaction which will in turn improve staff morale.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

12. Improved public transport services may also benefit people living in poverty, who are less likely to own or use private vehicles, and more likely to be reliant upon public transport.

Recommendations

13. The Sub-Committee are RECOMMENDED to make their decision on whether to introduce those services on the waiting list which have been taken forward in this report (and the new request for enhancement of services in the Wallingford area) in the light of tender prices to be reported at the meeting and the overall financial position.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: None

Contact Officer: Peter Challis, Tel: 01865 815585

August 2000

Page 86 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT17E, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT17E

TENDERS FOR NEW BUS SERVICES ANNEX 1 REQUESTS FOR NEW OR IMPROVED SERVICES

Service Requested: Additional evening journeys on Mondays to Saturdays between Goring, Moulsford, Cholsey and Wallingford providing connections with later trains from London and Reading (enhancement of Thames Travel services 132/135).

Requested by: Councillor Bill Bradshaw

Date Request Received: 4 August 2000

Details of Request:

"Following discussions with Dr Huntingford, the Wallingford Parish Transport Representative and Mr John Wright of Thames Travel, I would like to propose the following additions to the local network on a short term basis until the present contract for service 132 runs out next April. The purpose is to extend service availability between London, Reading and Wallingford into the evenings. As a by-product the service between Wallingford, Cholsey, Moulsford and Goring is also improved. I would propose that the service extension is introduced on Monday 30 October when the local timetables will be reprinted. This will also allow some opportunity to assess the effect before new tenders are let.

The proposal is set out below. Could this please be given urgent consideration?"

Mondays to Saturdays

Existing Bus 135 Arrive Depart

Wallingford (19.40) (19.54) Moulsford 19.57 20.12 Wallingford

Taxi Bus 132 Arrive Depart

Wallingford 21.40 Cholsey 21.46 Moulsford 21.52 22.00 Goring Station 22.13 G Via South Stoke

Page 87 22.30 Wallingford 22.40 Cholsey 22.46 Moulsford 22.52 23.00 Goring Station 23.13 G Via South Stoke 23.30 Wallingford 23.40 (FSO) Via Hospital 23.46(FSO) Cholsey FSO = Fridays and Saturdays Only G = Bus will wait until the delayed connecting train arrives

Existing Services in the Area:

Hourly subsidised service 132 Goring-Wallingford via South Stoke and hourly commercial service 135 Moulsford-Wallingford (½-hourly between Cholsey and Wallingford) both run until approx. 20.00-21.00 on Mondays to Saturdays (operated by Thames Travel). Thames Travel also provide 2-hourly Sunday service Goring-Wallingford via South Stoke (subsidised).

Page 88 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT19E

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT19E

CHANGES IN ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTRACT SERVICES Report by the Director of Environmental Services

Introduction

1. This report deals with some changes within the life of ongoing subsidy contracts, caused by premature surrender of the contract by the existing operator in all but one case, which was a contract terminated by the County Council. In most cases I have invited tenders for replacement services at the existing levels.

Reasons Why this Item is Exempt

2. Tender prices will not be available until after the deadlines for this report, and will therefore be reported orally.

3. This item should be considered in exempt session because its discussion in public might lead to the disclosure to members of the public present, of the amount of expenditure proposed to be incurred by the County Council under particular contracts for the supply of services.

4. All prices must be treated as strictly confidential until such time as the Sub-Committee decides whether or not to provide financial support for each service, because revelation of operators' prices before then would prejudice their position in the event that tenders or propositions had to be sought again for any of these services.

Grayline Services

5. Grayline Coaches have surrendered three subsidy contracts, two in Bicester and one in Kidlington, all of which were originally awarded until 27 October 2001. The Company has indicated that they will be submitting bids to operate the two Bicester contracts, but are unable to continue operating them at the current price. Tenders have been invited for their continuation. They are:

Contract Description Price/Year PT/C40 Bicester (Bure Place) to Southwold (Mon-Sat) £19,361¹ PT/C42 Bicester (Bure Place) to Langford Village (Mon-Sat) ¹ PT/C60 Kidlington/Yarnton/Begbroke Local Service (Tues/Fri/Sat) £11,976

TOTAL VALUE £31,337

¹ contracts PT/C40 and PT/C42 are operated under a combined price (shown next to PT/C40)

6. PT/C40 is a half-hourly service between Bicester (Bure Place) and Southwold with the first

Page 89 departure from Bicester (Bure Place) at 07.38 (08.08 on Saturdays) and the last departure from Bicester (Bure Place) at 18.13. This service calls at Bicester North rail station on an hourly basis. Tenders have been invited for a replacement service (but see "Future of These Services" below).

