We’re all expecting cuts in local transport authorities’ bus services and hardly a day goes by without some news of reductions. Last week, though, Northamptonshire stated it was prepared to go further than any to date. It’s proposing an end to *all* subsidised bus services. Will others follow?
Northamptonshire council announced on 27th January proposals to stop all bus services
Subsidised bus services are discretionary. There is nothing in legislation to say that a local transport authority *has* to provide bus services, though they usually do so; only that an LTA has to have a policy.
Subsidies are a local affair and LTAs are democratically accountable. If, having weighed up the various options open to the council, cutting subsidies seems the best form of husbandry, so be it. The required policy can therefore legitimately say “no bus services whatsoever”. But there are consequences.
All change at Northampton? The town also has an unloved bus station that may be torn down in the next few years.
I’m no expert on Northamptonshire or its bus services but removing £1.4mil will have an effect that goes far beyond immediate cuts in services. Commercial operators who rely on subsidy for their business will at a stroke be considerably worse off. Fewer services over which to spread fixed costs plus a loss of income will inevitably threaten more than the immediate services in question.
At the same time, operators may feel obliged at least to consider whether they can operate some of the withdrawn mileage commercially. This increases costs at the very time revenue falls. This they may try to do to protect jobs and investment. Operators aren’t charities and they may not find it easy to try to retrieve a difficult situation but, ultimately, withdrawn early morning, evening and Sunday subsidised services will also impact on their businesses. Difficult decisions indeed, for both sides of the fence.
Cutting £1.4mil-worth of subsidy threatens to plunge rural areas into a situation they have not witnessed since the 1920s, when rural buses began to develop properly. In order to avert this sort of crisis, Northamptonshire is looking to plough half of its savings back—into demand responsive rural transport.
This is a remarkable experiment in social services: recognising the bus subsidy bill is too high and possibly even trying to come to terms with the fact that, for those who use rural buses, the level of service is far from ideal. In fact, this is also new ground for a local transport authority: a mass conversion of conventional mileage into demand responsive journeys. This is designed to overhaul the system and reduce inefficiencies. Such reviews are surely good practice.
DRT is another area with which I am less familiar but I wonder how much of a panacea this is. At least Northampton has some experience of such solutions. It already operates Call Connect in the north of its county. This is a head start. Time will tell whether the community will countenance massive subsidy cuts and whether the alternative is acceptable. A brave and risky move but a calculated one, nonetheless? Who knows, the alternative might just be better.
28 comments:
At least Northampton has some experience of such solutions. It already operates Call Connect in the north of its county
Umm, actually it doesn't. Lincolnshire run the service as part of their Call Connect network around Stamford - a town which is on the very borders of three counties but which is definitely in Lincs!
Or is this a "worst case" announcement such that what they actually do (let's say cut half their subsidy budget) doesn't look quite so bad?
Neil, I think you hit the nail. I think there could found out what route most people want, then keep the most poupler ones
Demand responsive transport won't lower the bill very much - the cost per passenger journey usually compares very unfavourably with ordinary bus.
As Neil says, perhaps this signposting of "cuts ahead" will galvanise some passengers into action: too many are passive in the face of actions by both operators and transport authorities.
Anonymous said...
"...galvanise some passengers into action: "
I'm wondering what action you expect the passengers to take? Using the buses more often would clearly help; buying cars (or using them more often) would be rather counter-productive! Protesting to the politicians may have some effect, but probably has a 'long lead time'.
Perhaps this could spur the bus operators into coming out of their garages and developing a new network of bus services that are of interest to people in the area and are commercially viable, using the superior skills and knowledge in the industry.
Or perhaps not.
Trouble is, bus operators won't look beyond the profitability of individual journeys.
Sometimes a late evening journey, for instance, will cause a journey to take place earlier in the day because that later journey is there *just in case*. Think of a bus commuter who normally does 9am to 5pm but has to work overtime, at random, once every couple of weeks. They might not even consider the bus if there isn't an evening service to get them home then.
But the mentality is "empty bus=waste", even though it isn't necessarily.
