Theresa May blames local councils for collapse of bus services despite huge government budget cuts

[overthewater]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-government-budgets-halved-cut-a8430841.html

Theresa May sparked a huge row when she blamed local councils for the collapse of bus services – despite her own government slashing their budgets in half.

The prime minister also claimed that routes were disappearing because “working habits are changing”, again rejecting any responsibility for the crisis.

The controversy was raised in the Commons after the Campaign for Better Transport pleaded with ministers to step in – after 188 services were cut in the last year alone.

J[URL='https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/jeremy-corbyn']eremy Corbyn asked Ms May to “accept her failure”, pointing out that Whitehall funding for town halls had slumped by 45 per cent since 2010.[/URL]

But the prime minister replied: “I would merely point out to him that we should look at the responsibility that local authorities have up and down this country for the buses.”

She then added: “What we have seen across the country is, as people’s working habits are changing, we are seeing less usage of buses around the country.

Insisting councils had “responsibilities”, she told the Labour leader: “I suggest he asks some of those local authorities what they are doing about the buses in their own areas.”

In a series of tweets, Andy McDonald, Labour’s shadow transport secretary, accused Ms May of washing her hands, as bus passengers suffered.
.

Steve Chambers, the group's spokesman, warned “the slow death of the supported bus” punished people trying to get to jobs and education and had implications for local economies, health, congestion and pollution.

However, he blamed the government, saying: “The government must wake up to the crisis. We want to see a proper national strategy for buses backed up by funding, like those that already exist for all other modes of transport.”

In the Commons, Mr Corbyn criticised bus deregulation, saying it had led to private firms hiking fares faster than inflation while making a profit of £3.3bn since 2010.

He said pensioners enjoyed free bus travel, but added: “A bus pass isn’t much use if there isn’t a bus.”

And he vowed: “It will be a Labour government that saves the bus industry and a Labour government that gives free fares to under 26-year-olds.”

That bus bill really is trying to good wink people.

 

[A0wen]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-government-budgets-halved-cut-a8430841.html



That bus bill really is trying to good wink people.

Labour need to be very careful - the pensioners 'free bus pass' really didn't help matters. It removed money from the farebox and, whilst it made some services busier, the revenue dropped. Extending such a 'bribe' will only make matters worse.

 

[daikilo]

Next, Corbyn will want to renationalise bus transport ... but he is right, albeit late.

 

[alex397]

What a foolish thing for May to say, amongst all the hundreds of ridiculous things she says. She clearly knows nothing about buses!

And then we have Corbyn who seems to live in cloud cuckoo land. Does he know nothing about the concessionary pass scheme and how it has given bus operators a very unfair deal? Allowing for under 26s too would leave very little ordinary fares for operators to collect, and what state would the bus industry be in then?

I actually like the idea of free travel for under 26s - it would help reduce car usage and pollution and could help save bus services, amongst other benefits. But I find it incredibly unlikely it would be properly funded, by any type of government.

Going back to the Tories, my local labour MP raised the issue of the Kent bus services, and how poorly funded they are with various cutbacks recently. She was apparently told that Kent CC (Tory) has plenty of funds for bus services. Well, that's not what KCC say, and clearly have not shown with their cutbacks and potential future cuts. Clearly someone is lying, and seeing as I don't trust the Government or Kent CC, I haven't a clue!

Corbyn also blames bus deregulation, and so do most people it seems. It makes me laugh when people complain about the Tory cuts at the same time as wanting MORE government control over bus services. How will regulating the buses again save it from government cutbacks - surely it would just make them even more vulnerable.

The majority of politicians, and the general public, seem to have no clue as to how buses are run, and it's a scary thought. I feel the bus industry is doomed no matter what party is in control of government.

 

[edwin_m]

The train operators are regulated and are largely immune from cutbacks.

 

[Ianno87]

I actually like the idea of free travel for under 26s - it would help reduce car usage and pollution and could help save bus services, amongst other benefits. But I find it incredibly unlikely it would be properly funded, by any type of government.

