Letter To Osborne Calls For Funding/Review To Halt Bus Decline

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

Do remember that a "free" pass is only described as such because it's free to the user / at the time of use.   The journey is counted, and the bus company is paid by the local council for each such journey out of council tax, all be it at a rate that's usually just under a half of the adult single fare.

It means that "commercial" services are in effect subsidised, and that "subsidised" services are in effect double subsidised.   And it means that to maximise profit, a bus company's tactics may include raising their regular passenger rates to the point they loose regular passenger and regular passenger income to increase "free pass" income - if three quarters of passengers are on passes that makes sense for them.   And it means that they can do this even on routes with multiple operators, since free pass users don't know / care / want to save their council money by waiting for the cheaper bus that may well be just behind.

The question is how much is the subsidy for bus passes.  If it is not as much as the fare - as I suspect - then a bus full of pass holders is not going to make much money as I suspect the profit margins on a bus journey are fairly small.  The huge profits of the big bus companies come from low margins I suspect.  So if a company is running a bus without fares - and I have been on local busses where I was the only one paying a fare! Then the subsidy discount (the difference between the fare and the money received from the local authority) will loose all the profit.

As for double subsidy - I think it would be farer to refer to it as two forms of subsidy.  Since the subsidised routes are not fully funded by the local authority. 

[Lee]

One other factor to bear in mind is that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) provides funding to local authorities towards the cost of concessionary fare reimbursement. However, the Local Government Association claims that this funding has fallen by ^261 million, or 39% since 2010. As a result, they have to plug the gap through discretionary budgets, themselves being sharply reduced as result of having to make general austerity savings - http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Bus-funding-unfit-for-purpose-councils-tell-Osborne/10157

The argument clearly being that this is a key factor in funding for local authority-supported bus services being cut. This in turn resulting in the bus services themselves being reduced or withdrawn.

[Lee]

Double subsidy, two forms of subsidy? Whether you say tomato, or he says tomato, the latest guidance on reimbursement of bus operators can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248597/busoperators-2014-15.pdf - should you wish to spend your Saturday (and quite possibly whole weekend) wading through it.

I've already done that, so I'm going to "call the whole thing off" and take the dog for a nice long walk instead 

[stuving]

The key point in that document Lee has provided is this:

The ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) (bus pass scheme) is explicitly designed so that bus operators get the same net revenue as they would if it did not exist, so those using is would either pay full fare or not travel. The idea is that payments are made:

• For each passenger who would have paid, full fare
  
• For each passenger who would not have travelled, the extra cost (which is not much - fuel plus seat wear?)
  
• If an extra bus has to be run, the costs of running that bus
  
• If an extra bus has to be provisioned, the costs of acquiring  that bus
  
• Administration cost
  

 Some of these data are measurable (number of uses of passes), some are not (who would have travelled anyway?)

But, of course, it is more complicated than that. And there is a ridiculously complicated way of working it out. In fact, several - HMG does not specify, only suggest, the algorithm. It has to be agreed between the TCA^▸ (Track Circuit Actuator) and operators, with an appeal system, etc, etc,

So the existence of the scheme does not affect the provision of buses. But does it work as it is meant to?

Is there any evidence (rather than speculation) of significant problems? e.g:

• Operators being under-rewarded
  
• TCAs being underfunded by central government, though on its own this would affect other funding not ENCTS
  
• TCA bending the rules to offset the above
  
• Operators thinking they can game the system - whether they are right or not
  
• Operators being caught out by getting this wrong and losing money, so they have to reduce other services
  

or anything else.

Happy reading!

[John R]

Indeed something needs to be done to reverse (halt isn't enough, it's gone too far already) the decline in bus services.

Also, I was thinking of starting a new topic to ask a question, but it kinda seems slightly relevant here. What are the conditions of the 'get you there' guarantee provided by rail services? Does it apply only if you have missed the last train of the day, or does a missed connection which leaves you unable to proceed towards your destination for over two hours also require the operator responsible to provide a taxi? This question was triggered by this story (extract follows):

On the deserted platform, a woman is in tears. She has missed the last connecting bus to Aberystwyth. That bus left on time at 19:07. No one can help her. Arriva Trains Wales is not responsible for missed bus connections. Bus operators don^t have to wait for trains.