By "galvanise" I meant making their voices heard - petitions, press articles, lobbying politicians (and in this modern age, Facebook campaigns and Twitter messages). All the things the chattering classes will do if a library is threatened with closure, but are rather less common amongst bus passengers - myself included!
county councils do have the responsibility for providing rural transport.DRT is even more expensive than subsidy.set up cost plus infra structure plus GPS plus radio plus computers the list is endless.this is just another case of amateur councillors not knowing what they are talking about.also DRT does not attract anywhere near the numbers that a conventional bus does.it crazy
It's difficult to get very optimistic about this. Northants is surprisingly rural across significant distances and will never support much more than trunk routes and town services in the major centres.
The Call Connect is operated by Lincolnshire but is, I believe, also being cut back. I really can't see DRT being worthwhile in Northants. A very basic skeleton service might just be possible for the bigger villages.
Anonymous said...
"DRT is even more expensive than subsidy.set up cost plus infra structure plus GPS plus radio plus computers the list is endless."
This is where the German 'Anruf-Sammel-Taxi" concept (also used in other countries) comes into its own. If the tendered services with low demand are operated by taxi operators, using their minibuses, then all of the infrastructure is already in place. If, in addition, the journey is only operated if it is required, then there will be further potential savings for the subsidising authority. This is how the German examples that I am aware of work - I quoted a couple of examples last week:-
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15928016&postID=2155842182956292172
Of course, if the 'demand-responsive' element is setup new, then there will be high initial costs which will inevitably be a burden on the operation, but it doesn't need to be like that!
Has the Lincoln council ever given a true figure for the cost of call connect and call connect plus?I NCLUDING SET UP COSTS.
Not only Northampton it seems. From Cambridge-News.co.uk:
Transport bosses gave their blessing yesterday to the scrapping of all £3 million support for tendered services in Cambridgeshire over the next four years, ahead of a full county council meeting next month.
Operators say they do not expect to be able to run the buses without public cash, meaning many will come to an end, and the county council hopes community transport groups could step into the breach.
According the council:
In public transport, phasing out subsidised bus services will save £2.7 million but there will be extra money invested in supporting community transport schemes over the next five years as well as a summit on how to make public transport more locally focussed and value for money.
Anonymous said...
"DRT is even more expensive than subsidy.set up cost plus infra structure plus GPS plus radio plus computers the list is endless."
This is where the German (and other countries) system of 'Anruf-Sammel-Taxis' could be useful - as we discussed last week:-
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15928016&postID=2155842182956292172
I included a couple of examples in the comments to that post, but essentially the system involves using taxis (minibuses usually) to operate the bus journeys with very low demand. Because the taxi operators already have the communications infrastructure in place, those costs that you refer to are avoided. Additionally, the journeys only need to operate when there is a demand, thus effecting a further potential saving when there are no passengers.
Undoubtedly, if the DRT system is setup new, then there will be high setup costs - but it is not necessary!
From the Northants website:
"CallConnect is a public bus service that operates in Peterborough, Rutland, Stamford and the Welland Vales that can be pre-booked on a ‘dial a bus’ basis. CallConnect services are fully flexible and are operated by modern fully accessible minibuses."
I assume Call Connect therefore operates in and by Northants CC?
There is a strong possibility that some of the councils announcing cut backs are doing so in the hope that under the new localism agenda district and parish councils will or can be persuaded to take over some of the cost etc.
Unfortunately I have been there before, and can almost hear the shire county response now.
If I say any more I'll give away too much.
Many recent blogs dealing with this subject and the competitive arguments seem to point at some future date to re introduction of regulation!I intend to write a blog on this subject ,it will be ultra contraversal and i hope to get it past friend BUSING.REGARDS.
Northamptonshire has a fair share of subsidised market day/shopping routes that are lightly patronised, so I'd assume these would be the first to fall.
Some rural routes I can see getting slimmed back, such as the 38 (Northampton-Moulton-Sywell-Wellingborough) which is all but dead between Moulton and Earls barton even though it has an hourly frequency.
Then I suppose it will be trimming back evenings and Sundays...
Community transport is all well and good for, yes, communities, but what about catering for visitors who can contribute to the farebox on 'proper' scheduled services? So much for getting people out of their cars. Keep those county transport maps to look at in future years by way of nostalgia; you'll be able to tell your children, "Yes, you really could get there from here back in the old days of 2010"
@Anon 1943 I assume Call Connect therefore operates in and by Northants CC?
No it is operated by Lincolnshire and extends a small way into north east Northamptonshire from a base in Stamford, Lincs
@Anon 1613 Has the Lincoln council ever given a true figure for the cost of call connect and call connect plus? INCLUDING SET UP COSTS.