I understand car use/ownership in the under 26s is at a lower rate than previous generations anyway; not much need for any additional incentive, in my view.

 

[radamfi]

I understand car use/ownership in the under 26s is at a lower rate than previous generations anyway; not much need for any additional incentive, in my view.

It is certainly a well known trend across the world that young people have less interest in learning how to drive compared to earlier generations. The car is considered to be "old tech" and many young people would rather have an expensive phone rather than a car. But are young people actually using buses much, or do they organise their lives so they don't need really buses and can get away with trains, Ubers and the odd lift from mum or dad?

 

[InspectorBloke]

My worry about the National Concessionary scheme is that it has forced bus operators into becoming 'busy fools'.

I believe a discounted fare scheme (say 50% off full adult fares, with a nominal contribution from government) would still make bus travel attractive and affordable to concessionary users, whilst giving bus operators and local authorities room to invest in vehicles, infrastructure and routes to attract fare paying passengers.

Other people have advocated a yearly payment (i've heard £20 a year being mentioned on one of the bus blogs) in exchange for unlimited travel, the money received is then ringfenced for investment in vehicles, infrastructure, routes etc.

Perhaps bus operators and local authorities could look towards the way rail works. A 'Railcard' type system for seniors, young people, off peak travellers etc. to encourage and support people to use the bus. This would require either cooperation from bus operators or tighter regulation from higher authorities.

We have all seen a number of smaller operators fold. Larger operators are more resilient, but I am concerned we will see a bus operators and local authority "Beeching axe" where we will end up with a core of money making routes, but no room to support marginal or loss making routes, so people are left without viable public transport, and will resort to car/train/taxi travel if they have the option or be forced to not travel at all. We've seen it already with various operators.

Whether i'm right or wrong in my thoughts, change needs to happen, the only stakeholder who will lose in the end is passengers, fare paying or not, as they will end up with a limited and expensive service to use.

 

[Dai Corner]

I thought the terms of the National Concessionary scheme, and in particular the amount paid to operators in return for carrying pass holders, were supposed to be such that they neither gained nor lost as a result?

 

[alex397]

The train operators are regulated and are largely immune from cutbacks.

There are probably many other complicated reasons for this. Cutbacks to the railways would be far more unpopular to voters. Also, politicians use trains but rarely use buses.

The government has plenty of powers for bus services, but it chooses to make severe cutbacks in this sector. It has the power to fund socially necessary journeys, but in recent years councils have been allowing marginal routes to disappear with no replacement, as a result of government cutbacks.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I thought the terms of the National Concessionary scheme, and in particular the amount paid to operators in return for carrying pass holders, were supposed to be such that they neither gained nor lost as a result?

in theory yes, but how do you work out what that rate is? why does one authority pay x pence and a neighbouring authority pay y pence? In effect the price paid per journey is as little as the authority thinks it can get away with... the companies have little to no say in how much they get paid.. and legally they are obliged to accept the passes to qualify for BSOG etc etc...

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There are probably many other complicated reasons for this. Cutbacks to the railways would be far more unpopular to voters. Also, politicians use trains but rarely use buses.

The government has plenty of powers for bus services, but it chooses to make severe cutbacks in this sector. It has the power to fund socially necessary journeys, but in recent years councils have been allowing marginal routes to disappear with no replacement, as a result of government cutbacks.

actually bus service subsidy is entirely in the hands of Local Authorities, the government of the day having washed it's hands of responsibility with the Transport Act 1985.

The problem for subsidised bus services is that they are not a statutory requirement therefore when council budgets get squeezed, as they have been for the last 10 years {by central government} then one of the first things to be cut is bus service provision.

Of course, the Government can then say that service cuts are nothing to do with them.... even though ultimately they are a result of Central Government policies and decisions!