Now, there are alot of things that need to be done to sort out bus-rail integration, but the 'get you there' guarantee is one of them. It seems to me that full through-ticketing is not necessary to achive that, all that is needed is proof of final destination. Therefore, if when buying rail tickets you could obtain a ticket-like card stating your final destination at no extra cost, you could extend the 'get you there' guarantee to buses.

If such a mutli-model guarantee existed, and was publicised, wouldn't that boost public transport quite a bit? I'm sure there are potential passengers out there who have a car because they don't feel they can rely on public transport. The lack of Sunday buses (in my area the two local councils have both scrapped all subsidy for Sunday buses (except the summer tourist services along the coastal path)) is of course also in factor in not being able to rely on public transport.

Going back to this story - at the risk of being controversial, people need to take a little bit of responsibility for their own situation. This lady left 5 minutes to connect into the last bus of the day going a very long way away. Everybody knows that trains are often late, so she was either running a huge risk or making a very na^ve assumption that the connection would be held without checking it. I know the argument will be " but why shouldn't she expect the connection to be held" but I would suggest the contrary and that it's not a reasonable assumption to make unless the two completely different transport operators have advertised that there is cooperation.

Expecting every bus route to provide guaranteed connection at every point at which it interfaces with the rail network is in my opinion unrealistic. To take the example above, lets say the bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth waited 45 minutes because of late running rail services. You've then got several knock on implications, not least you've made all the other passengers late (including ones waiting en route), there may be other connections involved including onward rail ones at Aber (maybe unlikely with the last service from Carmarthen, but the point is made), and you've probably got a driver now being paid overtime and potentially out of hours. All on the off chance that there was someone wanting to connect from the late running rail service.  And if you don't hold and there's a guarantee then you've just landed one of the operators with a huge cost for a taxi fare, which will end up being paid for by passengers one way or another.

[Rhydgaled]

There is nothing set out in the regulations that states *when* taxis/alternative transport *has* to be provided. Just that they *have* to get you to your final (rail) destination.

Thanks. I'm quite supprised how unspecific the regulation is. I expected it to clearly state that only missing the last train would require the operator to supply alternative transport.

Indeed something needs to be done to reverse (halt isn't enough, it's gone too far already) the decline in bus services.

Also, I was thinking of starting a new topic to ask a question, but it kinda seems slightly relevant here. What are the conditions of the 'get you there' guarantee provided by rail services? Does it apply only if you have missed the last train of the day, or does a missed connection which leaves you unable to proceed towards your destination for over two hours also require the operator responsible to provide a taxi? This question was triggered by this story (extract follows):

On the deserted platform, a woman is in tears. She has missed the last connecting bus to Aberystwyth. That bus left on time at 19:07. No one can help her. Arriva Trains Wales is not responsible for missed bus connections. Bus operators don^t have to wait for trains.

Now, there are alot of things that need to be done to sort out bus-rail integration, but the 'get you there' guarantee is one of them. It seems to me that full through-ticketing is not necessary to achive that, all that is needed is proof of final destination. Therefore, if when buying rail tickets you could obtain a ticket-like card stating your final destination at no extra cost, you could extend the 'get you there' guarantee to buses.

If such a mutli-model guarantee existed, and was publicised, wouldn't that boost public transport quite a bit? I'm sure there are potential passengers out there who have a car because they don't feel they can rely on public transport. The lack of Sunday buses (in my area the two local councils have both scrapped all subsidy for Sunday buses (except the summer tourist services along the coastal path)) is of course also in factor in not being able to rely on public transport.

Going back to this story - at the risk of being controversial, people need to take a little bit of responsibility for their own situation. This lady left 5 minutes to connect into the last bus of the day going a very long way away. Everybody knows that trains are often late, so she was either running a huge risk or making a very na^ve assumption that the connection would be held without checking it.

