Appendix A Cross Border Bus Routes London-Surrey Report compiled by Cllr Andrew Pelling GLA For the Greater London Authority’s Transport and Operations Scrutiny Committee 2. Summary of LTUC’s findings 2.1 LTUC commissioned a report entitled “Crossing the Border” early in 2001. Its aim was to highlight the disparate provision of bus services between Greater London and bus routes which crossed the London boundaries. 2.2 The findings showed that since the mid 1980’s, service levels on routes linking Greater London with bordering Counties have grown at less than one fifth of the rate of growth of routes wholly within the capital. 2.3 Outside of Greater London there is no central route, fare or frequency planning structure. Individual operators run at their own commercial risk. Local authorities can buy in additional journeys to satisfy social needs, but typically only 15% of journeys are supported in this way. Basically there are no common planning or delivery standards between London and its neighbours, or between the neighbouring Local Authorities themselves. 2.4 Cross boundary routes may have any one of four different legal and funding identities. 2.5 The Transport Act of 1985 places on the Council’s outside of Greater London the responsibility of meeting public transport requirements ‘within’ their areas. Although it does not preclude them working together with other Authorities and London itself, it does not perhaps encourage the to work in providing the same level of support to cross border services as much as it could. 2.6 While concessionary fares schemes sponsored by non-London authorities have to be open to any public transport operator wishing to participate, the same does not apply in London. London Boroughs have the discretion to include other services within the Freedom Pass scheme, but have chosen not to do so. 2.7 Little or no mention is made of independently run services on TfL bus maps or area guides leaving a gap in customer information around the outskirts of London. 2.8 Vehicle journey lengths have almost certainly become shorter. This route shortening may have increased the cost of a journey to some passengers as a journey previously made on one bus with one payment made now requires two buses and two payments. 2.9 There was an 11% decline in bus km operated within Surrey between 1985 and 1999. 2.10 Although there has been an overall increase in Cross Border services in that 15 year period, this is only 1/5th of the increase in service increases within London. Peak travel has seen a decrease of 9% in the morning and has grown by only 2% in the evening. 2.11 In Surrey, although the overall increase in Cross border services stands at 13%, morning peak journeys have increased by only 1%. 2.12 The LTUC Report states “What is of concern to the Committee is that while LT has systematically enhanced the overall frequency of service offered to passengers in London (in itself a policy to be welcomed), users of services which happen to cross the boundary have not been shared commensurately in the benefits delivered to their fellow passengers elsewhere in the Capital.” 3. Evidence gathered a) Comments from Surrey CC Andrew Pelling met with representatives from Surrey County Council. SCC were represented at both member and officer level. SCC stated that: • Their relationship with TfL is now a lot better than it was and they are now at least being consulted. • The Mayor’s pay bonus to bus drivers in London was having a knock on effect in Surrey. Drivers were now more likely to move to driving buses run by subsidised London routes. Whilst this may be improving services operating within the London Boundary, it was not helping services that operated across the London/Surrey border. • Travelcards posed a real problem in Surrey. TfL have discretion as to which routes the Travelcards can operate on and therefore favour their own routes. For example, the 420 bus had Travelcard rights withdrawn whilst TfL run S1 route remained (both routes cross over the border through Sutton to Banstead). This gives an unfair advantage to the S1 route and could lead to the withdrawal of the 420. • The Travelcard scheme as it stands at the moment offers no incentive for private companies to operate their routes across the border into London because they cannot receive a share of Travelcard receipts back, for instance. Private firms also have to operate at the TfL subsidised fare levels. This is impossible to compete with. • TfL require private contractors and Surrey County Council to operate services across the border into London at the same standard they expect of their own buses. This causes problems because the Surrey buses generally do not have the same resources as London buses. • SCC are struggling to fund services within their boundaries as well as cross boundary into London. They see transport provision as an important priority and are trying to address the issue by allocating more resources to transport as a whole, but their resources are finite and other important areas such as education and Social Services are also needing more financial backing from central government. b) Comments from customers Following an article in the local press of Sutton and Croydon, both of which Boroughs border Surrey, a total of 43 response were received from bus service users commenting on the services they rely upon in their area. Many responses also made comment about bus routes which did not cross the border. Only those comments relevant to this report are included below. The main points raised in the responses were: • There has been a major cutback in the number and frequency of services crossing the border in the last twenty years. • Due to the frequency of services decreasing there can be chronic overcrowding on some routes, especially those on school routes. • Routes mentioned most often by passengers as having caused problems for them since being cut back are: 405, 411, 414, 403, 408. Future problems are predicted on routes 470 (Kingston-Walton on Thames), which London buses are not replacing and 451/461 which has to compete with London bus route 411. • Connection/integration between TfL and other cross border/Surrey routes is poor. • More needs to be done to provide passengers with information. Surrey Bus stops tend often to only display Surrey bus times and bus stops in London only the London bus times. • Could there be a bus link to Gatwick Airport via Sutton along the lines of the 726 route to Heathrow? There is no current direct transport link to the airport at the moment. • Timing and connections of bus routes are poor, especially when more than one company’s routes are involved. • The current bus services provided do not encourage people to leave their cars at home and take public transport. c) Comments from operators Arriva No reply received to 2 letters sent Epsom Buses Epsom buses operate 3 cross border routes – the K9, K10 and 408. They cited a recent example of a cross border issue of the 166 route which has seen a huge drop in fare rate since TfL took over the route. This is effectively providing unfair competition for any operator wishing to run a route to Croydon from Epsom. They have also stated that their drivers are often put into an awkward position when customers query why they are being charged more than they did on the previous bus. They feel that there should be a level playing field for all routes inside the M25. 4. Main issues/problems All comments received state that overcrowding during peak hours is a regular occurrence. This would seem to be directly linked to the infrequent nature of the services. It is also apparent that the shortening of the 403 and 408 services is of particular concern to passengers who now have to pay for two fares and wait for two or more buses to complete their journey. This is an active disincentive for people to use the bus. School routes are particularly overcrowded. This follows on from the general peak time issue above. Communications – the communication between operator’s London Buses and Surrey County Council has been difficult in the past, although this is improving. A lack of information - TfL bus timetable information is hard to obtain in Surrey and vice versa. There is also a problem with price information over the border. When someone travels over into Surrey, they are often the unaware of the prices to complete their journey until asked by the driver. 5. Possible solutions The following are for discussion purposes only: Ø A part subsidy from TfL could be made to Cross border bus route operators. This would acknowledge the fact that the service is benefiting those residents on the London side of the boundary as much as those on the Surrey side. As the problem of overcrowding appears to take place mainly during peak hours, maybe the subsidy could be limited to peak hour services. Ø Closer co-operation between London Boroughs and Surrey County Council. Boroughs could benefit from helping to keep cross border bus routes alive, both environmentally and economically. Outer London Boroughs could work to help part subsidise/subsidise key routes. Ø Travelcard revenue should be shared with private operators with cross border services in proportion to the number of tickets sold in Surrey and the number of cross border routes each operator runs. Ø The GLA and TfL could lobby for more government funding for Home Counties transport budgets to help alleviate this particular problem.