 

[radamfi]

in theory yes, but how do you work out what that rate is? why does one authority pay x pence and a neighbouring authority pay y pence? In effect the price paid per journey is as little as the authority thinks it can get away with... the companies have little to no say in how much they get paid.. and legally they are obliged to accept the passes to qualify for BSOG etc etc...

It is difficult to calibrate a "fair" reimbursement rate when you have commercial services as the bus company will always want as much as possible, which is understandable as, like any other business, they want to make as much money as possible, and the council will always want to pay as little as possible. With a gross cost tender there is no need to calculate a reimbursement rate as you only need to pay the bus company to run the service.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Indeed, but bus services are for the most part operated commercially. Hence, each of those services is in fact receiving enough revenue from pensioners' payments to retain their commercial viability whether it is in area x or area y. Arguably therefore, the payments are right.

Tendered/supported routes and/or times of day are a wholly different matter with different rationales. It would be a valid observation in my area that many tendered rural routes have precious little usage - even when it is "free" to a chunk of the local populus.

 

[175mph]

In North Lincolnshire it's been swings and roundabouts, some services reduced, and others improved recently and even a new service launched.

 

[Dai Corner]

actually bus service subsidy is entirely in the hands of Local Authorities, the government of the day having washed it's hands of responsibility with the Transport Act 1985.

The problem for subsidised bus services is that they are not a statutory requirement therefore when council budgets get squeezed, as they have been for the last 10 years {by central government} then one of the first things to be cut is bus service provision.

Of course, the Government can then say that service cuts are nothing to do with them.... even though ultimately they are a result of Central Government policies and decisions!

A central Government that people voted in of course. "We're not going to build that new school" probably loses fewer votes than "We're not going to pay for little-used buses".

It's called democracy.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Indeed, but bus services are for the most part operated commercially. Hence, each of those services is in fact receiving enough revenue from pensioners' payments to retain their commercial viability whether it is in area x or area y. Arguably therefore, the payments are right.

How do you work that out? a bus service operates between A and B... council A pays 25p a pass and council B pays 50p a pass... both councils are working off of the same figures... so how comes the discrepancy... and of course the bus company gets no real say in what it is paid, yet it is legally obliged to accept the pass! As I have argued many times in many different threads... this can hardly be called fair or equitable! but I am sure the arguments will rage round and round in circles here as it has on all the other threads that this thorny issue has been raised on!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

A central Government that people voted in of course. "We're not going to build that new school" probably loses fewer votes than "We're not going to pay for little-used buses".

It's called democracy.

except at the last election there was a hung parliament and this shower of incompetents only gained power by paying a nice large bung to the DUP!

 

[Dai Corner]

except at the last election there was a hung parliament and this shower of incompetents only gained power by paying a nice large bung to the DUP!

It was paid to Northern Ireland to spend on public services, such as buses which I believe are nationalised over there.

 

[overthewater]

That the Stupied English scheme for you.

How do you work that out? a bus service operates between A and B... council A pays 25p a pass and council B pays 50p a pass... both councils are working off of the same figures... so how comes the discrepancy... and of course the bus company gets no real say in what it is paid, yet it is legally obliged to accept the pass! As I have argued many times in many different threads... this can hardly be called fair or equitable! but I am sure the arguments will rage round and round in circles here as it has on all the other threads that this thorny issue has been raised on!

 

[radamfi]

It would be a valid observation in my area that many tendered rural routes have precious little usage - even when it is "free" to a chunk of the local populus.

A lot of the debate about bus cuts concerns rural areas where bus use has long been negligible. Rural routes in Britain were often quite comprehensive compared to other countries. However, a lot of these services are/were very infrequent, say once a day, once a week or even once a month! Even a bus every 2 hours is not particularly attractive to most people. Buses probably have a 1% mode share or even lower where buses are so infrequent, and there is no prospect of improving on that significantly regardless of funding.

IMO it is more important to focus on urban services, where public transport should be a viable alternative to the car. But there is little concern for them, because in the main they are still commercial. But if public transport modal share is low then that is something that needs addressing.