You make a good point, but the last bus (so the article says) is 19:07. The article does not say where the woman started her journey. It is possible that she was coming from some distance away, after leaving a meeting or something, and that was the earliest the she could have got to Carmarthen. Alternatively, she may have been planning to go to Carmarthen on an earlier train but missed that due to delay to a previous leg of her journey. Another extract from the article:

A country which gives no guarantee that we can travel between our major centres after seven o^clock, and where to do so risks spending the night on Carmarthen Station is signalling a clear message: failure.

Expecting every bus route to provide guaranteed connection at every point at which it interfaces with the rail network is in my opinion unrealistic. To take the example above, lets say the bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth waited 45 minutes because of late running rail services. You've then got several knock on implications, not least you've made all the other passengers late (including ones waiting en route), there may be other connections involved including onward rail ones at Aber (maybe unlikely with the last service from Carmarthen, but the point is made), and you've probably got a driver now being paid overtime and potentially out of hours. All on the off chance that there was someone wanting to connect from the late running rail service.  And if you don't hold and there's a guarantee then you've just landed one of the operators with a huge cost for a taxi fare, which will end up being paid for by passengers one way or another.

Again, valid points. The delay to other passengers (particularly those waiting in draughty bus shelters (or worse) further along the route), possibly only to find there are no connecting passengers on the train anyway, is probably my main reason for suggesting a guarantee rather than holding the connecting bus. Surely the number of taxi fares to be paid out by the operators would be mitigated somewhat by my suggestion of applying a minimum connection time of, say, 15 minutes* for bus-rail connections. Then if a passenger is aiming for a tight 5 minute connection it is their own fault and the operators aren't required to pay out.

Maybe it would be better to run buses later into the evening instead? But if so, how late so you go? Even with the guarantee, I think the last bus on that route should depart later than 8pm. And that is already going to keep the driver at work until after 10pm by the time it gets to the other end.

Just a thought, does the guarantee apply if you buy a rail ticket to somewhere like 'Minehead Bus' or does it only count for trains, even if you have a rail ticket which includes a bus leg?

* 15 minutes = 10 minutes delay (equivelent to rail PPM^‡(resolve)) plus 5 minutes to get from train to bus

[Lee]

Brighton & Hove Buses ... operate over 280 buses on a comprehensive network of services in and around Sussex. They have consistently grown the market for bus travel in the city and surrounding areas with an increase of 4.4% in 2012, and passenger journeys more than doubled from 22.5m in 1993 to 49.3m in 2012.

This consistent growth has been achieved by working in partnership with Brighton & Hove City Council, alongside many other key stakeholders in the city. This calendar year they have invested ^7m in 38 new buses to continue to improve services for their customers and improve air quality, and in response to customer suggestions, have added extra journeys to improve a number of services from this autumn and next spring.

Brighton and Hove residents already make more bus journeys than anywhere in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) outside of London. In 2013 they achieved a passenger satisfaction rate of 91% and won the Coach Operator of Year Award, and turnover was ^59,360,000 with a profit of ^7,138,000

In the Brighton and Hove area they work in close partnership with Brighton & Hove Council as well as the neighbouring County Councils. They have been pursuing a strategy of encouraging more use of public transport and have introduced traffic management measures in the city with bus lanes and other priority measures for buses as well as improvements to bus stop areas.

They will continue to invest over ^3 million each year on new buses and coaches to ensure their customers receive the benefits of the latest standards of comfort. As well as their revolutionary flat fare system, there are excellent deals available to meet the needs of children, teenagers, students and commuters and they are always seeking ways to improve their range of services.

http://www.hays.co.uk/jobs/bhbuses/index.htm#.UyNi3ianw5s

Brighton & Hove Buses is part of Go-Ahead (as is Wilts & Dorset).

One must ask, if the above results are possible in Brighton, why are they not achieved more commonly elsewhere?
There are some places where there are still good, high frequency bus services, even in and between relatively small towns. However in so many cases the services have decayed to the level of "last-resort only". It's a disgrace how, since the 1985 Transport Act, there has been so little (outside London) attention to the defects of the bus offering.

