Written evidence submitted by the Association of Transport
Coordinating Officers (ATCO) (BCC0068)
Introduction
Rural areas are difficult to serve by public transport, given the low and dispersed demand. They have seen declining use over many years, which has led to gradually reductions in services, which makes them less attractive to passengers and creates a spiral of decline. Furthermore, rising costs of provision and increasing demands on local authority budgets have increased the pressures on the ability to sustain such services. This situation has been exacerbated since Covid, with rural services seeing poorer levels of recovery compared with urban areas. This partly reflects the higher proportion of passengers being concessionary travel pass holders (who have been more resistant to returning to public transport).
Many rural bus services will never be commercially viable and will always be dependent on public subsidy. This is equally true regardless of the type of operation, either fixed bus service or demand responsive. However, ATCO would argue that subsidy is not the most appropriate metric. Commuting from rural areas contributes to congestion that creates economic, social and environmental costs in urban communities as continuing debates about the use of measures such as low emission zones show.
The key to maintaining patronage on rural bus services is ensuring suitably-attractive levels of service, as direct as possible routes, reliability and good customer service. Combining different demands can help in sharing the costs of provision, such as catering for school pupils or college students alongside other passengers. Many rural networks survive on coordinating the needs of the general public with access to Education and Learning.
There is scope for innovative thinking in the way that bus service enhancements are justified, for example what are the benefits to the UK economy of bus services that enable unemployed persons have to find stable employment (giving them income and improved status) whilst saving the costs of unemployment and other benefit payments for the economy. Looked at in this way, many local bus services axed to achieve financial savings for local authorities may have been retained.
Whilst the Bus Services Bill includes a provision for defining and maintaining socially-necessary bus services, ATCO members are very concerned about the practicalities of how this might play out. Having defined those services, will local authorities be held to ransom for their continuation regardless of cost. Equally, might there be an incentive for an operator to withdraw such defined services, on the basis that the authority will be duty-bound to replace it?
ATCO does welcome the opportunity this change will bring in defining those services which are important for keeping communities connected. Indeed, the definition of some minimum standards of bus service will be useful compared with the current situation where it is left to the discretion of each local authority to determine whether or not a service is socially necessary and one that it wishes to support. Currently, there are significant variations in how well different communities are served by bus, which is not necessarily related to population size or other factors. But as set out above ATCO is concerned that this is a new burden on a local transport authority.
The proposed legislation aims to streamline moves to franchise services or introduce municipal transport operations. The opening up of new options might be helpful for some local authorities in responding to particular needs. In some cases, 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 provision. As the majority of services are already financial supported and therefore controlled by local authorities it should be easier, and less expensive to try new operational models without the expense of full franchising
The “Total Transport” approach has been tried several times with some successes. It is based on bringing all available passenger carrying vehicles suitable for public use under common control. Suitable vehicles range from shared car schemes, private hire cars and taxis, minibuses used by services such as the NHS, the community transport sector or for access to Education, through to local service buses. Reports prepared for the Department of Transport show some successes, but services were often short-lived disappearing once grant funding was exhausted. Where they have been successful partners such as the NHS have been key to achieving better integration and a coordinated approach to passenger transport planning. The concept remains valid and, with legislation favouring centralised control or close partnership and the increased computing power and software available for booking and scheduling, further trials of the concept could be justified.
The legislation is framed so that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) are responsible for delivering the outcomes desired. After several decades of restraints on public expenditure the capacity of some authorities to deliver has been reduced in terms both of appropriately skilled staff and financial resources. These restraints have tended to bite more deeply in small unitary and/or rural authorities. ATCO would recommend that legislation that creates additional workloads for authorities should be matched by appropriate recognition through the formulae underpinning annual financial settlements.
The financial support from Government for bus services during the Covid-recovery period has been very welcome, along with the fare cap scheme. Likewise, the various elements of BSIP funding have been helpful in maintaining and developing services. Unfortunately, the short-term nature of some of this funding has meant that there has been some resistance to improving some services or instigating new services, given the danger that they would need to be withdrawn, scaled down or become a pressure on existing funding to keep them going.
The funding support for bus services has contributed towards a changed relationship between bus operators and local authorities. In some areas a dependency culture now exists across bus operators, with a less commercial spirit being shown. Rather than giving notice to withdraw or scale down a service, operators will tend to first approach local authorities and highlight their intentions, with a view to seeing whether any support might be forthcoming for the services in question. Given the swing towards the dependency on public sector funding, more local authorities may consider franchising as an obvious next step, with the view that greater control or influence should come with a greater financial stake.
