'Save buses' campaign launched to fight council cuts (BBC News 03/02/2011)

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

More than two-thirds of councils in England are planning major cuts to their bus budgets, it is claimed.

According to the Campaign for Better Transport, which is launching the Save our Buses campaign, some councils intend to end all subsidised services.

The Local Government Association also warned many bus routes would disappear as a result of government cutbacks.

But the government said nearly 80% of services outside London were commercially run and so not affected.

As part of the Save our Buses campaign, data was collected from every local authority in England. It found 13 county councils were planning cutbacks of more than ^1m, including Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon. Many rural, hospital, evening and weekend bus services were at risk.

Low incomes

The Local Government Association said bus routes would disappear as a result of government cuts to council budgets, and warned changes to the way concessionary travel is funded would also see services scaled back.

County councils will take over responsibility this year for funding concessionary travel. This will mean a cut in funding earmarked for other services, and concessionary travel will be scaled back to off-peak hours in order for county councils to be able to meet their statutory duty, the LGA added.

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport's chief executive, said the cuts to bus services would hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest.

"We believe any short-term savings will be outweighed by the long-term cost of a vastly depleted bus network. These unprecedented cuts will be especially disastrous for people on low incomes and could effectively mean the death of rural bus services. Politicians must consider the social, economic and environmental consequences of failing to protect our bus services." He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If the government really wants people to get off welfare and into work they are going to need transport for it."

'Reaching for axe'

Peter Box, chairman of the LGA's economy and transport board, said: "Councils support the free bus scheme, but it has been under-funded since its introduction. We have always argued that it should not be the local taxpayer and council services that suffer because central funding is not keeping up with demand for the free bus pass."

However, local and regional transport minister Norman Baker argued that while he accepted the funding settlement was "challenging", most bus services would not be affected.

"Nearly 80% of bus services outside London are commercially run so don't rely on direct funding from councils. There has been no cut in the financial support we provide for these services this year," he said. "I accept that the funding settlement for local authorities from DCLG is challenging. It's good to see some councils are approaching this imaginatively, finding savings in procurement and council officers' salaries. However, some are just reaching for the axe."

[Tim]

Nice Poem BNM

[JaminBob]

Yep. trains get the spot light but it's the buses that are going to get the brunt of the cuts. That's a big deal for many more people, it's also a big deal in rural areas like ... erm most of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) territory.

Anything that doesn't pay will go. Big cities like Bristol might get to keep skeleton services. If people want services to remain they'd better be prepared to fight.

[Timmer]

How the tide has turned where it's buses and not trains that are being cut where during the Beeching era it was the other way around.

And I say that with sadness for the many communities that will lose their vital bus services over the coming months because councils will no longer be able to afford to pay for them. Wonder how many bus companies such as Arriva, Stagecoach or First will take the hit and do something for these places facing losing their services and keep some sort of service going. Based on recent past history I think not. Hope I'm wrong.

[JayMac]

Altruism from the bus owning groups? I think not.

[Henry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12373353

 As the Council will cut rural services seems little point spending the money.
 Perhaps the money could be directed towards saving the bus routes.

[JonG]

Yes, it does seem a bit pointless spending money doing up the Bus station there when a lot of the services that use it seem likely for the chop.

[Chris from Nailsea]

On the other hand ... the bus station refurbishment could bring some welcome employment to Tavistock - and when the work is completed, there may be more money available to reinstate the bus services ... 

[SandTEngineer]

Now here is a shocker...................look at the subsidy levels in the tables

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/bus/bus47.htm

[mjones]

Now here is a shocker...................look at the subsidy levels in the tables

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/bus/bus47.htm

Well, the two main items were 25% from Bus Service Operators Grant, aka Fuel Duty Rebate, and 25% from concessional fares. I'm not convinced the first should be seen as a subsidy as such, because I'm not convinced it follows automatically that just because car and lorry users pay a tax on their fuel that the same should apply for public transport. I think we get in dangerous territory if we take the view that if something isn't taxed it is subsidised...

With regard to concessionary fares, this is a subsidy for the user, not the operator. Indeed, it is partly because the formula the government uses to calculate reimbursements to operators doesn't fully cover the cost that many bus services are now threatened with being cut back. Unfortunately by sticking to their electoral pledge to keep the pensioners' bus pass, but not fully funding it, the government is making it likely that lots of those pensioners won't have buses to use their pass on. Effectively they are imposing the costs of concessionary fares onto other bus passengers, who are typically the lowest income groups.

[onthecushions]

Surely concessionary fares help the operator more than the pass holder. The operator's costs are governed by peak requirements, when passes aren't valid. Midday services mainly have only marginal costs but have poor loadings, hence their availability to pass holders.

It is reasonable to deny pensioners the am peak (the pm peak is more spread out so isn't usually an issue) but cutting the 25% CT payment would often make the remaining service unworkable, hurting paying users most.

The real limit has of course to be in the provision of services - the present "free market" isn't sustainable, requiring 60% subsidy!

Perhaps that's why we had regulation, traffic commissioners etc (and still have in London).

Ding ding,

OTC

[JayMac]

Perhaps that's why we had regulation, traffic commissioners etc

We still have traffic commissioners in the regions. The one for Bristol recently fined First Bristol and First Somerset & Avon for running services late, early or not at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12249432

[Chris from Nailsea]

Indeed - and that article featured my bus - the 354 to Nailsea!

[mjones]

Surely concessionary fares help the operator more than the pass holder. The operator's costs are governed by peak requirements, when passes aren't valid. Midday services mainly have only marginal costs but have poor loadings, hence their availability to pass holders.

It is reasonable to deny pensioners the am peak (the pm peak is more spread out so isn't usually an issue) but cutting the 25% CT payment would often make the remaining service unworkable, hurting paying users most.

The real limit has of course to be in the provision of services - the present "free market" isn't sustainable, requiring 60% subsidy!

Perhaps that's why we had regulation, traffic commissioners etc (and still have in London).

Ding ding,

OTC

You might be interested to read TAS Partnership's evidence to the same inquiry. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/bus/bus37.htm

They are a consultancy specialising in buses and are firmly of the view that the inadequate reimbursement formula for the bus pass is costing the industry a lot of money and will lead to reduced bus services. I re-emphasise my earlier point that a rebate is not the same as subsidy, and that concessionary fares are a subsidy for the user, not the operator.

[onthecushions]

Thanks for the TAS link which I've looked through.

I agree that HMG under-pays the bus industry, like it under-pays most public services (except PFI and PPP).

My point is that the buses need the 25% subsidy whether OAP's are allowed on or not.

It is the inelasticity of supply costs - the bus and driver don't cost much less when sitting in the depot between peaks - that is the problem.

The 15% productivity loss/cost increase over the last decade (congestion?) looks to be nearly as important.

Regards,

OTC