What I^ve found interesting is how, in my part of the world, First appear to be increasingly looking towards the Go Ahead approach for ideas. For example, the Hays link mentions that ^the group^s philosophy is to run its transport companies as autonomous businesses in tune with the local market^, and First would argue that this is what they are aiming to achieve with their ^The buses of Somerset^ rebranding:

You missed out one of the bus company big boys in your post though, Surrey 455, and if you compare "the buses of Somerset" website with websites of certain subsidiaries of said bus company big boy, then you would be forgiven for thinking that First had sold the operation to them:

the buses of Somerset

Southern Vectis

Salisbury Reds

Or indeed the email addresses:

talk2us@busesofsomerset.co.uk

talk2us@southernvectis.com

talk2us@salisburyreds.co.uk

However, one suspects that this has rather less to do with an impending sale, and rather more to do with the trademark branding of Best Impressions...

...whose email address is talk2us@best-impressions.co.uk

Its not just a case of First bringing in Go Ahead^s design contractors to come up with a new livery, branding and website either ^The buses of Somerset^ have a flat fare in both Taunton and Bridgwater (similar to Brighton & Hove) and their range of 1, 2, 3, 7 and 30 day tickets is very similar indeed to the Rover/Freedom ticket structure of Southern Vectis.

In Bristol too, the new ^Fairer Fares^ structure has a number of similarities to Brighton & Hove^s. Examples include:

- First offer a ^1 ^3 Stop Hop^ ticket, and Brighton & Hove have a ^1.60 ^Short Hop^ fare.

- Within their Inner Zone (which stretches 6 miles from the city centre in all directions including places such as Pill, Aztec West, Emersons Green and Keynsham) First have a ^1.50 single journey fare for travel up to 3 miles, and a ^2.50 single journey fare for travel between 3-6 miles. Brighton & Hove have a ^2 central zone single journey fare, and a ^2.30 single journey fare throughout the Brighton and Hove conurbation, stretching from Shoreham in the west to Falmer and Saltdean in the east.

First have also been keener than ever recently to publicise examples of working in partnership with local councils, such as the one below:

From First Bus:

*** NEW *** Service 81 (Kingswood - Yate via Bristol Parkway Station): This new service, which First will operate commercially, will operate between Kingswood and Bristol Parkway Station every half an hour (Monday to Saturday) extending to Yate on every other journey (providing an hourly service to the town). It will effectively replace what is currently Service 581 (operated by a third party under contract to the Council) however the route and timetable will differ quite substantially.

Specially, from Kingswood (Moravian Road) buses will operate via Lodge Causeway, Fishponds, Blackberry Hill, UWE (Frenchay Campus), Bristol Parkway, Winterbourne and Frampton Cotterell before terminating in Yate. The new service will offer students the chance to travel between the St Matthias, Glenside UWE campus and the Frenchay site. It will similarly offer people additional links to the railway station, from where people will be able to pick up connecting bus services to Southmead Hospital if they wish to.

*** NEW *** Service 82 (Southmead Hospital - Yate): This new service will operate between Southmead Hospital and Yate, providing direct links between Yate, Frampton Cotterell, Winterbourne and the hospital. It will replace what is Service 482/483 (which is operated by a third party under contract to the council), albeit the route and timetable will differ quite substantially.

Buses will run hourly Monday to Saturday daytime and every two hours on Sundays and Public Holidays, but taken in conjunction with Service 81 (see details above) people wishing to travel between Yate and Bristol Parkway will have opportunities to do so every half an hour (Monday to Saturday). Notably departure times have been designed to suit hospital visiting times.

Service X18 (Kingswood - Aztec West): Following a review of the service, which First provides in partnership with South Gloucestershire Council, the timetable is being adjusted, with some underused journeys removed from it. From April four morning and afternoon journeys will run in each direction, with each one extending to Kingswood. The route of buses around Aztec West will also change slightly to reduce congestion on the approach road. From April buses will travel around the business park in an anti-clockwise direction. Customers are strongly advised to check the new timetables to see how they may be affected by the changes.

*** NEW NUMBER *** Service 46 (Bristol - Yate): This new service replaces what was Service 327, but with some changes to the route, and improvements to the timetable. The changes respond to the need to create better links between Bristol and Yate.