The capping of bus fares at £2 per single journey adopted throughout England has proved popular and has undoubtedly generated new patronage. However, as the public reaction to the increase of the cap to £3 shows, there will be substantial public opposition when the Government decides to cease funding the concession. Experience of fares subsidies is that they rarely generate sufficient benefit from increased patronage, with the caveat that the evaluations that have been published were using purely financial criteria for assessment.
Wider appraisals based on total benefits to both users and the community, reduced congestion, better air quality for example, may lead to different conclusions. However, in the prevailing circumstances ATCO tends to the view that spending on retaining and expanding public transport networks (including services such as community buses or demand responsive services) is to be preferred to fare subsidies. Concessionary travel for elderly and disabled people is an exception to this but their justification is based on the benefits to the users concerned. It is worth noting that the recovery in numbers after the pandemic from Concessionary Bus Passenger holders who receive free travel is lower than fare paying passengers. This reflects a change in lifestyle for many but also shows that cost is not the only barrier to increasing passengers numbers
Whilst Government funding has helped maintain services and develop new services, few of these initiatives will be commercially sustainable and are likely to need continued support. Indeed, new or enhanced services can take several years to become truly established within the overall network, as people gain confidence in using them and demand grows.
Where successful multi-modal networks exist this is largely because of LTA leadership and the existence of multi-operator ticketing schemes so the customers are charged once for their journeys, revenue being pooled and distributed to operators through an agreed settlement scheme. Cornwall has perhaps the most comprehensive scheme of this type in a rural area. Its success means that services are no longer declining over an extensive rural area! But this required significant government funding to introduce their Bus Fares Pilot.
In some areas successful feeder services can connect with, for example longer distance rail services. In these areas local authorities have tried to introduce multi-model ticketing but quite often the barrier comes from the rail sector rather than bus sector.
Areas where patronage is increasing rather than declining should be further examined to find out why and what level of funding is required to sustain longer term improvements.
Access for leisure is a key area where multi-model options can offer an attractive solution and alternative to the car. Examples in the past have included in the Yorkshire Dales or the Lake District. However in the past where local authorities have faced budget reductions access to leisure services are not seen as important as access to other essential services despite the health, welfare and economic benefits.
Many people or communities suffer greater social isolation in rural areas. It also means local authorities incur higher costs for delivering essential services in these areas which is not reflected in Government funding formula.
Rural areas suffer from lower accessibility levels for access to leaning with less choice of education settings. Access to health services can be some distance away from home and for those not eligible for Non-Emergency patient Transport the use of voluntary car schemes or expensive taxis is the only alternative. Many health journeys are individual and infrequent meaning patronage level cannot often sustain a regular bus service, or even an expensive demand responsive option.
When planning services many sectors do not think about access issues earlier enough in the planning process meaning access issues can be too late in the process. The local authority is the left with the problem of how to provide a sustainable transport network and reduce isolation.
The child in the multi-car owning household has Mum & Dad taxis to provide mobility, but not the independence children living near bus services can enjoy in their teenage years. The child now without the bus or community bus service in a household without a car, or where the car is used by the wage earner five long days a week, loses mobility and opportunity as well as independence. Many young people, in particular those with a Special Educational Need (SEND) are educated some distance from their local community and access for activities, for example after school clubs, are not available as no transport operates later to get them home
Considerations here are linked to the response made on current Government policy, as funding and policy are clearly linked.
As previously stated, the provision of any public transport outside of urban areas is dependent on revenue funding. To ensure service stability, it is crucial that this funding is maintained long-term.
Those LTAs that can afford franchising will have substantial control over how resources are used. The LTAs with effective partnerships can achieve the same using the skills of the operators and highways authorities participating in their group, often at much lower cost. There are now successful partnerships across the country which you could further explore.
It is important to note that franchising is just a method of procurement. Even in London, and now Manchester, bus service levels are based on what can be afforded within the available budget.
Franchising in England, Greater Manchester, has achieved the results the Mayor and Combined Authority wanted in terms of increased patronage and more equitable distribution of resources. However, some of this success has been bought, for example additional buses have been used to maintain peak frequencies rather than seeking additional bus priorities on National Highways and Council roads. A franchised bus suffers the same level of congestion as a commercial service. In some areas achieving better bus priority for rural services accessing urban centres is a major barrier.
Franchising alone will not address rural transport challenges. However, it might play a part in helping to facilitate improved rural services, either through a Total Transport approach, where different demands and passenger flows are brought together, or vehicle resources jointly planned and deployed. The ability to plan the overall bus network may create the ability to better guarantee connections between services. Also, it allows authorities to use excess revenue from one service to subsidise another.
