Written evidence from David Cooper-Smith (BUS 01) There has been discontent in Milton Keynes with bus service for many years, under various operators. I don't think this is their fault - rather, due to MK's unusual geography and a regulatory/subsidy system that produces perverse incentives. The role of government has been to give fixed-contract subsidy for particular services. This:- (i) stifles enterprise/innovation by the operator. (ii) makes the operator rely on fixed subsidy income, minimizing incentive to attract custom. (iii) is unresponsive to changing needs and involves govt. officers in decision-making, often remote from customers and taxpayers. Some possible solutions:- (a) a "2 tier" service with a few primary/trunk routes using full size buses largely on grid roads, supplemented by secondary routes using smaller vehicles (to maintain decent frequencies) through the estates - these may need higher fares than primary routes due to higher costs. (b) some smaller vehicles could provide extra bus service during peaks and be utilized for cab- hire in off-peaks. (c) subsidies to be performance-related (eg. related to amount of custom attracted) rather than fixed amount/fixed contract. (d) replace stage fares with a simple ( 3?) zonal system. November 2010 Written evidence from the Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance (BUS 02) Inquiry into bus services after the spending review 1. Background 1.1 The Civil Service Pensioners’ Alliance (CSPA) is recognised by the Cabinet Office as the body that represents retired civil servants. From the approximate 500,000 civil service pensioners the Alliance has an active membership of over 61,000 which are organised into 100 local Groups in England and Wales and, separate Branches covering Scotland and Northern Ireland. 1.2 The Alliance has been fully involved over the last few years both as an independent organisation and through our affiliations with organisations such as the National Pensioners’ Convention (NPC) in campaigning for the provision of concessionary travel for pensioners and older people including the Free Bus Pass. 2. Change in the level of administration of the Concessionary Bus Pass Scheme For Disabled and Older People 2.1 Following the consultation exercise conducted by the Department for Transport in 2009 we made a submission calling for the administration of the concessionary bus travel scheme to be undertaken by the upper level of local authorities as exampled by the County Council rather than at the District Council Level. However we also made the point that any such change should not result in existing additional benefits, such as wider operating times for access to bus services sponsored by individual local authorities, should be detrimentally affected as a direct consequence of the change in the level of administration, a point taken on board by the Department for Transport in their response to the consultation exercise. 2.2 Although we welcomed the decision of the Department for Transport to change the level at which the concessionary bus pass was administered, we had expected there to be a consultation exercise undertaken by County Councils in conjunction with District Councils and their equivalents, with interested parties to ascertain whether or not there were likely to be any issues of concern arising from the change in the level of administration. To date we have only been able to ascertain that Hampshire County Council undertook a public consultation exercise in which our local representatives were involved. 3. Bus services after the spending review 3.1 Although we welcomed the change in the level of administration of the concessionary travel scheme for disabled and older people including pensioners, we supported this change without the prior knowledge that the Coalition Government were going to introduce a reduction in the Bus Service Operator’s Grant (BSOG) as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Were we to have had prior warning of this change it is possible we might not have supported the change in the level of administration until the impact of the reduction in the BSOG had been assessed. 3.2 Whilst we welcomed the retention of the Free Bus Pass for disabled and older people following the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement in November, we now have very serious concerns that this may prove to be a seriously diminished facility especially in more rural areas where existing public transport provision can be sparse under the existing funding and subsidy provisions. 3.3 The proposed cuts in the BSOG over the next four years will be likely to introduce serious cutbacks in the provision of bus services, but this may prove to be a very difficult issue to monitor given that the administration of the concessionary travel scheme funding is no longer undertaken at the lower level of local authorities. 3.4 In other words although there may have been an advantage to the upper level of local authorities administering the concessionary bus travel scheme, that advantage may well now be undermined by the cutback in the BSOG. Also there does not appear to be, or there seems to be very little provision on the part of the upper tier of local government to undertake any public consultation arising from the change in the level of the administration of the concessionary bus travel scheme, which must pose serious concerns over what consultation is likely to be undertaken regarding the impact of the BSOG. 3.5 If it would prove to be of assistance we would be prepared to give oral evidence to expand on any of the contents of this submission. December 2010 Written evidence from the Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) (BUS 03) As you may recall the Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) represents chief and senior technical officers in a large number of local authorities. These include those with highway and transport responsibilities; such as Transport for London, most London boroughs, Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities and also many of the Districts in two tier authorities (where the county is responsible for Transport issues and the District is responsible for Planning including many aspects of Transport Planning and Economic Development). With the different structures for provision of public transport in Metropolitan areas we also have strong links with officers and seconded officers in combined units in such areas including PTEs; indeed we would wish to give credit to officers in PTEG who have assisted us greatly with our evidence. Our members in individual authorities are often responsible for multidisciplinary departments including Professional Engineers, Town Planners, Surveyors, and Architects etc. We represent professional officers working for the authorities responsible for the transport policy in urban areas where the management of travel is most important and is fundamentally affected by the transport policies of Central Government. HOCTC INQUIRY - BUS SERVICES AFTER THE SPENDING REVIEW Introduction In the covering letter we describe TAG’s role, membership and expertise; we would particularly like to draw attention to the fact that on this subject we represent professional officers working for authorities responsible for the transport policy in urban areas and also our close working relationship with combined Transport Units in Metropolitan areas. We would also like to draw attention to other evidence we have previously submitted to The House of Commons Transport Committee. TAG thanks the committee for the invitation to submit evidence and welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry into this important topic and would be willing to appear before the Select Committee, should the Committee wish us to expand on any of the points made in this response. Background While far more political and media attention is given to rail, outside London the bus is the main form of public transport. In the major urban areas the bus carries over 70% of all public transport trips. The bus is also relied upon by the poorest groups in society. 52% of households in the lowest real income quintile do not have access to a car or van. Bus subsidy is good value for money because it contributes to a broad range of wider social, economic and environmental goals. Buses can reduce congestion, emissions and accidents. The cost to society of car use in congested urban areas has been estimated at above £1/km (figure advised by sister organisation PTEG), which, for a typical journey, is many times higher than the current level of bus subsidy per trip. Good bus services can also help stimulate job creation and GDP growth. One recent study, based on DfT guidance, showed that a 60% reduction in bus fares and 20% increase in bus frequency in South and West Yorkshire would generate £5bn worth of GDP benefits alone. Altogether this work showed that for every £1 spent by government, such a policy would provide £3 worth of benefits to society (£1 of which through increased GDP). Improvements to bus services that benefit local economies (for example by providing access to new developments) can also be achieved more rapidly and at relatively modest cost (when compared with major investments in road or rail links). The Government has also made the links between worklessness and bus services: “Social mobility and, in particular, moving people off welfare and into work, often depends on transport infrastructure. If people on isolated and deprived estates cannot get a bus or a train to the nearest city or town, they may be stranded without work and without hope.” Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport1 Often those people out of work or on the lowest paid jobs need to travel longer distances, at unsociable hours, and often less accessible locations to get to work. They are therefore greatly dependent on bus services which are subsidised in whole or in part by the public purse.