A report from the Urban Transport Group claims that bus funding should be reformed – and that public sector control of the industry needs to increase if networks are to deliver their full potential for users
A wholesale revision of the way that buses are funded is imperative if they are to come good on reducing congestion and improving air quality, says a report from the Urban Transport Group (UTG), Policy futures for urban transport.
Current funding structures are too complex, the report argues, and they are ripe for overhaul. At the centrepiece of the UTG’s proposals is the creation of a ‘connectivity fund’ to deliver a stable stream of investment and to replace the competitive scenarios currently seen.
The impetus to deliver this change lies with central government, the UTG declares, and to do so will require a national framework to be put in place. But against that, the report claims that air quality strategies are best managed locally, as is the status quo.
Some industry figures have advocated a national approach to the latter. It is undoubtedly a divisive topic; local oversight creates ‘hard’ borders between areas of great environmental sensitivity and those where there are no air quality controls at all.
The UTG also wishes to see increased local authority (LA) control of bus networks. That’s unlikely to win many private sector friends; indeed, the parts of the report that focus on buses ignore operators entirely and instead concentrate on where LA influence can be increased.
But the publication does contain one suggestion that, if it was introduced, would greatly benefit bus services. Nevertheless, the big question remains, for both that proposal and all of the others: Who is going to pay?
More devolution
Specifically, the report calls for further devolution of powers to city regions. The UTG notes that bus services outside London are largely in a spiral of long-term decline, which it associates with the fact that they are deregulated.
“London’s ability to specify, manage and develop its bus network has underpinned very different outcomes of services between the capital and the rest of Great Britain,” says the report.
“Given that, we have long called for changes to the legal framework for bus provision outside London. We therefore welcome the 2017 Bus Services Act, which gives LAs… a new range of powers with which to improve services – up to and including franchising networks of bus services in the same way that London does.”
Ignoring the latter inaccuracy – Transport for London (TfL) does not franchise networks – there is no acknowledgement of the huge and unsustainable difference in the scale of bus funding between London and elsewhere. There is also no recognition that passenger numbers on London’s regulated services are falling at a faster rate than those outside the capital.
Additionally, given TfL’s well-documented financial black hole, and that its bus services have seen little in the way of the many passenger-friendly innovations that have become common elsewhere, a desire to follow its financial and regulatory model is difficult to understand.
What’s the solution?
The UTG report correctly acknowledges that sources of funding for bus services are under intense strain. There can be no argument that that will continue if the current model is retained.
Improved support for buses would deliver many benefits, and it is for that reason that the UTG proposes a reform of how the industry is funded. The current method, it says, is both too complicated and insufficient in scope.
It advocates a devolved, consolidated and enhanced ‘connectivity fund’. What that would involve, what it would achieve and – most importantly – who would contribute to it are not revealed.
The connectivity fund should recognise the various challenges that lie ahead for urban transport, and particularly buses, relating to air quality, climate change and in developments of technology, says the group.
A quick win?
The UTG also proposes that a harder line is taken with traffic enforcement. In a train of thought that will finally coincide with that of operators, it wishes to see full implementation of existing legislation. That “would give local local transport authorities the full set of powers they need to enforce the law on moving traffic offences,” it says.
“It would help to ensure that buses and their passengers do not get held up by vehicles that are breaking laws that the police do not have the resources to enforce.”
The UTG’s overall aim where buses are concerned – to increase their attractiveness and grow passenger numbers – is laudable. But its focus on increasing public sector control of services – and reliance on a money pot that is highly unlikely to materialise – is perhaps wishful thinking.
routeone comment
London is often named as an example of what can be done where the will – and, most importantly, the money – is there. But the facts tell a different story; bus patronage there is on a more severe downswing than elsewhere.
Service quality is not to blame for that. A failure to deal with low average speeds is, and the UTG’s proposal that traffic enforcement is taken more seriously is well worth listening to.
Its argument that more money should be spent on buses is likewise, regardless of the minutiae of where those funds will come from.
What is less palatable is a belief that the only way to improve services is by handing over more control to local authorities. As has been shown in a number of areas of the UK where partnership working has delivered, working together is for now the best option.
Read the full UTG report at bit.ly/2Qovb7H