From April, Service 46 buses will start and terminate at Bristol Bus Station, travelling via Winterbourne to Yate. The route that vehicles take through Winterbourne will change though with Bradley Avenue no longer served. Instead buses will travel via Flaxpits Lane to reduce the overall journey time and allow changes to be made elsewhere along the route. In Yate buses will travel via Cranleigh Court Road, Greenways Road and Church Road (rather than Station Road). This change will provide a direct link to Bristol from that part of the town.

The frequency of buses is also improved. They will continue to run every hour Monday - Saturday daytimes, every hour on Monday to Saturday evenings (compared to two hourly at present) and every hour on Sundays and Public Holidays (replacing the current two-hourly council supported Service 329).

Finally, a new N47 service is being created. This will operate under contract to South Gloucestershire Council (replacing the N50) and will run on Friday and Saturday nights, with departures from the city centre at 0015, 0155 and 0335. Buses will serve Bromley Heath, Downend, Frampton Cotterell, Coalpit Heath, Yate and Chipping Sodbury with the fare (^4 single) set by the Council. First West of England passes, and FirstNight tickets will not be valid for travel on these specific journeys.

*** NEW *** Service X49 (Bristol - Yate via M32, Fishponds, Staple Hill, Mangotsfield, Pucklechurch and Westerleigh): This new service, which First will operate commercially, will operate between Bristol Bus Station and Yate, following what was the route of Service 689 (the council funded service which is being withdrawn). Buses will run hourly Monday to Saturday daytimes and, for the first time in several years, there will be journeys during the evening (two journeys in each direction) and on Sunday's and Public Holidays. This is a significant and positive development as it will both restore bus services to Pucklechurch and Westerleigh on Sundays and Public Holidays, and for people in Staple Hill and Fishponds will offer a faster journey time in and out of the City Centre (compared to Service 49).

[Lee]

Ive also noticed that nationally, First Bus have taken to inserting the following generic quote into press releases wherever possible:

Bus operators are working hand-in-hand with local authorities to minimise the impact of these funding cuts and commend this approach to all local authorities.

So, what about Wiltshire, an example which I suspect Trowres has firmly in mind?

Well, in the south of the county, there are a number of positive aspects. Salisbury for example has the type of good, high frequency bus services (mainly Go Ahead operated) that Trowres refers to. It also has a Quality Bus Partnership :

The arrangement in Oxford is a Voluntary Quality Bus Partnership.

There are two kinds of QBP - Voluntary or Statutory.

Both versions allow the relevant local or transport authority and bus operators to co-operate with each other on a wide range of issues, including formal co-ordination of both timetables and fares. It is the responsibility of the relevant local or transport authority to formally certify the provisions of a QBP agreement as being in the public interest, in order to avoid problems with competition law.

The key difference between the two versions is that a Voluntary QBP is just that - voluntary. The provisions of a Voluntary QBP are not legally binding on the relevant local or transport authority & bus operators, and new entrants to the market do not have to adhere to them either.

The provisions of a Statutory QBP, however, are legally binding on the relevant local or transport authority and bus operators. Furthermore, new entrants to the market are also legally bound by the provisions of a Statutory QBP if they operate in the area that it covers, regardless of the fact they did not originally choose to sign up to it.

Obviously this means that signing up to a Statutory QBP is a big commitment for a bus operator, which is why they are usually proposed as part of a wider package of significant bus infrastructure upgrades that benefit the bus operator to the extent that they make signing up worthwhile.

This Transport Committee report expands further on the Oxford Voluntary QBP:

We visited Oxford to learn more about partnership working from the operators, local authority and bus users. Stagecoach and the Oxford Bus Company have registered a Voluntary Partnership Agreement which allows them to coordinate timetables and ticketing. We found the visit helpful and the results encouraging. The companies have jointly introduced a SmartZone smartcard that allows passengers to travel on any local bus in the Oxford area. In addition, bus services have been rationalised, in cooperation with Oxfordshire County Council, in order to reduce congestion and pollution in the historic city centre streets. Passenger numbers have increased and the city centre environment has improved. A clear message that we took away was that successful partnerships come from building long-term relationships and mutual respect. In the case of Oxford, the right legal framework was also crucial to enable coordination of services and ticketing.

The last point was not lost on the Competition Commission, which cites Oxford as a successful example of a partnership between the County Council and the two main bus operators which maintains competition between the bus operators.

