Britain's bus coverage hits 28-year low

[Adlington]

.... according to the BBC

Britain's bus network has shrunk to levels last seen in the late 1980s, BBC analysis has revealed.

Rising car use and cuts to public funding are being blamed for a loss of 134 million miles of coverage over the past decade alone. Some cut-off communities have taken to starting their own services, with Wales and north-west England hardest hit.

The government has encouraged councils and bus companies to work together to halt the decline.One lobbying group fears the scale of the miles lost are a sign buses are on course to be cut to the same extent railways were in the 1960s.

Some examples:

In Chard in Somerset, mother Melissa Whittaker told the BBC how a 10-mile journey to take her autistic son Issac to their nearest community hospital can take three hours, the same time it would take to walk.

Villagers in Ditton Priors, Shropshire, who have not had a regular bus service since 2012, say some elderly residents have been forced to move away.

There is much more (diagrams, statistics, analysis &c) in the article.

 

[Wirewiper]

A very interesting article with lots of food for thought. What's important here is that the article is not about the decline in bus passengers, but the actual loss of bus routes.

One commentator offers the opinion that commercial operators are becoming more risk-averse, and are concentrating on their profitable core routes to the detriment of other routes. This is occurring at a time when local councils have less money to be able to support routes and services that have been abandoned by commercial operators. Obviously this isn't a uniform pattern, and I am sure we can all come up with our own examples of where this is happening, and where it isn't. However if it is an overall trend, more and more communities do face the prospect of losing their bus service entirely.

One glimmer of hope is that Community Buses, often driven by volunteers, and Community Interest Companies (the so-called "Not for profit" sector) are increasingly coming to the rescue where communities have faced the loss of their bus service. Also, the growth of Demand Responsive Transport, which passengers can access by telephoning and increasingly by using apps on their computers or smart phones, also points to a way forward.

 

[Samuel88]

A very interesting article with lots of food for thought. What's important here is that the article is not about the decline in bus passengers, but the actual loss of bus routes.

One commentator offers the opinion that commercial operators are becoming more risk-averse, and are concentrating on their profitable core routes to the detriment of other routes. This is occurring at a time when local councils have less money to be able to support routes and services that have been abandoned by commercial operators. Obviously this isn't a uniform pattern, and I am sure we can all come up with our own examples of where this is happening, and where it isn't. However if it is an overall trend, more and more communities do face the prospect of losing their bus service entirely.

One glimmer of hope is that Community Buses, often driven by volunteers, and Community Interest Companies (the so-called "Not for profit" sector) are increasingly coming to the rescue where communities have faced the loss of their bus service. Also, the growth of Demand Responsive Transport, which passengers can access by telephoning and increasingly by using apps on their computers or smart phones, also points to a way forward.

Community and dial a ride services are all well and good for residents but what about visitors/tourists?
They can't be expected to phone days ahead to book a bus service, and I myself have had to arrange taxis etc to relatives because the only bus services to their village was a dial a ride bus

 

[Volvodart]

Did they mention concessionary reimbursement not covering operator's costs making the onus on fare paying passengers to cover the shortfall?

 

[backontrack]

Appleby-in-Westmorland, a market town with a population of over 3,000, sticks out as a town left without a bus service to its nearest large town, Penrith. A skeleton service has now been reinstated.

The town of Kirkby Stephen down the road has had no such luck.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The underlying problem, quite simply, is the ENCTS. And I'm sorry to keep banging on about it.

Councils have a limited pot of money, and that limited pot of money is getting smaller. It is illegal for councils to set a deficit budget and it is illegal for councils to fail to undertake their statutory obligations.

Councils have a statutory obligation to reasonably compensate bus operators for the use of ENCTS. If they do not do so, bus operators can appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport, who has the power to force councils to pay a reasonable compensation rate. Councils do not, however, have a statutory obligation to provide socially necessary bus services; they must merely "consider" provision.

They must pay for ENCTS usage, even on bus routes which are immensely profitable and would operate regardless. They do not have to pay for socially necessary bus services. The transport budget is finite. The consequence is as obvious as it is inevitable: ENCTS gets paid first. If there are some scraps left, some socially necessary bus services operate. If there aren't any scraps left, they don't.

In urban areas it's bad enough with housing estates losing their buses, but at least most people will be relatively close to a main road with a main bus route. But in rural areas it can, and does, leave people many many miles from their nearest bus service.

The reimbursement rate is the other issue. Bus services which used to be marginally profitable are now no longer profitable due to falling compensation rates, which means they need subsidy. There's no money for subsidising socially necessary bus services because it's all getting spent on ENCTS.

