wednesday 29 june, w15 - driving better local bus services - david brown
DESCRIPTION
With less public money available to support the bus services that millions of people rely on, there is renewed debate on the way buses are run. Changes to funding for concessionary fares, the expected review of the bus subsidy system and the emerging findings of the Competition Commission inquiry into local bus services provide an opportunity to look again at how the UK bus industry works and whether devolved funding and stronger commissioning powers could help protect bus passengers from higher fares and fewer services. Big changes to the way councils plan bus services and work with bus operators and community transport associations if bus services are to be protected. This means new ways of working with the private sector, improved procurement and commissioning and an understanding of how local bus markets work. The workshop will hear from councils and operators who have been trying out radical approaches, the barriers and challenges that need to be overcome and views on how reform could get a better deal for fare payers and tax payers. Speakers: David Brown, Director General, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Dr Stephen Hickey, Chair, Community Transport Association Ben Coulson, Managing Director, Norfolk Green Buses Chair: Cllr Peter Box CBE, Chair, LG Group Economy and Transport Programme BoardTRANSCRIPT
You wait ages for reform, then three come along at once – driving better local bus services
Presentation to L G Group Annual Conference - ‘Localism Works’
David Brown, SYPTELead DG for pteg on bus issues
29 June 2011
Choppy waters ahead
• Concessionary Travel cost is going up but DfT funding going down
• BSOG cut on the horizon in 2012
• Tendered services are a major area of non-statutory local government transport spend and thus vulnerable
• Rising industry costs, eg labour and fuel
• Main funding block for local government capital improvements for bus infrastructure (the ITB) halved in a year
Policy Challenges
• Government policies offer choice = greater desire/need to travel
• Growth in economic activity is not always complimentary to carbon reduction
• Localism and sub-regional travel patterns
• Changes to land use planning rules
How is local government responding?
• Some Shires and Counties disposing of their supported networks – or nearly
• Bus networks in Met Areas are more extensive and enjoy more cross party political support - so big reductions in tendered networks are a last resort we generally haven’t reached yet
• Where efficiency savings don’t bridge the gap – then PTEs are turning to changes to CT fares and charging for services where they can
• But this is year one – and year two gets tougher and budgets less able to cope with unforeseen shocks (eg higher levels of commercial de-registrations)
• Are we moving to three Englands for buses – London, the Mets and cities, the rest?
Lifting our eyes to the horizon
• Getting through the next few years will be tough but…
• Funding levels do begin to pick up again in a few years’ time
• The essential advantages of the bus as a key tool of urban transport policy remain
• The planning for a smartcard revolution is picking up speed – transformatory potential in a few years’ time
• Buses getting more politically resonant – as the recent BSOG and Save our Buses campaign shows
• Buses recognised as essential to social mobility and addressing worklessness
LTA 2008 bus powers
• LTA 2008 was a big breakthrough by making VPAs, SQPs and QCs more effective tools
• We have been making good use of these tools – in partnership with operators wherever we can
• In any review of bus policy following on from the Competition Commission investigation we want to see these powers retained and strengthened
• Reducing or removing any of these powers will take the bus sector backwards
Making more of less funding
• Financial support for the industry is falling so we need to do more for less
• Better targeting of that funding is key
• In the Met areas we think we can work with operators to make sure the funding is targeted on local priorities
• We need to collectively look at total resources – Commercial, Tenders, CT, BSOG
• Devolved BSOG could be targeted on bus priority (to reducing operating costs and increase patronage), on supporting smart ticketing, travel planning or on vehicle standards
• Window of opportunity for operators / PTEs on BSOG reform – before something is done to us
Competition Commission Investigation
Provisional Findings:
• Some features of local bus markets which “prevent, restrict or distort competition”
• These features are present in a large proportion of local markets
• They have ‘an adverse effect on competition’ (AEC)
• CC estimate detriment to consumers and tax-payers in excess of £70m per annum
Competition Commission Investigation
Potential Remedies:
• Market opening measures:
- Ticketing- Regulation of operator behaviour - Service frequency
- Fares changes- Access to bus stations
• LTA–led initiatives
- Franchise approach – QCs- Partnership approach
• Tendered services
• Other remedies - Ruled out divestment and direct control of outcomes
Conclusions
• The key advantages of the bus in urban transport policy are as strong as ever
• We need to ensure that bus policy is quick to take advantage of new and wider policies on smart travel, sustainability and economic growth
• But we can’t wish away the fact that the story of the bus in urban areas in recent decades has been one mainly of decline – and the funding climate is not encouraging
• Empty platitudes about partnership won’t change that - practical application will
• Instead we need to redouble our efforts using the tools in the LTA 08 – as appropriate
Conclusions
That means:
• “Crunchy” Partnerships based on an evidence base and real measurable and delivered commitments
• SQPs that deliver better services using more bus priority
• The QC option retained in legislation and tried out on the ground Government to reduce transition risk?
• Devolution of BSOG
• It also means making the best use of the available funding (through better targeting)
• A more cohesive and effective structure for understanding, monitoring and where necessary enforcing performance improvements
