Written evidence submitted by Integrated Transport Planning (ITP) (BCC0051)

Introduction

Integrated Transport Planning (ITP), part of Royal HaskoningDHV, is a transport planning consultancy with a team dedicated to supporting local authorities and their partners on all aspects of passenger transport planning, design, provision, review and monitoring. Technical assistance spans transport policy and strategy development, business cases and funding bids, bus network planning and design, administration and development of ticketing and concessionary travel schemes, community and education transport development, and promotion and marketing. Over the last few years, we have supported 12 authorities with their Bus Service Improvements Plans and/or Enhanced Partnerships, as well as carrying out the Franchising Assessment for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

Through our work we have built up significant experience of bus provision in areas outside of the main urban centres. We have drawn on this to inform our response to this Inquiry. For ease of reference, responses are made in relation to the list of the points highlighted in the call for evidence.

We welcome the Transport Committee’s interest in buses and their role in society. Bus services provide vital links, enabling people to get to work, education, shops and healthcare. They are available to all, allowing those with no alternative means of travel to fully participate in activities, as well as providing an alternative means of travel to the car, which in turn reduces pressures on the road network. As well as reducing social isolation, travelling by bus increases physical activity, thus providing both mental and physical health benefits. Given the universal benefits of buses, they deserve to be at the heart of national and local transport policy and funding.

How should the Government’s proposed reforms of powers over buses in England, and recently-announced funding, take into account the particular challenges of rural areas and local authorities outside major cities? How can authorities in these areas make best use of those powers and funding?

Bus services have been in general decline for many years, as patronage has reduced and operating costs risen. The spiral of decline has been more evident in rural areas, as services have always been fewer and less frequent. As such, they are less attractive (particularly compared with car) and become increasingly irrelevant, except for those users who have no other option. There tends to be a smaller proportion of fare paying passengers on rural services (with more concession holders) than in urban areas. Being reliant on subsidy has also meant they have been susceptible to change and reduction as local authorities juggle budget pressures.

Rural areas are difficult to serve by public transport, due to smaller populations and dispersed travel demands. Equally, as services have been reviewed, routes have become more convoluted and indirect to serve as many communities as possible with one bus. However, this results in longer journey times, making bus travel look even less appealing.

Rural bus services will always need public subsidy, regardless of the type of service provided (fixed bus service or demand responsive), because of the lower demand and longer distances involved. The key to maintaining patronage on rural bus services is ensuring attractive levels of service and good customer care. Combining different demands can help in sharing the costs of provision, such as catering for school pupils or college students alongside other passengers. Cornwall, for example, has maintained levels of financial support over many years, which have helped maintain good levels of service across the area, including hourly frequencies, and buses during evenings and on Sundays. This stable position over the years has helped maintain patronage.

It is interesting to note that the Bus Services Bill includes a provision for defining and maintaining socially necessary bus services. However, it is not clear what the mechanism (and funding) will be for maintaining those services. This could be a first step towards setting minimum standards for bus services, ensuring that all areas across the country have some base level of service. Of course, any such policy would need to be backed by funding to ensure minimum standards are met. Equally, there could be negative impacts of shifting resources from areas that have services above those minimum levels (i.e. a worsening of service) merely to ensure that levels of service elsewhere don’t fall below the minimum standards.

The proposed legislation aims to streamline moves to franchise services. Such options might be helpful for some local authorities in responding to particular needs. For example, franchising might be more appropriate in rural areas, as it naturally builds on the current state where most bus services are already operated under contract to the local authority. Having such greater control over provision might also help in integrating different types of transport services – school, social care, community and health (i.e. a Total Transport approach).

Under franchising, options to directly award services to incumbent operators might be helpful in reducing disruption of change and maintaining local operators, as well as speeding up the process. Franchising also opens up more options for funding rural bus services, using profits generated on highly commercial routes, or reducing over-bussed routes, to cross-subsidise transport in rural areas. In addition, having control over the whole network more easily enables a fully integrated transport system to be implemented included integrated ticketing, which is much more difficult when several operators are in control of their services and ticketing, which might not necessarily fit with the authority’s vision for bus.

Moves to franchising require authorities to undertake a franchising assessment, using the 5-case business case model, comparing franchising with the current EP. Whilst the Bus Services Bill suggests some easing of the case for the EP scenario, the 5 cases will still be needed for the franchising scenario. This may be overly onerous and irrelevant for more rural areas. The case for franchising is more likely to be made around the ability to better achieve strategic objectives and the ability to deliver commercial objectives (flexibility to manage the network and achieve value for money, along with considerations of how risk will be managed). The economic case (which probably accounts for more of the time and effort in preparing the assessment than the rest) will be largely irrelevant, as the benefit cost ratio of EP and Franchising are likely to be positive and similar, with franchising slightly more beneficial as a result of the greater service integration that will be possible. Therefore, the franchising assessment in some circumstances could look to not require the economic case, instead looking at the wider social and societal benefits that might be achieved. This would further streamline the assessment process.

