MacKenzie A (Alan) Hany Sarkcr aerate 22 August 2013 21:03 a Bus Bill COMMENTS ON IAIN GRAY'S BUS BILL Sirs: In responding tothe proposed bill, I do so on a personal eapaeity, but am Chairman of The Omnibus Society (Company No 3081365; charity No, 1048887), founded in 1929 and as such is arguably the oldest remaining concer involved with buses inthe UK. The Society has been studying all parts of the operational aspects of the bus industry, is positively in favour of bus pubic ‘transport and most important of al, identifies with industry professionals itself and is alive to all current proposals Iam NOT in favour of the Bill or the re-introduction of bus regulation as suggested, There are a variety of reasons for this: . 1, The curent situation where the bulk of bus services are provided on a commercial bass is generally working wel. Unfortunately there are pockets witere quality is poor, and in some areas very poor, with unreliability, high cost, old buses, and | little if any publicity atthe roadside and extortionate fares. However, identification of these arcas will demonstrate that it isthe OPERATOR who is at fault - and in many cases First Group plc are involved along with some cavalier independents - and the poor quality is often (but not always) based on economics where loss making services drag down margins mnd therefore investment and morale, The concept of allowing profitable services to flourish with a quality product is the correct one to pursue as amply demonstrated by Lothian Buses ple and Stagecoach both of whom have seriously high quality operations with ‘ntreprencurial management with in both cases passengers increasing against, for example, the tend in First Group's area 2. It follows therefore that it is wrong to alter the regulation of bus services where itis the operator who is at fault ‘The current system where local authorities can subsidise local bus services ia designed to take care of roites not covered under ‘commercial operations. Local authorities already have the power and ability to stipulate service Jevels and routes and importantly quality issues (timetable displays, fares if need be, age of buses etc.) but obviously at a cost. The REAL issue is that local ‘authorities do not have the money to do what they would wish to sustain non commercial bus services, If this was adequately fanded, and ring fenced to ensure funds were not squandered on other pet projects, the main aims of the Bill would be met. 4. As such, the financing of whatever system is adopted is KEY to the decision. We already know that in London the subsidy for around a population of 12 milion, in an increasing passenger usage and fares higher than in most areas, is greater than the whole of the rest of England (not Scotland or Wales or UK as a whole) combined. In short ifthe financing is not there, there will never be any improvement in quality or spread of services - itis not the regulation that is important, but finance. 5, In London there have been instances of getrymandering where services have either been introduced, altered to serve a cifferent route, or givon new buses, or frequency increases, where itis perceived there may be political advantage to do so. This can never be allowed to happen in Scotland, 6. The concentration in the Bill on disabled people may be misguided. On tho basis that all services will be accessible by disabled passengers within the forseeable future, by law, in fact the number of passenger journeys made by diabled people is fractionally small compared fo other users, Whilst their needs are important, if you do not give the highest priority to the principal users! needs you will fal. 7. Imay be wrong but I suspect that part ofthe reasoning behind this Bil, is that one major operator withdrew services unilaterally in East Lothian, Midlothian and elsewhere in what may be a knee jerk reaction, The reasoning behind this had nothing to do with regulation, but economics. ‘There are various solutions to improve bus services which I would support: 1. A minimum national standard forall bus operators fo meet. This should focus on quality in all areas, but also cover change ‘on buses. I support a no change policy, such as on Lothian Buses ple, where flat fares are advertised, readily available and ier fori of payment are accepted. Gn th other band Pst Seotland Bast rom het Livingston and Morsolbureh pots have an exact fare policy with no fares advertised at al en route with a graduated fare scale (as distinct from flat fares) meaning, passengers unfamiliar with the fares often have to overpay or ask passengers far chango. You would nat go into a supermarket, find no prices onthe shelves, and get to the checkout and find itis cash only, no change. Such basic bad management has tobe auddressed in a passengers charter. 2. 1am particularly concerned about today's youth who live in rural areas. Even if they can drive, the cost of motor insurance is often way beyond both their ability to pay and that of their parents, Ina recent survey of young people in England, which had 1nothing to do with buses, but on employment (Lam sorry but Ido not know the specific paper) it transpired that the MAIN concern, by a long way, was the possibility that theit local bus service would be withdrawn if they gota job, or worse, they may hhave to reject job offers becasue they were unable to get to work on time or at all. As such‘they end up on the wemployment register, Many are not ready to leave home, and cannot afford to do so, ot perhaps may be insufficiently mature to do 30, In short they are trapped and their lives are affected by it It therefore ought to be possible to identify those rural employment areas ‘without adequate public transport and come to some arrangement to supply them, even if only during working hours, Until the 1960s it was a common occurrence for workers services to run specifically to serve isolated industrial estates but as car ‘ownership has risen these became uneconomic and were withdrawn. There will be serious support for coming to some guangement io eater for today's youth in rural areas, Conctusio In short, the Bill will achieve nothing if itis not financed to a level far greater than is the ease today. You cannot improve public transport without paying fori. The concept of trying to pay for the Bill's provisions by grouping profitable services together with unprofitable ones, to ctoss subsidise, will not work. All of our major groups are multi national, If they eannot obtain their margin here, they will simply sell up and go abroad or not tender at all forthe regulated network. This has ALREADY happened in London where both Macquarrie (an Australian group) and First Group plc has pulled out of London in total and reducing margins of established successful operators will be a seriously retrograde step as they ARE producing the goods by and large, and most importantly they know how to operate buses whereas most politicians do not. ‘The adage of it anit broke, don't touch it certainly is relevent to the commercial network. It is the network outside the commercial services that needs scrutiny, introduction of quality parameters, and most ofall financing. Hazy |, 5ar\cr, Ser ereetcmniaiiiiaimiiaees