 

[A0wen]

Next, Corbyn will want to renationalise bus transport ... but he is right, albeit late.

No - as with most things, he's wrong.

You can run a decent bus network without the state owning the vehicles and employing the drivers.

There were many areas of the country which the 'National' Bus Company washed its hands of - leaving it for independents to sort out and provide a service.

 

[freetoview33]

Lets face it some routes will never be commercially viable (And free travel for pensioners, how ever good, has made this situation worse.) But this doesn't mean that these routes are not needed. This then leads to a slippery slope that causes marginal routes to disappear too and so on.

I understand that a bus route can not be funded for every village in the country and even the ones that can not a frequent one. But there are plenty of routes that are needed, just how to fund them?

Yes a publicly owned bus system in theory should put profits for well used routes into supporting less profitable ones. But based on past experience this leads to overly complex routes and routes that serve every bit of everywhere, which are not practical either and cost the earth.

So the answer?

In my eyes, there needs to some form of publicly owned bus system, in each area, controlled by a mixture of:
Local and Parish Councils
Bus users
Some form of business committee
And some input for the DfT
Input from large employers, (Like hospitals, big companies)

With a proper formula in place to determine which areas get services, based on something like the following.

Cost - We can't fund journeys that cost like £20+ per trip (Like some are now) But we can fund some that are only a few £, and try to make a plan to make it profitable in future.

Population - Has the area got a big enough population? No point serving a hamlet with 2 houses!

Future Demand - A new housing estate being built, really there needs to be a service from day 1, even though it might take a few years to become well enough used to sustain itself.

Integration - It needs to actually go where people need/want it to and be connected to further services at some part of the route. And have a joined up ticketing system with other forms of transport.

Speed - No point in having a bus that will take 10 times longer than a car. Also look at priority measures like bus lanes so buses can actually be faster than cars.

Accessibility - Is it accessible to the people who need it, such as students and the elderly? Also make sure buses are all low floor (Not minibuses!) and look at things such as raised curbs (No point having a low floor bus if people have to step up to them!) and stops situated where passengers can be seen by drivers.

Promotion - Make sure the potential market know these services actually exist! In many places the only correct timetable information is online, which is no good for most elderly people. So bus stops need to be up to date with up to date information. And maybe leaflets to tell people about new services or big changes.

Simplicity - Make sure the routes are simple without lots of variations. Not being an overly complex route. Without frequent changes, maybe a minor change once a year or two. Unless there is a major need to. And if there is a big change to make one once every 5 years or so. (In some places some services have had major changes once or twice a year!)

Frequency - Other than school/shopper services that have to run at a particular time of the day/week. Services need to run frequently so people don't have to plan in advance because there is only one bus per day! Also people don't want to be waiting around 2 hours plus for the next bus.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

IMO it is more important to focus on urban services, where public transport should be a viable alternative to the car. But there is little concern for them, because in the main they are still commercial. But if public transport modal share is low then that is something that needs addressing.

oh? so if you are unable to drive, or can't afford to own a car you shouldn't be allowed to live in the countryside? you say that there is little concern for urban services... I would say the opposite.. councils and bus companies are too concerned with urban services {where they know big returns can be made relatively easily with little or no subsidy} to be bothered to come up with a proper rural transport policy!

 

[Harpers Tate]

a bus service operates between A and B... council A pays 25p a pass and council B pays 50p a pass...

Because a bus service (singular) is not what either council funds pensioners' use of. It funds pensioners' usage over a suite of services in their area. A is urban, with highly loaded services, and they are commercial at lower individual fares than those in B which is suburban or rural. For just one example of potential disparity.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Because a bus service (singular) is not what either council funds pensioners' use of. It funds pensioners' usage over a suite of services in their area. A is urban, with highly loaded services, and they are commercial at lower individual fares than those in B which is suburban or rural. For just one example of potential disparity.

But the end result is still that, on that particular service, 2 different councils are coming up with a different figure for what constitutes "break even" on that route... and it doesn't alter the fact that, in effect, if the company involved wishes to provide that bus service for all it has to take what it is offered... like it or lump it...

