Agenda item

To receive an update on the National Bus Strategy from DfT, and to identify key issues for TfN to include in its future advice to the Secretary of State.

Lead: Stephen Fidler (DfT) and Kirsten Keen

10.1       The Chair welcomed Mr Stephen Fidler, Co-Director of Local Transport at the Department for Transport, to the meeting to address the Board on buses. He highlighted the work that is being done to seek to improve services that is being led by Mayors Burnham, Brabin, Rotheram and Coppard. Whilst acknowledging the fact that much of Board’s business often relates to rail issues, he highlighted the important role that buses play in mobility of people.

10.2       Members received the presentation from Mr Fidler who then highlighted the salient points of his presentation. Before Members asked questions, the Senior Strategy and Planning Officer then highlighted the key points of her report.

10.3       Members raised a variety of points on this matter with the key theme raised by all Members relating to the lack of funding to provide the services required.

10.4       Cllr Gannon highlighted the importance of buses to people in the North East, explaining that the issues with the buses is due to lack of funding rather than lack of policy direction or ambition. He informed Board that there has been a decline in bus mileage of around 30% since 2010 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire. He stated that the bus operators are struggling and whilst Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG) funding has been extended, prior to the extension operators were informing the local authorities of 30% reductions in services.   

10.5       When the National Bus Strategy was first published, the North East made an ambitious bid to increase bus usage by 5% and in order to achieve this they bid for £804 million to prevent the decline and increase usage. They received £168 million, but this funding is insufficient to achieve the goal.

10.6       Cllr Rollo explained that the funding issues make it difficult to plan for the future and make services resilient. As an area they are restricted by what they can do due to having only one operator who tells the local authority what they can do, rather than the other way around. When the authority wanted to apply for “Zebra 2” funding they were unable to do so as the operator would not support the bid. She requested support from the DfT on this. She then stated that they were unable to set up their own bus company although this would be beneficial for her community.

10.7       Cllr Mundry requested that municipal bus companies be considered as an option to be included in the choices available to authorities as an alternative to franchising.

10.8       Cllr Hughes asked if there has been any movement on discrete funding for post-16 home to school/college funding.

10.9       Mayor Burnham stated that Greater Manchester would be happy to share its experiences with Members of the Board. On the issue of franchising he informed Board that TfGM’s experience showed that franchising per km is being priced at one third less expensive than the former tendered contracts. He also suggested that franchising is better value for public money. He urged that all Board Members should be given the opportunity have franchised bus services. He praised the capital pipeline that has been put in place which allows authorities to plan ten years ahead. 

10.10     Cllr Mitchell stressed the importance in making it easier to use the funding and specifically highlighted the restriction on revenue which is causing issues.  On the EV regulation he stated that small and medium operators have expressed concerns about this, and he enquired if there is likely to be any help available in meeting the new regulation.

10.11     Cllr Hunt enquired if there is any further information on the “Zebra 2” funding decisions. On retrofitted buses he stated that South Yorkshire wishes to have replacement buses rather than retro fitted buses given the concerns as to whether the technology would work. 

10.12     Cllr Kilbane enquired as to how long will £2 fare will continue for.  With regards to the plan for drivers he asked whether Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) will still be able to action bus priority measures. He requested that the Board should think more widely on this issue. He stated that the only way to be able to achieve economies of scale is if Members look beyond their own local authorities and city regions.

10.13     Cllr Ieronimo raised the issue of real time information at bus stops and also stated the importance of the messaging around buses being safe needing to improve to increase patronage. On the latter point he reflected on how the messaging at the time of COVID (about not travelling on public transport) remained in many peoples’ minds.

10.14     Ms Hayward raised a number of issues including connectivity between trains and bus connections (which is causing issues for employers who are trying to recruit), cross border issues (specifically tap on tap off cross border cross transport), artificial intelligence, data, and intelligence to ensure that services are being provided when needed and procurement.

10.15     Cllr Corcoran asked when the guidance on buses in rural areas is due to be published.

10.16     In response Mr Fidler addressed a number of the issues raised by the Board. On the funding issue he explained that £3 billion had originally been identified but the total with other help is approximately £4.5 billion. Addressing the issue of longevity, he stated that all local authorities now have a capital allocation until 2032. He explained that doing this for revenue is more difficult to achieve and the DfT will continue to make the case and hope to do this with the BSIP phase three funding.

With regard to funding for accessible information there is £4.6 million available for smaller operators and applications for this will be open.

On franchising in rural areas, he stated that he is content to discuss this further with anyone who wishes to do so.

Resolved:

That the presentation and Board’s comments be noted and incorporated into the preparation of a substantive proposal to be considered by the Board at its next meeting.