DRT and community transport both have a part to play in more rural areas, as they provide alternative ways of meetings lower demands, or more personalised travel needs. Equally, the role of shared taxis should not be ignored, some of which only have to be funded on the occasions when they are actually used (depending on the nature of the contractual arrangement between the authority and taxi or private hire operator).
The Rural Mobility Fund and BSIP funding has been helpful in establishing DRT services. However, as yet, no clear approach has emerged as to how such services can be best sustained once long term revenue funding has been exhausted. Clearly, such services are liked by those regular users who can get bookings as required. However, it seems that there can be frustrations amongst potential users who do manage to secure bookings and then disregard the service.
DRT services offer the opportunity for more people to access the service. However, there is a balance between size of area served, availability of service (based on number of vehicles) and any restrictions imposed on bookings (such as advance or on-demand). This balancing position can mean that DRT services are difficult to use to reach specific appointments or to achieve smooth interchange with other bus or rail services. Many of the services operating to date offer quite a lot of flexibility in travel opportunity. However, this reduces the ability for passengers to share the vehicle. Moving to a more limited feeder service model, as found elsewhere in Europe, might help improve utilisation rates. This would mean anchoring the service to travel regularly into or out from a single point where a connection can be made with a fixed bus, rail or tram service. Such provision can also enable travel without booking on the homeward journey, based around the DRT vehicle guaranteed to be at the interchange to connect with the fixed line service.
Traditionally operated scheduled local bus services still have an important part to play and DRT should not be introduced for the sake of it. Funding should be on the basis of how to improve transport in a given area and not tied to one mode or method, but what is best and most sustainable for that area. As mentioned above a Total Transport approach of combining different demands offers the chance to increase utilisation of DRT services. The Government should look at past and current successes and how this model can be rolled out into other rural areas.
Enhanced Partnerships have been successful in bringing together local authorities, bus operators and other interested parties with a common purpose of improving public transport. EPs have provided opportunities to share knowledge and experience and achieve focus on particular improvements to take forward. Coupled with this, the availability of BSIP funding has helped encourage participation by operators.
EPs have facilitated service improvements across networks, both in urban and rural areas. Key to these enhancements has been the availability of funding, rather than the formality of the EP itself. Indeed, it is difficult to evaluate the added value provided by EPs to what might have been delivered under an informal partnership arrangement. To our knowledge, there have been no instances of an EP being used to enforce any particular requirement or to take a party to task on a commitment not being met – yet these were originally seen as benefits of an EP when introduced.
The ability to franchise offers those areas which want more influence and control over the bus network the opportunity to do that. This may provide the opportunity for operational efficiencies to be released or more integration (interchange and network fares/ticketing). As stated elsewhere, it may also facilitate a coordinated Total Transport approach.
The opportunity for local authorities to be able to run their own bus companies provides another option to use in areas where monopolistic influences occur under current conditions. In many rural areas traditional family run businesses are reducing and local authorities struggle to find an operators to provide services. This also applies for statutory school transport. The model adopted by the Highlands Council in Scotland is a good model to further examine. The ability to have options to choose from offers local authorities some flexibility to work within the commercial marketplace.
Regardless of operating model, there remain challenges for public transport outside of urban areas. On-going financial support is key to their continued operation. Less reliance on subsidy will only come through increased patronage. It is unlikely that rural bus services will ever be suitably attractive to encourage modal transfer from car. Therefore, other supportive policies may be needed, such as road pricing. Not only will this help balance the costs of different modes but will also provide an income stream that could be used to help fund bus services. Any modal transfer would also help reduce car travel and speed up bus journeys.
Since the 1972 Local Government Act most rural councils have embraced the Transport Coordination role to huge success linking statutory services such as school transport with local bus services to offer a better offer for all. With the Devolution white paper setting out a model across England there is a danger that there will be fragmentation between the public transport functions of the combined authority with those that remain with the new or expanding unitary councils. There needs to remain a strong link, including with the Highway authority.
Although there is no standard approach to funding of cross boundary services, there are many agreements between neighbouring LTAs as to how much each pays. In some cases, an authority will fund an entire service, in others the costs will be shared pro rata to distance or patronage, to mention but a few. There are often variations for school services. In a few instances, the division of costs and revenues between neighbouring authorities where a single operator has a group of tendered services crossing the boundary.
The current buses bill makes specific provision for cross boundary harmonisation, especially where a Franchise area abuts an Enhanced Partnership area. It is essential that clear rules are given in Guidance, especially where significant economic or societal benefits arising from actions taken in one area are gained by its neighbour.
Whilst attention will always be drawn to the juxtaposition of urban and rural authorities, there is no particular expectation that this will affect the way in which the regimes on either side of the boundary will be managed.
January 2025