It's a lose/lose situation: ENCTS is sucking up all the available money. There's nothing left for marginal services. But ENCTS needs more money than it can suck up, so more routes become marginal. It's no wonder we're left with a rump of profitable weekday daytime bus services. All the money is being blown on buses that would operate anyway.

Urban bus operations are still generally very profitable- Stagecoach Busways make 22% profit- but ENCTS is being spent on the profitable routes not the socially necessary ones. But just try and take ENCTS away...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Community and dial a ride services are all well and good for residents but what about visitors/tourists?
They can't be expected to phone days ahead to book a bus service, and I myself have had to arrange taxis etc to relatives because the only bus services to their village was a dial a ride bus

I think there is scope to integrate bookings with things like rail journey planners, and the need to book days in advance is utterly archaic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

ENCTS isn't subsidy of bus routes, though. It's subsidy of passengers (paying for the journeys they would probably make anyway and pay for if it weren't free). So you can't really argue that it's a subsidy of busier bus routes, though you can argue it isn't money well spent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the need to book days in advance is utterly archaic

The need to book days in advance is because of supply and demand. You need to make sure a volunteer is lined up. Even more pertinently, if you don't book days in advance the bus will probably be full up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The need to book days in advance is because of supply and demand. You need to make sure a volunteer is lined up. Even more pertinently, if you don't book days in advance the bus will probably be full up.

I think we are conflating DRT (where booking relates more to planning of what the bus is going to do in terms of route) with these volunteer bus services. The latter are more likely to be fixed routes offered on a rota (typically one main village per day, one return trip to the town/supermarket per day with about 2 hours there for shopping and a meal in the cafe) and there will be a fixed rota of volunteers. The only reasons for booking are to give the volunteer a day off if the bus isn't wanted by anybody, or as you say to ensure nobody is left behind, but in practice if these services are filling up a 17 seater minibus (the typical vehicle they tend to use because the licensing situation is easier as they can run under Section 19/23 rather than needing an O licence) then a commercial bus service is likely to be viable anyway.

 

[overthewater]

ENCTS does have a problem, it should be funded national. Im surprised bus coverage is at its lowest yet go back to 1990? There were still plenty of bus wars going on.

 

[Bantamzen]

The underlying problem, quite simply, is the ENCTS. And I'm sorry to keep banging on about it.

Councils have a limited pot of money, and that limited pot of money is getting smaller. It is illegal for councils to set a deficit budget and it is illegal for councils to fail to undertake their statutory obligations.

Councils have a statutory obligation to reasonably compensate bus operators for the use of ENCTS. If they do not do so, bus operators can appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport, who has the power to force councils to pay a reasonable compensation rate. Councils do not, however, have a statutory obligation to provide socially necessary bus services; they must merely "consider" provision.

They must pay for ENCTS usage, even on bus routes which are immensely profitable and would operate regardless. They do not have to pay for socially necessary bus services. The transport budget is finite. The consequence is as obvious as it is inevitable: ENCTS gets paid first. If there are some scraps left, some socially necessary bus services operate. If there aren't any scraps left, they don't.

In urban areas it's bad enough with housing estates losing their buses, but at least most people will be relatively close to a main road with a main bus route. But in rural areas it can, and does, leave people many many miles from their nearest bus service.

The reimbursement rate is the other issue. Bus services which used to be marginally profitable are now no longer profitable due to falling compensation rates, which means they need subsidy. There's no money for subsidising socially necessary bus services because it's all getting spent on ENCTS.

It's a lose/lose situation: ENCTS is sucking up all the available money. There's nothing left for marginal services. But ENCTS needs more money than it can suck up, so more routes become marginal. It's no wonder we're left with a rump of profitable weekday daytime bus services. All the money is being blown on buses that would operate anyway.

Urban bus operations are still generally very profitable- Stagecoach Busways make 22% profit- but ENCTS is being spent on the profitable routes not the socially necessary ones. But just try and take ENCTS away...

Up until a couple of years ago I would not have agreed about ENCTS being a major source of the problem. But then I have on more than one occasion found myself watching a packed service full of ENCTS holding passengers sail past on services that run hourly or less. Then further down the line some of these services are cut back, or even totally removed. And these are services run by smaller companies, often with the assistance of subsidy to run so as those subsidies collapse until financial constraints and the operators are unable to get fare paying passengers on so routes get dropped. Add to this happy mix the bigger operators consolidating their operations into the higher density routes only leaving the aforementioned smaller companies to pick up the scraps and its no wonder the bus network is collapsing at the rate it is. And it isn't just rural areas that are taking heavy losses, even living close to a major artery doesn't mean you will be immune to the losses. In the case of my area the main road has gone from 5-6 buses in each direction per hour to just 1. And in the wider context of West Yorkshire, a reasonably heavily populated area coverage has dropped 9% in just 4 years.