 

[InspectorBloke]

I thought the terms of the National Concessionary scheme, and in particular the amount paid to operators in return for carrying pass holders, were supposed to be such that they neither gained nor lost as a result?

In reality, I don't think that is happening with the current system. Take my local operator for example. They receive around £1-£1.20 per journey, depending on the route. Full single fares vary between around £3 and £10, again, depending on route, and various routes will generate higher returns than others per mile. The difference in concessionary payments and full fares is huge. So in that respect, that is how bus operators manage to be no better or worse off.

Bus operators, however, are strangled by the system. Put simply, if they raise their fares too high, full fare payers will be encouraged to use other modes of transport. Too low limits investment in new vehicles, refurbishing vehicles, quality & motivated staff, marketing etc., after fixed and incedental costs are taken into account.

If bus is to be sustainable and reduce reliance on cars/taxis and other higher polluting traffic, bus operators need incentives and support to provide a quality bus network and I fear that concessionary travel does make bus operators (and ultimately passengers) worse off.

 

[radamfi]

oh? so if you are unable to drive, or can't afford to own a car you shouldn't be allowed to live in the countryside? you say that there is little concern for urban services... I would say the opposite.. councils and bus companies are too concerned with urban services {where they know big returns can be made relatively easily with little or no subsidy} to be bothered to come up with a proper rural transport policy!

I wouldn't say that rural services shouldn't be provided, but there is no way that rural services can achieve good modal share no matter how much you spend. Driverless taxis will be a far more useful solution in the medium term.

On the other hand, public transport can be a genuine alternative to the car in urban areas given the right approach and funding.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I wouldn't say that rural services shouldn't be provided, but there is no way that rural services can achieve good modal share no matter how much you spend. Driverless taxis will be a far more useful solution in the medium term.

On the other hand, public transport can be a genuine alternative to the car in urban areas given the right approach and funding.

To quote your original post in full:

A lot of the debate about bus cuts concerns rural areas where bus use has long been negligible. Rural routes in Britain were often quite comprehensive compared to other countries. However, a lot of these services are/were very infrequent, say once a day, once a week or even once a month! Even a bus every 2 hours is not particularly attractive to most people. Buses probably have a 1% mode share or even lower where buses are so infrequent, and there is no prospect of improving on that significantly regardless of funding.

IMO it is more important to focus on urban services, where public transport should be a viable alternative to the car. But there is little concern for them, because in the main they are still commercial. But if public transport modal share is low then that is something that needs addressing.

Considering this thread is about who's to blame for the cuts in funding, and that the brunt of those cuts are being born by rural services, I fail to see what value there is in concentrating on urban routes where, by your own admission, they are largely profitable! As for your suggestion that rural communities rely on "driverless" taxis... where, may I ask is there a single driverless taxi? quite apart from the fact that most people who can't afford to run a car can't afford taxi fares either... you're not related to Marie Antoinette by any chance?

 

[radamfi]

Considering this thread is about who's to blame for the cuts in funding, and that the brunt of those cuts are being born by rural services, I fail to see what value there is in concentrating on urban routes where, by your own admission, they are largely profitable! As for your suggestion that rural communities rely on "driverless" taxis... where, may I ask is there a single driverless taxi? quite apart from the fact that most people who can't afford to run a car can't afford taxi fares either... you're not related to Marie Antoinette by any chance?

Urban routes may well be profitable, but that doesn't mean a high proportion of the population use them. There are two main purposes for public transport, to provide transport for people without a car and to provide an attractive alternative to the car so that fewer car trips are made, so therefore less pollution and congestion. In most urban areas in the UK, hardly anyone leaves the car at home to use the bus, whereas they do in other countries.

If you read my post carefully, I said driverless taxis will be a far more useful solution *in the medium term*. I would expect a driverless taxi to cost slightly more than the cost of fuel and therefore would probably cost less than what a bus costs now.