7. PT/C42 is interworked with PT/C40 and is a half-hourly service between Bicester (Bure Place) and Langford Village. The first departure from Langford Village to Bicester (Bure Place) is at 07.30 (08.00 on Saturdays) and the last departure from Bicester (Bure Place) is at 17.59. Tenders have been invited for a replacement service (but see "Future of These Services" below).

8. PT/C60 operates three days a week (Tuesday, Friday and Saturday) and provides ten journeys a day around Kidlington and four journeys a day linking Kidlington, Begbroke and Yarnton. Tenders have been invited for a replacement service, with three options. The first is for a service until mid afternoon (to allow interworking with school contracts) Monday-Saturday, the second is to maintain the existing service and the third is for a service until mid afternoon three days a week (Tuesday, Friday and Saturday – as at present).

Developer Funded Services in Bicester

9. Grayline Coaches also operate the following contract, which is largely developer funded, in the Bicester area:

Contract Description Price/Year PT/C41 Bicester (Bure Place) to Bure Park and Glory Farm £51,838 ²

² £44,238 developer funded, £7,600 main budget (extension to serve Glory Farm)

10. I gave notice on contract PT/C41 (the contract was originally awarded until 27 October 2001) to allow for the possible "re-casting" of all contracted bus services in Bicester to form a more coherent network (please refer to "Future of These Services").

11. Details of patronage observed on services operated under contracts PT/C40, PT/C42 and PT/C60 are shown in the Annex to this report. PT/C41 is not included as it was introduced in April and officers have not had the opportunity to survey the service.

Future of These Services

12. Tenders have been invited for the replacement of the existing services operated under contracts PT/C40, PT/C41, PT/C42 and PT/C60. In addition, tenders have been invited for a "Bicester Town" network of services (PT/C46) which seeks to combine PT/C40, PT/C41, PT/C42 and other areas of Bicester including Bicester Fields and, potentially, Caversfield, Launton and Arncott. This could achieve a network of services that have been designed to integrate not only with each other but, where possible, train services at Bicester North rather than the existing rather "piecemeal" arrangements. This contract also invites tenderers to bid for evening services to Glory Farm and Langford Village, which are on the high priority waiting list.

13. The development of a network in Bicester also gives the opportunity to combine different sources of funding – main budget and developer contributions towards services on Bure Park and Bicester Fields. Clearly this is only possible if a network is developed that encompasses services to both of these areas of Bicester. Otherwise, maintaining these services (other than the Bure Park service) will be a function of the main bus subsidy budget. Developer funded services in Bicester are dealt with in more detail by a separate agenda item.

Page 90 Contract PT/S29 – (Watlington-Henley, Thursdays and Saturdays, Shoppers' Service (Red Rose services 123/124)

14. On 17 June, 2000 notice was received from the present operators of this service, Red Rose Travel, that they wished to terminate the contract after operation on Saturday 28 October. The contract was originally awarded until April 2003. I have accordingly invited tenders for a replacement service on similar lines to the present one, and will report orally on tenders received, together with my recommendation.

15. There has been no opportunity to consult the Parishes on the line of route on the form any replacement service should take. I have therefore specified a service closely similar to the one being surrendered. However, prior to 1999 this service was part of a through Saturday link between Thame and Henley via Watlington. The present service from Watlington to Thame (White's Coaches services 121/122) is not due for review at this time and I did not therefore think it appropriate to demand surrender of the latter service to enable the two to be tendered together. However, I have made certain adjustments to the specification for the Watlington-Henley service so that the operator of the Watlington-Thame service could if desired operate the two services as a through link.

16. Details of patronage observed on services operated under contracts PT/S29 is shown in the Annex to this report.

Environmental Implications

17. Maintaining these services in the longer term may lead to people travelling by public transport instead of private vehicles, thereby reducing pollution, congestion and safety problems from road traffic.