How effective has recent Government policy been in tackling decline in bus services? How effective are current funding models and governance structures in enabling local transport authorities and commercial operators to improve, sustain and keep bus services outside major metropolitan areas affordable?

The general financial support for bus services has been beneficial, and BSIP funding has helped deliver various initiatives. In places like Nottinghamshire (successful in gaining original 3-year BSIP funding), where we have been involved in some of the implementation of improvements, it’s been good to witness the success in terms of service enhancements and patronage growth. Similarly, we have supported the DfT-funded Bus Fares Pilot in Cornwall over the last 3 years, where discounted fares and interoperable ticketing have helped bus usage return to pre-Covid levels.

In many areas, the funding has helped to fund previously commercial bus services whilst patronage recovers to levels which are commercially sustainable. Without this, there would have been widespread service reductions and huge pressure on local authority budgets.

Some of the funding (BSIP+) has been short-term. While helpful in maintaining services that might otherwise be reduced or withdrawn, such funding can’t be used to put on new services, because of the lack of certainty of any continuation. New services can take several years to grow patronage to levels that help justify their continuation.

In all examples of successful schemes, a key factor is the long-term guaranteed funding. This provides the authority and the operators with the confidence to try new initiatives and support new services, knowing they have time to grow patronage and invest in wider enhancements, marketing and engagement to further encourage bus use and modal shift. Having both revenue and capital funding helps to facilitate a multi-pronged approach to address all barriers to bus travel.

The DfT’s requirement for all measures to be included within an EP Scheme has helped to maintain a focus on bus network improvements. Furthermore, the requirement on local authorities to maintain their own budgets for bus services as a condition for receiving BSIP funding has been useful in protecting funding. This has definitely avoided cutbacks on bus service budgets in some areas. However, whilst budgets have been maintained, they may not have increased in real terms to meet the rising costs of provision. Therefore, over time, the amount of service they support will gradually erode.

How effectively do bus services function as part of integrated multi-modal networks that improve mobility for people who live in areas with declining services?

Regardless of the desire to see buses integrated with other modes of transport, there remain barriers to achieving this. Use of Park & Ride services remains depressed, with fewer trips being made into town and city centres for work and shopping. In many areas, apart from Plus Bus tickets, there remains a lack of joint bus/rail ticketing.

Cornwall has seen progress through work with rail operator GWR. Station signs and train announcements highlight opportunities for onward bus travel and, wherever possible, bus services are routed past rail stations and at times that connect with trains.

Many commercial operators, through the Enhanced Partnerships, have been accommodating in integrating rural services into their commercial network from a timetabling perspective, but this can be difficult to manage when there are several operators in the area. Integrated, multi-operator ticketing remains very difficult to implement, particularly at reasonable fare levels, and in many places where bus services meet, the waiting environment is not appropriate, attractive, or comfortable, and cannot accommodate multi-modal integration for cyclists.

How might potential alternative service models, including Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and community transport, and other innovations or technologies which could support or replace buses serving less populated communities, be developed? What steps could Government take to support them?

Franchising alone will not overcome rural transport challenges. However, it might help achieve new ways of working, such as integration of different types of passenger transport services through a Total Transport approach. The ability to plan the entire bus network may help establish mobility hubs and interchange points, where connections between services can be designed. Also, it may provide the opportunity for an authority to use excess revenue from one service to subsidise another.

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT), shared taxis and community transport have a role in public transport networks. The Rural Mobility Fund and BSIP funding have helped establish DRT services. Whilst there are signs of success in some areas, no clear approach has emerged as to how such services can be best sustained.

It will be important to consider how success of such services should be measured. Actual patronage levels or cost per passenger are unhelpful, as services look to be performing poorly compared with traditional types of bus service. DRT can be looked at in terms of the availability of travel opportunity it offers an area. Also, consideration should be given to the actual value of the journeys being made to service users (what has the service enabled them to do?).

A Total Transport approach of combining different demands offers the chance to increase utilisation of DRT services. In addition, it is important to understand where people want to travel to/from and design DRT services accordingly. Following a ‘many to many’ approach over a large area with a small number of vehicles does not provide the availability or value for money required to operate these services.

Advancements in technology help travel in rural areas, only if there is a signal to support mobile use. QR codes at bus stops which link to service and fare information, travel planning, and real time information helps improve travel confidence. The ability to pre-purchase tickets reduces anxiety over fare-paying on-bus.