And this leads me onto the thing I bang on about so much, which is having a better integrated transport policy and network, and the need to understand the economic impacts of not doing so. Notwithstanding the obvious cut backs, how often do operators align services with other modes at potential interchange points? Why aren't there more inter-modal ticketing options that actually work for passengers and don't practically need a manual to understand. Why are the government allowing subsidies to die off when they are supposedly working towards more environmentally friendly transport solutions? Why is no-one in power overly concerned about the rapidly growing congestion problems up and down the country, and the impact that is having on the well-being & productivity of workers? All the answers and more continue to be ignored by governments as they all involve timescales that they don't want to commit to. So instead half-arsed platitudes are offered in the form of study after study, as recommendation after recommendation from Whitehall are passed from one senior Civil Servants in-tray to another, never to see the light of a policy day.

We need to completely rethink the whole transport strategy, starting with the principle that the more people using public transport then better because we can more efficiently move people and products instead of wasting millions of hours everyday sitting in traffic. And yes it will cost, and it will be us taxpayers who do so. But the alternative is more traffic, more time and money lost. Which is the better of two evils?

 

[Tetchytyke]

in practice if these services are filling up a 17 seater minibus then a commercial bus service is likely to be viable anyway.

My experience of these types of service is in the Northern Fells of the Lake District, where commercial bus services do not venture*. It's full if you don't book well in advance.

(*OK, Stagecoach run a walkers' bus service on summer weekends, but that's not much use for people living there).

 

[overthewater]

I bet If the ENCTS was withdrawn and replaced with a half fares scheme, even less people will use the services. Since it's mainly the poorer oap with little or no money. Richer ones will switch back to cars, I bet we would see even further cuts in the bus network. The bus fares will not magically come down if ENCTS disappears.

Good old days:
From 5am - 9am: You would have work traffic, school traffic etc shift people Plus school buses. - This is where the big money was made.
Fram 9-3pm: Unemployed, OAPs, parents, people with appointments with NHS etc
3-7pm: repeat of work traffic, school traffic etc shift people Plus school buses.

ENCTS does not affect section one, so maybe we should be asking about that first.

 

[Non Multi]

I bet If the ENCTS was withdrawn and replaced with a half fares scheme, even less people will use the services. Since it's mainly the poorer oap with little or no money. Richer ones will switch back to cars, I bet we would see even further cuts in the bus network. The bus fares will not magically come down if ENCTS disappears.

Good old days:
From 5am - 9am: You would have work traffic, school traffic etc shift people Plus school buses. - This is where the big money was made.
Fram 9-3pm: Unemployed, OAPs, parents, people with appointments with NHS etc
3-7pm: repeat of work traffic, school traffic etc shift people Plus school buses.

ENCTS does not affect section one, so maybe we should be asking about that first.

I honestly don't think they (the well off) switched to buses after ENCTS. I still see plenty of senior citizens behind the wheel when they could be on a bus for free. In the Thames Valley, NBC Alder Valley's inability to run scheduled buses during the 1970's pretty much forced that generation to learn to drive.

Means tested ENCTS would probably cost more in admin than it currently does. ENCTS users should at least cover the financial shortfall in order to keep their bus service viable.

 

[ashworth]

The gradual cutting of buses from the timetables, especially in rural areas, has made bus travel less and less convenient and so people don’t use the buses which are left.
I’m not talking about extremely isolated areas but routes from villages into small market towns or from these towns into the larger cities. Basically buses which run outside the large areas of population.

First, the late evening buses were cut, which then resulted in less people using the remaining early evening services. People won’t go out early evening if they can’t get back. Next most buses after 6pm were cut and so people who were going out for the day stopped travelling by bus because they can’t get back even early evening. Now many areas seem to be losing their regular afternoon buses. There are regular hourly buses in the mornings for ENCTS passengers to use to visit their local town for a couple of hours shopping etc but then a great gap after about 2pm until a token service at about 5pm. Again, if you can’t get back in the afternoon you don’t set out in the morning.

I know that’s a great generalisation but that’s what I am finding in many areas throughout the country. I’m trying to use public transport when on holiday, but when you set out for the day you need to be able to return in the afternoon or preferably early evening. Therefore I go by car. There’s no fun setting out for a day and having to begin your return journey just after lunch!

 

[Dentonian]

A very interesting article with lots of food for thought. What's important here is that the article is not about the decline in bus passengers, but the actual loss of bus routes.