Financial and Staff Implications

18. Financial implications will be reported orally. In general, the more subsidised services there are, the more staff resources are needed to manage and monitor them. However, discontinuing or curtailing an individual subsidy contract (except on clear evidence that it is not used at all) is likely to lead to staff having to deal with complaints from aggrieved members of the public, with a corresponding drop in staff morale and a short term increase in workload.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

19. People living in poverty are less likely to own or use cars, and are more likely to be reliant upon public transport (particularly buses) than those on average or above average incomes. Maintaining these services in the longer term will therefore be of particular benefit to such people. In some cases they may be encouraged to avoid the substantial costs involved in car ownership and/or use, leaving more of their limited disposable income for other purposes.

Recommendations

20. I will make my recommendations orally in the light of tenders and propositions still to be received, and the overall financial position.

DAVID YOUNG Director of Environmental Services

Page 91 Background papers:

Contact Officer: Sarah J Carter Tel: Oxford 815826 (for contracts PT/C40-C42 and PT/C60) Alan Witton Tel: Oxford 815683 (for contract PT/S29)

August 2000

Page 92 Public Transport, 31/08/00, PT19E, Annex 1

Environmental Committee PUBLIC TRANSPORT SUB-COMMITTEE – 31 AUGUST 2000 AGENDA ITEM PT19E

CHANGES IN ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

Annex 1 CHANGES IN ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTRACT SERVICES

Information on Services Subject to Premature Contract Termination

Contract: PT/C40

Service description: Monday-Saturday half-hourly service between Bicester (Bure Place) and Southwold with the first departure from Bicester (Bure Place) at 07.38 (08.08 on Saturdays) and the last departure from Bicester (Bure Place) at 18.13. This service calls at Bicester North rail station on an hourly basis. This contract is interworked with contract PT/C42.

Operated by: Grayline Coaches – Service 23

Current subsidy/year: £19,361¹

Planned contract end date: 27 October 2001

Last reviewed: 28 February 1997

Average passengers/day: 105 (last review)

Cost/passenger journey: £0.26

Local councils served: 1, which supports the retention of this service

Special comments: none

Contract: PT/C42

Service description: Monday-Saturday half-hourly service between Bicester (Bure Place) and Langford Village. The first departure from Langford Village at Bicester (Bure Place) is at 07.30 (08.00 on Saturdays) and the last departure from Bicester (Bure Place) is at 17.59. This contract is interworked with contract PT/C40.

Page 93 Operated by: Grayline Coaches – Service 24

Current subsidy/year: £19,361¹

Planned contract end date: 27 October 2001

Last reviewed: 28 February 1997

Average passengers/day: 93.9 (last review)

Cost/passenger journey: £0.29

Local councils served: 1, which supports the retention of this service

Special comments: none

¹ combined price PT/C40 and PT/C42

Contract: PT/C60

Service description: Three day a week service (Tuesday, Friday and Saturday) providing ten journeys a day around Kidlington and four journeys a day linking Kidlington, Begbroke and Yarnton.

Operated by: Grayline Coaches – Service 3/3A

Current subsidy/year: £11,976

Planned contract end date: 27 October 2001

Last reviewed: 28 February 1997

Average passengers/day: 82.5 (last review)

Cost/passenger journey: £0.78

Local councils served: 4, 1 of which has written supporting retention

Special comments: The Kidlington PTR states that the existing level of service is satisfactory and a mornings only service six days a week would also be satisfactory, subject to a last departure no earlier than 13.15. A mornings only service three days a week would be a considerable reduction in service and he would not wish to see this specification adopted.

Page 94 Contract: PT/S29

Service description: Watlington-Henley Thursdays and Saturdays Shoppers' Service.

Operated by: Red Rose Travel – Service 123/124

Current subsidy/year: £7,762 (including £520 contributed by Bucks CC)

Planned contract end date: 12 April 2003

Last reviewed: 24 February 1999

Average passengers/day: 65 (last review)

Cost/passenger journey: £1.15 (£1.08 after allowing for Bucks CC contribution)

Local councils served: 4, 3 of whom wrote supporting retention at the last review

Special comments: Tenders have been invited for a similar service which would permit re-establishing the through service between Thame, Watlington and Henley on Saturdays, as provided prior to 1999, if operators desired this.

Page 95