Supplementary written evidence submitted by Transdev Blazefield (BHC0188)

Could you describe any formal or informal partnerships or alliances with local authorities?

In your answer could you include how these arrangements came about and what evidence there is that they have been effective in delivering improved bus services and an increase in passenger numbers?

It is our aim to be the operator of choice amongst the local authorities who we serve and work hard to nurture such relationships.

In West Yorkshire, this includes the Bus 18 partnership which was driven by Transdev, the local bus operators and WYCA to achieve a particular set of aims to benefit customers before the end of 2018. Such was the platform of this, that Bus 18 has matured into the forthcoming West Yorkshire Bus Alliance alongside WYCA, First and Arriva and other bus operations in West Yorkshire.

In York, the Quality Bus Partnership was established 1999 with City of York Council and other local bus Operators. It continues to function well, most recently during 2018 introducing a new Customer Charter. This has helped the bus market grow in York with new multi operator ticketing, expanded services and improved bus priority arising.

In North Yorkshire, existing informal working arrangements are to be rolled into a wider partnership. The shape and structure of this is currently being discussed between NYCC and the operators and should be progressed in early 2019.

We are exploring similar with Lancashire County Council to reinvigorate a Quality Bus Partnership following our own vehicle investment on three key routes, and also in Blackburn with Darwen where a Statutory Bus Partnership is yet to be formally agreed but where both we as the operator and the council have invested significantly in vehicles and infrastructure and we have seen up to 8% year on year passenger growth.

In the GM area, a Greater Manchester Quality Bus Partnership includes commitments to improve punctuality and reliability, satisfaction and a code of conduct for operators.

At the other end of the scale, we have fostered an informal partnership being developed with parish councils and other local groups to develop rural services. A key example of this is in Nidderdale, where the 24 route has been improve through investment in electric buses and funding to support Winter Sunday services from local businesses and the DalesBus organisation.

If no formal or informal partnerships or alliances have taken place, what has prevented such partnerships and alliances forming?

Generally relationships between operators and the public transport teams at Local Authorities are strong and the right things tend to happen when both parties understand shared objectives. This is certainly to case here at Transdev. Partnerships seem stronger where local authority highways teams are involved and can help shape infrastructure improvements and where we can engage with economic development teams to align bus service developments and marketing to the latest developments.

Experience is that local authority transport teams can struggle to get buy in from highways and development colleagues.

Is current legislation and regulation for the bus market—for example the Bus Services Act 2017, franchising and partnership provisions—fit for purpose? What changes, if any, would you like to see?

We welcome its flexibility as we do not believe a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate. We think it is testament to the many successful partnerships already in our area and across the UK as to why more extreme mesures of the act have yet to be sought. We are left to play to our individual strengths but with a shared aim, which – with the right investment and commitment - we believe can and will work in our operating area.

What changes would bus operators like to see in terms of Government funding and what changes, if any, should be made to BSOG?

BSOG helps bus companies to offset high operational costs, particularly those costs such as tax on fuel which other transport modes are free from, such as rail and air. The government ought to bear in mind that any reduction in BSOG will only be compensated by reduced services or higher fares, which the industry is generally keen to avoid.

We are clear that BSOG does not incentivise fuel use; actually it keeps marginal commercial services running by reducing operating costs, which should reduce overall fuel use by preventing shift to the car. When considering non-diesel buses, we understand that whilst we do not attract BSOG on our electric vehicles, their operating costs are still cheaper so one would not retain diesel buses, rather than electric vehicles, because of the price of fuel.

We spoke briefly about concessionary fares in the evidence session. Could you tell us in more detail if you would like reform of funding for concessionary fares and what you think that this could look like?

We believe that the concessionary fares scheme has played a huge role in driving social benefits to the end user, which is obviously and unequivocally a Good Thing. However, it continues to be funded incorrectly which is placing pressure on the overall viability of certain bus services, particularly in rural and tourist areas, through an unfair reimbursement process. It is for government to respond to this issue but it is worth discussing the merits of a means tested or bulk-trip smartcard issued to all eligible passengers so it can be budgeted correctly. An identified level of credit could be made available to each user and, once credit has expired, then the proven experience of the commercial bus sector may attract customers via discounted fares.

The current system provides compensation but all too often it doesn’t allow bus operators to treat concessionary pass holders as customers around whom services can be built.

How could public money be best used to ensure a sustainable and comprehensive bus network?

Again, there is merit in partnership. When we have worked together to offer alternative bids based on a blended commercial-tendered network, we have been able to reduce operating costs and decrease public spending, whilst working together to design overall networks would allow optimal coverage and efficient spend, and to complement infrastructure improvements where operators have invested.

There remain too many examples of public money spent on ‘lines on maps’ which is simply preserving historical networks. Such funding should be prioritised on more genuine cases or, more intelligently on innovative new services or products which could ultimately become commercial if operated and managed correctly.

Could you provide figures for road traffic incidents per year over the last 10 years involving working bus drivers, and in what proportion of these was driver fatigue a contributory factor? Do you supply these numbers to your health and safety committee?

We share all details of incidents with management and trade unions at regular committee sessions local to each of our depots, as well as vis Hotspot maps visible to all staff in each location. We have seen a decrease of 16% of road traffic accidents over the last year thanks to closer management, interviews following every incident with those involved and sharing of more information around these incidents with all colleagues. Of all road traffic incidents in 2017, 11% existed around the conclusion of the drivers’ duty. It is unclear as to whether fatigue played a role in such incidents.

How may routes do you have and on how many of these do you face competition? Could you provide this by local area.

In each of the last ten years what was your profit and what proportion of this was reinvested in your bus fleet or other infrastructure related to your bus operations?

We are not a high margin operation, and our investment continues to far outstrip that of our profit. We have consistently invested more than our operating profit in new buses every year since 2012.

December 2018