A very recent precedent has been set right on the doorstep of the TransWilts in the form of the Salisbury Voluntary Quality Bus Partnership. This was agreed between and signed up to by Wiltshire Council, Salisbury Vision, Wilts & Dorset, Stagecoach and Hatts Travel on 25 July 2012, and the public version of the contract can be found here.

Whilst this stops short of formal co-ordination of timetables and fares, a number of the provisions do go some way towards this:

"12. In co-operation with the bus operators, to minimise the number of occasions on which major timetable changes take place and, where possible, provide as much advance notification to the council as possible where changes are likely to have an impact on current service provision (^Major timetable changes^ means changes to routes and changes to service frequency of more than a five minute reduction or increase during the period Monday-Saturday 7am-7pm)."

"22. In recognition that the true competitor to the bus is the car, to undertake, maintain and support initiatives marketing all bus services in Salisbury as a whole so that customers can easily find out about and use buses provided by all operators."

"27. To make amendments to services through timetable alterations, rescheduling, route changes, and number of buses, as necessary to meet any requirements agreed by appropriate members of the partnership, no operator member being able to influence the amendments that another operator is required to implement at any time."

"A working level commitment to regular and timely constructive dialogue on operational issues."

"Mutual sharing of information on operational issues so that areas for action can be identified, on the understanding that the information will only be shared with a third party in accordance with any data sharing agreement."

"To agree an implementation plan, reviewed annually, taking a corridor by corridor approach which will be incorporated into the council^s capital programme and informing investment and business plans of the relevant operators and groups."

"Maintenance and expansion of the bus priority, arrival prediction and information supply elements of the Real Time Information (RTI^▸ (Real Time Information (displays))) system, and extension where practicable to all operators through a service level agreement, utilising partners^ existing and emerging technologies and business management systems to reduce the overall operating costs of the system."

"Investigation and investment by the partners, where appropriate, to improve on-bus ticketing through the introduction of innovative ticket products and delivery systems, including smart ticketing applications, to reduce bus stop dwell times and achieve a reduction in the proportion of cash fare payers."

"Passengers have the option to buy tickets that can be used on the buses of more than one operator."

"Passengers and potential passengers are inspired to use the public transport services of all operators in Salisbury as an integrated system."

Its not all been plain sailing in Salisbury, though. One of the most trumpeted aspects of the QBP deal was a new waiting room and wall mural at the bus station, a pledge that became worthless a few months later when it was announced that the facility would be closed and sold.

By adapting grahame's ZigZag bus service proposals, I have put forward a proposal for a TransWilts area Quality Bus Partnership to Wiltshire Council, Bath & North East Somerset Council, First, Faresaver & Frome Minibuses, and I await their responses with great interest.

I also believe that the formation of a TransWilts area QBP would leave its partners well placed to benefit from future funding of a similar nature to the Better Bus Area Fund award that Wiltshire levered in for the Salisbury QBP, along with associated funding opportunities arising from BSOG^▸ (Bus Service Operators Grant ) reform, which they would be less likely to benefit as much from if they went down the more draconian, last resort approach of the Quality Contract Scheme.

Elsewhere, while there are smaller scale positive examples of bus operator/council co-operation to report (Faresaver diverting some X31 commercial journeys to cover some of the Corsham town bus service cuts, First taking on some evening 231 & 271 journeys commercially, and re-routing the commercial 272 at the councils request among them), unfortunately, both First and Faresaver rejected proposals for a Quality Bus Partnership in the North and West of the county, and as a result the stubbornly dysfunctional commercial bus market in that part of the world which grahame describes here looks likely to remain for the foreseeable future, operating in tandem with an ever-reducing supported bus network.

Could that future be changed through developments at a national level? Unfortunately, it does look likely that for similar reasons to their ideological inability to configure the rail market correctly, the current government is unlikely to be able to sort the bus market out properly either.

Could Labour do any better? Current policy being consulted on reads as follows:

Many passengers feel that key decisions about transport provision are made by unaccountable and centralised bodies and not by those who use the services. When it comes to deciding on the frequency or route of the services or on how much they cost, passengers^ views are not at the forefront of consideration.