One commentator offers the opinion that commercial operators are becoming more risk-averse, and are concentrating on their profitable core routes to the detriment of other routes. This is occurring at a time when local councils have less money to be able to support routes and services that have been abandoned by commercial operators. Obviously this isn't a uniform pattern, and I am sure we can all come up with our own examples of where this is happening, and where it isn't. However if it is an overall trend, more and more communities do face the prospect of losing their bus service entirely.

Certainly can come up with an exception, where Stagecoach Manchester have slashed services on various core corridors (eg. Reddish Road) to resource bus wars in such as Swinton.
Clearly, at the moment and for some years, the focus (quite rightly) has been the "terminally ill" services, where routes are completely removed and some rural villages and small towns have lost their buses completely. However, this has hidden a more insidious rise in "chronic cuts" where services along dense, low car ownership corridors and from poorer council estates are being reduced slowly with each service change (up to 6 times a year in Gtr. M/cr). This is where the majority of mileage has been cut, noting that over the last three years, more than 10% of journeys from TFGM run Bus stations have disappeared, with the only one not seeing a cut being Shudehill in the city centre.
This report has coincided with First Manchester withdrawing a number of services from 8th April, such that even the local media have taken an interest. Fortunately, the pro-franchising companies; Rotala and Transdev along with a relative newcomer, Vision Bus, have stepped in to save the routes in Bolton, Bury and Rochdale, but the one the press are going to town on (though, not by bus) is the 88 serving some of the poorest parts of the county (nee country) in North Manchester. It is a lamentable sign of the times that there is no suggestion of any replacement for this service. Had it happened five years ago, you could virtually guarantee that the local, competent management at Stagecoach would have been on he phone to head office and said "can you give us 6 spare buses from group to be available in 8 weeks?" The answer would have been "Yes" and they would have registered the current service, backing themselves to make it profitable through a more reliable service with friendlier drivers and slightly cheaper fares. But now...................

 

[Tetchytyke]

I bet If the ENCTS was withdrawn and replaced with a half fares scheme, even less people will use the services.

But you, like a lot of people, seem to be falling into the trap of believing ENCTS is a per-passenger reimbursement. It isn't. It never has been.

It gives operators the amount of money they'd have hypothetically earned if the pass holders had had to pay.

If only half the people would pay, then ENCTS will only reimburse for half the people. So it doesn't actually make the blindest bit of difference that OAPs wouldn't pay. The scheme actually works on the assumption that they wouldn't.

What it would do, though, is free up money in the transport budget for socially necessary services.

 

[Dentonian]

The underlying problem, quite simply, is the ENCTS. And I'm sorry to keep banging on about it.

...

Don't agree - not everywhere anyway. As the gap between Retirement age and Life expectancy narrows, then less people qualify for Concessionary passes especially in the areas cited as seeing the biggest drop in mileage: North West, then Wales, then North East. Rather than scrap a tried and tested socially equitable success, it would be fairer to stop LAs extending it to Rail, which most Pensioners can't access! In GM, the cost of Concessionary Fares on Rail/Metrolink is almost the same as the cost of Subsidised mainstream bus services! One argument for "justifying" this is that Pensioners with access to Rail have more spending power than those using buses. Can't argue with that politically, I suppose.

 

[yorksrob]

Appleby-in-Westmorland, a market town with a population of over 3,000, sticks out as a town left without a bus service to its nearest large town, Penrith. A skeleton service has now been reinstated.

Although sadly not on Saturday which would be handy. The afternoon service had a few other passengers last Friday.

 

[backontrack]

Although sadly not on Saturday which would be handy. The afternoon service had a few other passengers last Friday.

Yes, it's very sad. The town is quite cut-off at weekends, with no bus service to Penrith.

It's important to remember that the service was cut at the same time that the line north of Armathwaite was flooded. The town was essentially stranded, inaccessible to non-car users. Now the train is more important than ever - though it won't take people to Penrith, which is often where they want to go.

 

[carlberry]

Urban bus operations are still generally very profitable- Stagecoach Busways make 22% profit- but ENCTS is being spent on the profitable routes not the socially necessary ones. But just try and take ENCTS away...

ENCTS isn't being 'spent' on any routes, people are deciding to use those routes. Are you suggesting that ENCTS only applies to routes that are not commercial? Nobody is brave enough to suggest changing it to be means tested or requiring a small payment so I cant see an enormously complex scheme working!

 

[Busaholic]

ENCTS isn't being 'spent' on any routes, people are deciding to use those routes. Are you suggesting that ENCTS only applies to routes that are not commercial? Nobody is brave enough to suggest changing it to be means tested or requiring a small payment so I cant see an enormously complex scheme working!