No they are very reticent about true overall cost, which by its DRT nature has to be expensive (plus a dedicated call centre). And virtually all contracts for these operations end up going to the same operator, TransLinc. Note also that several CallConnect feeders have recently been deregistered quietly . . .
under the new localism agenda district and parish councils will or can be persuaded to take over some of the cost etc.
haha, was that a pig that just flew past my window?
Anonymous said...
"Many recent blogs dealing with this subject and the competitive arguments seem to point at some future date to re introduction of regulation!"
I'm sure your proposed post will be very interesting, but the problem here is not regulation, it is money (or lack of money)! Two very different problems, that some people seem to be very confused about!
On behalf of RC169, here's one that Blogger deleted:
Anonymous said...
"DRT is even more expensive than subsidy.set up cost plus infra structure plus GPS plus radio plus computers the list is endless."
This is where the German (and other countries) system of 'Anruf-Sammel-Taxis' could be useful - as we discussed last week:-
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15928016&postID=2155842182956292172
I included a couple of examples in the comments to that post, but essentially the system involves using taxis (minibuses usually) to operate the bus journeys with very low demand. Because the taxi operators already have the communications infrastructure in place, those costs that you refer to are avoided. Additionally, the journeys only need to operate when there is a demand, thus effecting a further potential saving when there are no passengers.
Undoubtedly, if the DRT system is setup new, then there will be high setup costs - but it is not necessary!
RC 169 said:
"but the problem here is not regulation, it is money (or lack of money)! Two very different problems, that some people seem to be very confused about!"
True to an extent, but they are not completely unrelated. Any mass removal of tendered routes would almost certainly drive many small operators out of loal bus work/ out of business altogether, which would massively reduce competitive constraints on large operators. It's not hard to imagine, in a commercial-only future, some large operators having no potential competitors for miles around. Clearly this would strengthen the argument for re-regulation.
Also, there are no doubt some tendered evening/Sunday routes that the operator could actually afford to cross-subsidise from commercial daytime revenue on the same route. Obviously under the current system operators don't tend to do this voluntarily, but under a regulated/franchised system they would have no choice (just ask any franchised train operator!).
A different anon.
"I'm sure your proposed post will be very interesting, but the problem here is not regulation, it is money (or lack of money)! Two very different problems, that some people seem to be very confused about!"
It can be. In an unregulated system, a predatory operator can come in and take peak revenue as profit. In a regulated system, you can prevent this by only allowing another operator in if they operate the same range of services as the existing one, or if they pay some of their profits towards subsidising marginal journeys.
IMO, what we have now is the worst of both worlds and allows bus operators to hold Councils over a barrel.
The simple fact is that we experienced exactly the same under the regulated era prior to 1986 - rural services in long-term decline, and once subsidies became available, operators effectively holding councils 'over a barrel'. It's true that the current system does not encourage operators to cross subsidise journeys with low demand from the profits of busier ones - indeed, it's possible that they would be failing in their legal obligations to their shareholders if they did. In any case, why should they do that? A bus is a large vehicle, that can carry a large(ish) number of people who wish to make the same journey (or part of the journey) at the same time. If there are only two or three people wanting to travel together in this way, then it is clearly not a good use of scarce resources to use even a small 35-seater bus on such a journey. A regulated or franchised system, that compelled operators to operate such journeys, would soon become the subject of criticism for wasting money and resources - and justifiably so.
There needs to be more imagination applied to the search for a solution to the issue of providing public transport where the demand is low - demand responsive systems may be an answer, where they can be implemented at low cost (which is possible, as I have already pointed out); community buses may be another possibility. The figures quoted by Northamptonshire Council indicate that in some cases, the subsidy amounted to £40 per passenger - inevitably, that is not sustainable, and there must be a cheaper solution. Reintroducing regulation of the sort that failed to solve this problem 30 and 40 years ago, and sending the modern day equivalents of Leyland Nationals around the villages at 10 o'clock at night with 2 or 3 passengers, simply won't work - just as it didn't then.
I can confirm that the CallConnect service in North East Northamptonshire is a partnership between Northants CC, Peterborough City Council, Rutland CC and Lincolnshire CC and is managed by Lincolnshire CC. This service is also doing very well.
We are your source for free Facebook Covers . Here you will find FB Covers or Facebook Timeline Covers (whatever you call it!). We will continue to add new fb covers on a daily basis
Post a Comment