How successful have Enhanced Partnerships (EPs) been so far in improving bus services outside major urban areas? Might franchising provide a better framework for these areas, and what alternative models would be worth exploring?

We have supported a number of Enhanced Partnerships and have witnessed the positive way that they have brought local authorities and bus operators together, with a sense of joint purpose. This has also been helped with the availability of BSIP funding.

In some cases, operators have taken a back seat, leaving the administration and maintenance of EPs to authorities. However, this is not surprising given that the requirement to have an EP in place rests on authorities. Indeed, over time, the focus for EPs has shifted. When introduced by the Bus Services Act 2017, EPs were very much an agreement between local authorities and bus operators to commit to making specific improvements and to hold each other to account.

Following the publication of the National Bus Strategy in 2021, DfT required local authorities to have an EP that covered their entire area, included business as usual elements and incorporated all schemes being funded through BSIP. Not only did this dilute EP Schemes, but it shifted their purpose to the mechanism for DfT holding local authorities to account for the way that Government funding would be used. As such, they have become more of a delivery plan for BSIP than a formal agreement to ensure higher service standards are delivered.

It appears that authorities and operators have not used EPs to hold each other to account, in the way originally envisaged. Although there are instances where agreement has been facilitated to achieve common service change dates or extended notice periods for service changes, which can be beneficial in creating more stability and continuity in the network.

EPs seem to be successful where genuine 2-way benefits can be achieved. These might be where an authority can offer something that benefits operators and in return operators commit to providing some enhancements of their services. In rural areas, such 2-way benefits do not exist, particularly where services are fully supported financially. Operators already operate under contract and have to meet the specification. Therefore, there is nothing extra to offer under an EP.

It is difficult to assess the added value that EPs have brought. There is no doubt that the creation of formal partnerships has been useful, in bringing interested parties together. However, some streamlining of the governance and administration around EPs would be useful. The EP Plan has little value, as it essentially duplicates the BSIP document. EP Schemes remain useful in setting out commitments to deliver.

EPs do provide a good framework for collaborative partnership working between authorities and bus operators. Where all parties are fully engaged and aligned, significant improvements can be achieved. Much of this is down to the personal relationships formed, the level of resources and effort deployed and the backing from all concerned, including political leaders. In such circumstances, much of the benefits offered by franchising can be achieved through an EP. Therefore, as Government reviews EPs it would be useful to consider how the ingredients of success can be amplified.

The ability to franchise offers an opportunity to plan services comprehensively and in a coordinated way. In some rural areas, where most services are already wholly or partially financially supported by local authorities, the situation is not that different to being franchised. However, wherever commercial and supported services come together there can be frustrations and compromises in respect of the lack of coordination in respect of service routes, timetables and fares. Franchising can certainly overcome these issues. However, outside of the big urban areas, it is unlikely that there will be much available cross-subsidy to help support rural services.

Over many years, the idea of greater coordination of different passenger transport services has been highlighted as a way to help sustain and improve public transport, particularly in rural areas. From a logistical perspective, this makes sense, with efficiencies created through better utilisation of a smaller number of vehicles overall. However, such a Total Transport approach has always proved difficult to achieve, due to the different requirements of the agencies involved or the time and effort required in making it happen. One benefit of franchising bus services in a rural area could be that it makes it easier to work with other agencies to plan and coordinate bus and DRT services alongside school, social care, community and health transport.

It is good to see in the current Bus Services Bill that different forms of franchising are advocated. Whilst the ability to plan and manage a bus network as a whole has benefits, the model being advocated by the large urban combined authorities, including ownership of depot and vehicles, will not be appropriate for all authorities. Indeed, many smaller authorities, will not have the availability of capital funding to contemplate ownership. Because of the different circumstances that exist in different areas, it will be important to ensure that different franchising options are available, including ones where authority and operators can share responsibility and risk, as in Jersey and other countries.

Furthermore, the proposal to allow authorities to run their own bus operations is useful in opening up options for the ways that public transport networks can be provided in the future, particularly in areas where franchised operations or bus contracts are not attractive to commercial operators. 

How well does policy, funding and oversight of bus services allow services that straddle rural and non-rural areas and local government boundaries to be managed?

The ability to plan and manage bus services that straddle boundaries, is reliant on the willingness of authorities to work together to ensure that services focus on the needs of users and where they wish to travel.

Bus networks often extend beyond authority boundaries. Therefore, any model of provision, be it EP or Franchising needs to involve discussions between neighbouring authorities. If franchising becomes more widespread, there will be a need for smaller authorities to work together to achieve suitable economies of scale. This may require one authority to take a lead, or for a separate Joint Board to be formed. It will be important for collaborating authorities to have shared objectives and desired outcomes.

January 2025