A One Nation Labour government will empower communities and individuals who use services, with a stronger say in shaping them. We will transfer responsibility for local transport decisions including some controls over transport fares and the frequency of services to elected and accountable transport authorities and partnerships. In doing so we will work towards creating a more integrated transport network, where transport operators work together to create better services for passengers. We will incentivise transport authorities and partnerships to adopt ^Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) card style^ smart ticketing systems, making it easier for people to use and transfer between the buses, trains and trams that operate in their communities. Where such systems are adopted, we will take steps to ensure that passengers can access and top up tickets at local ticket outlets and not only by electronic machines or by using the internet.

^On integration between bus and rail services at present, we would argue that fixed-cost inter-city rail projects need to be better co-ordinated with inner-city upgrades to bus services. This is crucial, both in order to ensure that the transport system delivers maximum economic and societal benefits for local communities, as well as delivering value for money for tax-payers.^ Greener Journeys

Improving local bus services

Communities are not served well by the current unregulated bus industry. Fares have been rising, services have been cut, and passenger numbers are falling. The exception is in London, where an accountable transport authority is able to make decisions on fares and routes, and ensure that the network meets the needs of passengers and communities in the capital.

Local authorities outside of London currently face a number of challenges when they try to provide the services that local passengers need. Labour will ensure that current disincentives are removed to protect local democracy, and we will take steps to stop vested interests from blocking measures that would create better bus services for communities. We will support local authorities that seek more power to create a better bus network by making it easier for them to implement ^Quality Contracts^. This will allow them to deliver better outcomes for passengers, regulate fares and improve bus services across communities. Labour will look to ensure there is a ^race to the top^ on standards throughout the country.

Now, I^m sure that (assuming of course that Labour get in) that there will be the usual substansial gap between pre-election policy formulation and post-election policy delivery. Also, I remain equally sure that imposing Quality Contracts is very much a last-resort option.

However, perhaps the time has come to look at putting together a ^shovel-ready^ proposal, and frankly I see no harm in Wiltshire Council doing so, particularly as some elements on the integration front (free Melksham Rail Link bus, 234 bus/rail ticket inter-availability etc) are already being put into place.

[trainer]

Thanks Lee for your comprehensive overview of various initiatives and proposals.  Just for comparison, I might point out that that Haven of Social Provision, Sweden, is also struggling to provide bus services in remoter rural areas at the same level as they did when I first started visiting some 15 years ago. The village I visit regularly has nothing from it after 16:15 and just three buses on a Saturday (but they are very luxurious buses!).

Having said that, they did electrify the railway line to Simrishamn in the far Southeast of Scania which even now only has an hourly train through an area populated at a level far below that to Barnstaple.

Politically, I don't think we'd be prepared to pay collectively for such a thing.

First do seem to be trying hard in the urban areas to respond to need on a commercial basis.

[Lee]

The Chancellor may announce a scheme offering tax-free vouchers to employees travelling to work by bus. Operating in a similar way to childcare vouchers, it would aim to support those on low and moderate incomes who are considered most likely to commute by bus.

Research by KPMG found that introducing such scheme would provide ^93m of economic benefits while allowing employers to reduce their National Insurance contributions by nearly ^20m. It would also reduce pollution and congestion and provide better accessibility to jobs, according to this Budget 2014 Transport Briefing from Campaign for Better Transport.

[grahame]

The Chancellor may announce a scheme offering tax-free vouchers to employees travelling to work by bus. Operating in a similar way to childcare vouchers, it would aim to support those on low and moderate incomes who are considered most likely to commute by bus.

"bus" rather than "public transport"? Why differentiate?

[Lee]

That's what the Campaign for Better Transport briefing says...

[bobm]

I suspect with capacity issues on many peak hour trains the government would be unwilling to add to that by offering discounted travel.

[Lee]

To be honest, I suspect the wording of the briefing is more to do with the fact that they are talking about a bus proposal, rather than making a wider point.

[Lee]

There are calls for organisations such as the NHS and Job Centres to help fund bus services, while bus operators again highlight the view that ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) funding at national level is inadequate and causing more services to be cut - http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/nhs-and-jobs-agency-should-pay-for-buses-1-6518972