Supplementary written evidence from Transport East (BCC0128)

Thank you for the opportunity for Transport East to provide oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee. As noted in the session, there were some topics not discussed in the session attended and your offer to receive further written information is welcome.

Please find below our views on the topic areas not covered on the 26th February.

The role of sub-national transport bodies

Transport East, through its’ framework of partners across regional local government, government departments and wider stakeholders has the ability to convene and lead discussion and action on key transport issues. The rural mobility centre of excellence through partnerships, advocacy, expertise and evidence has successfully raised the level of awareness of rural transport across England.

The role of Sub-National Transport Bodies in providing already committed DfT funding to provide capacity and capability building activity for our Local Transport Authorities. Framed by a well acknowledged understanding that transport is a facilitator of wider social outcomes and integral to the delivery of the Government missions.

Our strategy hub evidence gathering inquiry identified a number of ways that transport in rural areas could be improved. Three of the recommendations for government from our Rural Connections report that are particularly relevant to this inquiry are;

1. Focus on building long-term capacity and capability within local authorities to support innovation in rural transport
2. Expand the Local Integrated Transport Settlements to cover all local transport authorities in England
3. Work with Sub-national Transport Bodies to develop a social value module for transport business case appraisals including monitoring and evaluation, to better deliver government priority outcomes from transport investment

We ask that the committee considers the value of providing essentially required insight and evidence for local transport planning and decision making. This can be secured through investment to create a unique multi-modal place based social value toolkit, focussing in the first instance on rural areas. Currently, there is not one that provides information for local authorities and wider stakeholders who provide mobility services, such as charities, that is multi-modal or for specifically non-urban areas. Hence, the challenges of creating successful business cases for funding of rural transport services.  

Making the case for investment in rural areas is challenging in the current business case framework and there is a need for an integrated approach to rural investment. This would provide a way to informal future appraisal of transport schemes in a more equitable way. We would ask the committee to ensure that the review of HM Treasury Green Book on transport appraisal and evaluation includes updated and appropriate reference to the wider economic and health outcomes of sustainable development and transport provision in rural areas.

The imbalance of BSIP funding between rural and urban areas

• The BSIP process allowed councils to assess and rethink their bus networks rather than just renewing existing contracts. Many councils had lacked dedicated local bus officers for years due to staffing cuts, and BSIP provided an opportunity for strategic longer term network planning with operators.
• Previous funding models have not been equitable. Leaving many local authorities significantly 'behind' their neighbouring LTAs. In the Transport East region, there are clear disparities in the funding previously awarded and the outcomes being achieved in our region. This means that those living and travelling across and between local authority borders are accessing very different levels of service. 
• Funding enabled the revival of previously lost routes, improving connectivity. Areas that received substantial funding, like Norfolk, saw noticeable improvements and increased bus usage.
• Additional small grants (BSIP+/BSIP2) allowed for service enhancements and the introduction of new routes, some of which exceeded expectations. Small investments have led to significant improvements in certain areas, making a noticeable difference. Especially for Local Authorities who have been used to working within incredibly tight budgetary envelopes.
• Additional funding for buses through the BSIP and BSIP plus has been welcomed by our Local Authorities, but both the application process and subsequent allocations of funding has highlighted significant disparities across the Transport East region. Which means that residents and rural communities have yet again felt the impact of unequal funding between urban and rural areas. Urban and peri-urban services will always carry higher passenger numbers and be more attractive in terms of journey times, meaning these services can see the benefit of a cost per head uplift to service improvements and measurable outcomes.
• There were also less positive aspects to this process, in particular the tight deadlines allocated to spend capital funding alongside other local infrastructure within transport teams, leading to challenges in implementing some of their BSIPs. The rules changed midway through the process, particularly regarding accessibility requirements, adding complexity.
• There is a perception that funding favoured LTAs already benefiting from previous grants (e.g., Rural Mobility Fund, Transforming Cities Fund). The initial competitive bidding phase was discouraging and many local authorities lacked the staff and resources to deliver the allocated funding effectively.
• Funding certainty is essential to deliver benefits to buses, especially in rural areas.  For example, annual or short-term funding does not enable authorities to amortise the capital outlay over the life of a new vehicle, this impacts on the ability to transition to an electric fleet.  We would request engagement with local authorities for the government to understand the operating factors impacted by the allocation of revenue and capital funding, and how this impacts the ability to plan and deliver effective change. We also understand that the new Local Authority Bus Grant (LABG) partly based funding on existing bus mileage, favouring areas that have already expanded services under BSIP.

Cost drivers being within local authorities’ control and how they vary between different kinds of area

• Demand level increases, especially linked to SEND EHCPs increasing and the individual needs of passengers being more complex – this is something that can be managed collaboratively between Children’s Services teams and transport teams
• Managing parent/carer expectations robustly and consistently in regard to the provision of local authority provided home to school transport
• The lack of suitable walking and cycling routes resulting in eligibility for ‘free’ home to school transport and the reluctance of capital investment in the creation of new routes that would significantly reduce long term costs to local authorities
• Supplier market cost base increasing
• Supplier market commercial modelling, including significant levels of risk and expectations from suppliers that LTAs should fund these, as opposed to a one provider model, where a single operator sub-contracts to achieve more competitive prices – commissioning models can be used to manage this so it can be within their control
• LTA capability and strength in robust and collaborative contract management practice and contractual terms and conditions
• Ongoing recruitment and skills in specialised transport teams, from network planning and contract management through to promotion and marketing of public transport
• Lack of live data, especially passenger loading data, to demonstrate actual vehicle capacity usage levels. Use of such data can help to achieve savings for local authorities. 

Other

• Through the forthcoming Integrated National Transport Strategy, the Bus Services Bill, devolution and local government reform there is an opportunity to create a step change in the provision of transport services. Local authorities should be guided or required to ensure that they identify all travel demand to ensure that there is a holistic approach to planning of solutions. The ability to provide multi-modal services sits within the gift of transport providers, operators and strategic partners yet is still failing in the delivery of transport that works for all members of society.
• A lack of consistent data and the digital solutions needed across the whole end to end function of bus services, from demand to supply and management of services.
• Ensuring that devolution does not make the current situation worse by further siloing public transport planning and delivery with local authorities. 
• The potential that connected and autonomous vehicles may provide for rural bus services in the future is yet to be explored and tested. To date, is seems that all trials and pilots have taken place in urban areas, yet rural areas have the greatest opportunity for new models of delivery.

May 2025