I believe it was LibDem policy for a while that it be means tested (Nick Clegg, who's probably not been on a bus in his life, seemed particularly keen). The cost of means testing would more than likely exceed the money available to reimburse bus operators, thus signalling a de facto ending of the scheme. The problem with a 'small payment', disregarding whether that is against the principle of the scheme, is that what starts small can increase exponentially and, where LAs are concerned, that's what would happen! It should be properly financed centrally, but nowhere should get those extra benefits that many in large urban areas do (Scotland and Wales too). Maybe a small charge for issuing the pass, though, to defray the admin costs.

 

[overthewater]

But you, like a lot of people, seem to be falling into the trap of believing ENCTS is a per-passenger reimbursement. It isn't. It never has been.

It gives operators the amount of money they'd have hypothetically earned if the pass holders had had to pay.

If only half the people would pay, then ENCTS will only reimburse for half the people. So it doesn't actually make the blindest bit of difference that OAPs wouldn't pay. The scheme actually works on the assumption that they wouldn't..

No wonder the English scheme is crap, Scottish version is 58.1% per fare.. ( it should be higher like 70% or 73% when it first started)

What it would do, though, is free up money in the transport budget for socially necessary services.

I would love to believe that but in the current climate I bet i would just disappear into the Social care...

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it's very sad. The town is quite cut-off at weekends, with no bus service to Penrith.

It's important to remember that the service was cut at the same time that the line north of Armathwaite was flooded. The town was essentially stranded, inaccessible to non-car users. Now the train is more important than ever - though it won't take people to Penrith, which is often where they want to go.

Yes, even when the North of the line was cut the railway was still a lifeline to the town.

 

[6Gman]

I believe it was LibDem policy for a while that it be means tested (Nick Clegg, who's probably not been on a bus in his life, seemed particularly keen). The cost of means testing would more than likely exceed the money available to reimburse bus operators, thus signalling a de facto ending of the scheme.

Presumably this wouldn't be a completely new means testing system; it would simply "piggyback" an existing system.

For example, you get a free ENCTS if you're on pension credits (or similar).

Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it could be done with little additional cost.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would love to believe that but in the current climate I bet i would just disappear into the Social care...

I can't really disagree with you there, unfortunately

ENCTS isn't being 'spent' on any routes, people are deciding to use those routes

The money is going on bus routes that would run, and run profitably, anyway. What I'm saying is that that is a waste of scarce resources.

The cost of means testing would more than likely exceed the money available to reimburse bus operators

I wouldn't want to see means testing. I don't think there was anything wrong with the old system of heavily reduced fares. 50p or even £1 a journey is more than operators will often get but should still be affordable for even the poorest pensioners (who have a guaranteed minimum income of £159/week).

That said, it already is "means tested" for disabled people, you only get it in certain conditions. The same could apply for OAPs, only getting one if you're eligible for guarantee pension credit (which is the benefit you get as a top up if your pensions don't give you £159/week income). The means assessment has already been done, all the LA need to do is see a benefit letter.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, it's very sad. The town is quite cut-off at weekends, with no bus service to Penrith.

It's important to remember that the service was cut at the same time that the line north of Armathwaite was flooded. The town was essentially stranded, inaccessible to non-car users. Now the train is more important than ever - though it won't take people to Penrith, which is often where they want to go.

Appleby is not at all ''cut-off' ! It enjoys a very heavily subsidised rail service to both Carlisle and Leeds 7 days per week. There are other towns of its size in the UK which would rejoice with such a splendid transport service. This train service may not take people directly to Penrith (although they could get there somewhat circuitously by changing at Carlisle), but Penrith cannot be 'often where they want to go', otherwise the bus service would be commercially viable and still operated. More likely 'where some people want to go sometimes' and not enough to make a bus service viable.
The town was not 'essentially stranded, inaccessible to non-car users' when the line was flooded north of Armathwaite. This is just untrue and hysterical nonsense. A replacement bus service covered the flooded section, and trains were still running to Leeds. Yes, travellers to & from the north were inconvenienced, but stranded - no.

 

[carlberry]

The money is going on bus routes that would run, and run profitably, anyway. What I'm saying is that that is a waste of scarce resources.
.

So how do you stop the pass holders using those services? It's a bit like saying that pensioners will only get the winter fuel allowance if they use one of the smaller electricity companies.

 

[RT4038]

The money is going on bus routes that would run, and run profitably, anyway. What I'm saying is that that is a waste of scarce resources.

What makes you think that bus services would run anyway, if bus companies did not receive compensation for conveyance of ENCTS passholders? Something wrong with your reasoning somewhere.